Texsox

Just move to Brownsville and work in Matamoros. Did you have a chance for Texas BBQ at Rudy's?

49% voted for Kerry 51% voted for Bush This is the most pathetic GOP spin I've ever heard. They are trying to ignore almost half the voters. Only a f***ing idiot would igore 49% of the voters.

All this presupposes that we need to actually collect enough in taxes to cover what we spend. According to the GOP, this isn't necessarily so. When we run deficits in the hundreds of billions, we grow the economy and somehow other people pay for the deficit. I wonder why we do not have a tax free year. Borrow the $1.3 trillion or so to cover the deficit and stand back and watch the economy really cook

Because we like the best in this country. If everyone was willing to accept less, less services, smaller military, fewer national parks, less government inspectors, less spying, less research, less FBI, less US Marshall, less federal roadways and maintenance, less natural disaster relief, less government spending overall, which GOPers claim is what grows our economy in slow times, we could lower our taxes. Put a simpler way, someone making $20,000 per year usually lives in a much different home than someone making $200,000 per year. As a country, we are living in the country a $100,000 per year salary provided, take away the graduated tax rate and we will be living in the country $50,000 per year provides. I've seen what a poor government can provide, I don't like it. I don't think we can jack up taxes on the middle class to lower the tax rate for the wealthy.

Sounds like a good Republican Family Values platform to me. Once Bush gets his activist judges appointed, and we outlaw abortion while cutting any assistance for the poor children, this country will finally be back where we need to be. Maybe those same activist judges can over turn any hate crime legislation so tying a homosexual to a fence post and beating him to death or tying a black man to a pick up bumper will not carry extra penalties. Remember 51% of the voters chose Bush, it's a mandate! We will see how long Bush reaches across the isle. Last time it was 3 weeks when he stopped.

Actually it is close to accurate. Many unskilled immigrants are living in the southwest. They migrate with the crops every year, picking crops. Their kids are only in school a few months out of the year. They walk across Mexico from South America, wanting to live in America. Also, since most schools are funded through property taxes, the schools have less money. IBM doesn't cut a better deal for a school district in rural Texas with $40,000 homes compared to Connecticut with $100,000 homes.

I received a nice campaign flyer as I neared my polling place telling me a vote for Kerry was immoral if I was one of about 45 religions. I asked as a Catholic why a vote for Kerry was immoral. The guy pointed out abortion as the main issue. I asked that because Bush supports the death penalty, contraception, the war in Iraq, and is a Methodist, wouldn't that be immoral. He moved on to bother another person. People pick a candidate and find reasons to support him. One of my close friends said he voted for Bush because Governors make better leaders than Senators. I asked him why he voted for Dole over Clinton The Mexico Chamber of Commerce down here cheered long and hard. They estimate at least 6,000 new jobs for Mexicans this year on the Mexican border of Texas. They hate unions and Democrats who try and stop businesses from moving with tax payer supported incentives. Listening to them gloat was kind of sad knowing they were right.

I guess there isn't a difference between a talk show host with an audience in the millions and a guy down at the local bar talking to 6 people. Don't forget to go abuse an Iraqi prisoner today. And get busy overturning Roe v. Wade.

If Kerry had won would you take the same position with the radio entertainers like Rush, Hannity, Ingrams, Savage, Reagan, Slessinger, etc. and say their opinion doesn't matter? I didn't think so. Gopers who wish to discredit what other Americans think is truly sad and dividing this country. The GOP radio network spends hours and hours every day discrediting and slamming the 49% of the population that voted for the Democratic challenger, then act like they have a monopoly on patriotism. Well the conservative right wing wackos can celebrate tonight by tying a homosexual to a tree, fire a minority, shoot an abortionist, complain that the government cannot be trusted for health care but can be trusted to execute citizens, tell an immigrant he cannot rent that apartment, and all the other stuff the right wing wackos enjoy.

Are all entertainers considered part of the Hollywood set, or only Movie types? I thought the entertainment elite was Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, etc. They totally dominate radio with the GOP Radio Network.

But you are taking it one step too far. Your vote is to decide which candidate Illinois wants for President. Your vote mattered, your vote did count, you just lost. You are voting in the Illinois election for President.

The original framers would want you to be thinking you are helping to determine which candidate your *state* would like to see as President. Later, it would be, did your state's candidate get elected?

The original framers of the constitution needed a way for the states to get together and elect someone to oversee the states. At the time, we were going to be a group of states united together, not individual Americans who happen to live in a given state. Look at our name: United *States* of America. States first, America second. Put another way, you were first a citizen of Boston, then a citizen of the US. Now, in reality we think of ourselves as Americans first, who happen to live in Boston, but could just as easily be living in New York. Taken into that context, smaller states prefered one state, one vote. This was, like many things, a compromise. But at all times, it was the states getting together and electing the President. It was not about citizens electing a President. We have ceded many state strengths to the Federal Government, and have created a bigger, bulkier, and more powerful Federal Government than the original framers could have envisioned. Would they have made changes if they could have seen 200 years into the future? I doubt it, too many conflicting interests from small and big states.

Call up foreign banks and line up another trillion in financing . . .

When the constitution was written, the desire was for strong state rights. Basically the states are getting together and electing a leader. It makes sense in that context. After all we are the United *States* of America. It is more than a name, it describes our government.

Even if you do not shop at Walmart, thank them when some store takes back anything at anytime for any reason. That was a Wally World cornerstone and everyone had to follow.

http://georgewbush.org/ Great updates to the site.

I think this is the one step forward, two steps back problem. It seems to a civilian to be a problem to let any munitions fall in the enemy hands. I wonder how many lives were lost to these weapons. Supporting our Troops would seem to me to involve protecting them from weapons we had in our command and control. One of the justifications we used to enter this war was If Sadaam did destroy his WMD, why didn't they document it? Now we find out we may have committed the same mistake.

It depends on if you believe elected officials should do what their constituents want done. If you believe the elected official should not take into consideration the beliefs of the people who elected them, then no, he shouldn't have polled. If you think they should find out what the American people want, then a poll may be helpful. What is interesting is the human rights violations were not front and center of Powell's appeal to the UN, and the adminstration's justification of going to war. It was about 45 seconds in an hour long appeal, and near the end. Speech here The issues in the Sudan have been going on for years. Researching the history will show that if Clinton wasn't busy defining what "sex" is and isn't, he should have done something then. Sudan was an issue then as well. Before someone starts the "support our troops" argument about criticizing our waging war, let me ask. If you care how we spend our tax money, shouldn't we also care, even more so, how we spend a more precious commodity, the lives of our troops? You want a tax cut? How about supporting a death cut? How about supporting a reduction in the number of young men and women who are being killed in Iraq?

The world disputed the WMD. Years of UN weapons inspections that turned up nothing supported it. The CIA, when they gave the information to the President, hedged and said the information wasn't verified. Then Bush ran with it, send Powell to the UN with it, and then started spinning after non were found. The human rights argument fails when one considers the abuses in the Sudan involve far more humans, and far more brutality. Bush sold the war onm making America safer. That Iraq posessed WMD and were an immediate threat. Many people believed the President, just as many believed the past President when he said he did not have *sex* with that woman.

I think it is a great idea. I have mentioned it through the various channels. I also wanted to start a guest moderator program to allow some people who are busy to jump in for a month or so and put their touch on a given forum. I have been involved in many real world projects and organizations that run on volunteer labor. The fairest way for the organization and volunteer is a time limit on their involvement. It makes it easy for both parties to exit without hurt feelings.

There are GOP and DEM election judges following closely the main voting on Tuesday. For the most part, our elections are basically honest, with occassional corruption and illegal activities. On the national scale, I do not see someone being able to steal an election.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1334724,00.html

IIRC the experts were saying Iraq had no WMD, it was the White House who used admittedly faulty and not fully verified information to sell the nation on this war.

He's the Commander in Chief and has stated in many election speeches that he is the best man to run the military. We keep hearing how the military was in chambles during the Clinton era, low moral, under funded, poor disciplin. I wonder how long that takes to change? If prison abuse, sham medals, unlimited budgets, and poor decisions are what makes our military happy, we have big problems there.