That's nice to know that you make in excess of $400,000 per year. However it makes me sincerely doubt that you can't afford a 40 dollar metrocard.
What? You mean, if Kerry wins, we're gonna throw out the whole checks and balances system? Congress, which will most likely be Republican, will just lay down for Kerry?
If he spends money like this administration does, there's a good chance he can't. I have no sympathy for him though, if that's the case.
i think you need to check your figures as to what the democrats consider "rich". and i buy the $20 fare cards.
I believe Zinni over McCain and Guiliani regarding national security issues any day. Anyone who tries to claim that oversight of Saddam would not have continued is lying to you. You and I both know that if the UN hadn't continued the oversight, the US would have. And all of this is assuming, as you do, that Saddam was a direct threat to the US, a contention that Zinni also debunked brilliantly.
AH, so you're top 2% and not 1%. Your real enemy then, especially if you plan on taking mortgage etc. deductions, is the AMT, aka the "democrat tax" - which disappointingly neither Kerry nor BUsh ever talks about doing something about despite its long term inequities. I'm pretty sure at 200k you can still afford the $40 card with an 8 dollar bonus.
guess again, and the AMT is something i can only apsire to at this point...perhaps if kerry has his way.
the sanctions were breaking down. old europe was losing interest. the oil for palaces program would've soon metastized in the oil for wmd program. Wasn't that aka the oil-for-wmd program before the war?
Exactly. It was the US, not the UN, patrolling the skies over Iraq and, with the threat of force very real after Congress gave Bush that authority, Powell could have negotiated a treaty that would have involved continued US oversight after Iraq was confirmed to have disarmed. This president fought this war the wrong way from the start and the blame for the 1000 dead American soldiers is directly on his head.
Well, Kerry's "way" is pretty much expressly limited to taxpayers over 200k so I don't quite know what to say. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html
Probably to prevent liberals from sucker-punching conservatives There are limited seats at the events. W is speaking here in Columbus tomorrow (before he jets off to NY) and expected to fill the 20,000 seat Nationwide Arena. Rather than having his supporters standign outside the republicans are allowing large donors in (1st priority) then allowing in people who agree to campaign for Bush. I'm sure if tehre are any empty seats left it will be first come first served, but likley all eh seats will be taken by donors and other commited conservatives. Also as I joked about before it makes for a safer event for everyone. Just a good old fashioned pep-rally type atmospehere inside.
So let me get this straight....he gives first priority to people that are obviously going to vote for him anyways, while the undecided citizens are shut out because of "limited seating." Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of traveling around the country and campaigning? I thought you were supposed to be winning votes, not shooting the shizz with your base.
The key to the election is not getting the undecided voters. The key to the election is getting your supporters to vote.
So you're saying if you got every single person in the country to vote, then Bush would win? Bush didn't even win the popular vote last election, and the country is much more divided this time around. I think you're wrong on that one Chuckie.
That's not what Chuckie said. He said it's key to get your supporters to vote. In a close election, or a divided election, he's right. If your guys vote, and the other candidates guys do not...you win.
Nope I'm saying Bush needs to get all his supporters to vote. If the nation is split down the middle, like it is now the winner of the election will be whom ever gets more of its supporters out to vote. Be realistic what percentage of people will actually vote 50%? Maybe 60% since it's a heated election. The key is getting more of yours to vote than theirs (conservative vs liberal). In most of teh polls I've saw over 90% of teh people know who they're voting for. Sure you'd like to get that extra 10% who say they are ont eh bubble, but priority #1 is getting your 45% who say they will vote for you to actually do it.
