On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:22:51 GMT, John Rackham
<johnrackham@calico.com> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:28:37 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:54:27 GMT, John Rackham
<johnrackham@calico.com> wrote:

Republicans are very "forgetful."

But American voters aren't. You'll find that out in November.

For once, we agree.

Good.

I tihnk they will remember Bush getting up there telling us that there
was no doubt Iraq had dangerous WMD, when he knew that there was lots
and lots of doubt about that.

I think they will vote for the fact that Bush is activley waging war
on terrorists

You should read the papers. We are in a war in Iraq which as far as I
can tell had fewer members of al-qaeda in it than any other country on
earth. It had possibly ZERO, maybe one?

We are at war in any place we find the terrorists.

No we're not. The terrorists are in Florida and we aren't at war
there.

Where we ARE at war is Afghanistan, where there were terrorists, and
Iraq, where there were not.

Bush used terrorism as an excuse to do something he had wanted to do
for years, for other reasons - invade Iraq.

His neocommunist advisers, like Wolfowitz and William Krystol, had
long urged invasion of Iraq and had even said it might take something
like another Pearl Harbor to get the public motivated to launch the
attack.

They got lucky. Bin Laden attacked the WTC allowing them to trick you
into supporting their long-sought invasion of Iraq.

Florida probably has ten times that many terrorists.

...and you can bet they will all vote Democrat in November.

Then why do al-qaeda supporters say on their web pages that it's
important that Bush be reelected?

Bush is a dream come true for the terrorists. He has caused support
for bin laden to skyrocket across the muslim world.

He has taken actions proving bin Laden's claims about our motives were
correct.

He puts our army mainly where the anti-US terrorists are not, Iraq,
rather than where they are, such as Afghanistan.

Bush is just a dream come true for al-qaeda, and based on comments on
their websites they know it.

Kerry would take effective actions against terrorists.

Bush wouldn't know an effective action if it slapped him in the face.
He is totally incompetent. Look at the results of his entire life. One
losing proposition after another.

In case you haven't noticed, we lost the war in Iraq. They hate our
guts now. Our soldiers have to cower in their compounds, afraid to
come out.

That's the kind of incompetent fool a bin Laden thanks Allah for
seding to him.

Really. Go to the al-qaeda web sites, and you'll find - they love
Bush. Say it's important he be reelected.

It's obviously true, and they say it.

President Bush could have played pin the tail on the donkey to pick a
war to attack, and surely would have gotten a country with far more
terrorists in it than Iraq.

Well at least he's attacking them not appeasing them as your candidate
Kerry would do. Just like he appeased the enemy in 1971.

What enemy? Viet Nam never attacked us. Kerry CORRECTLY said we could
not win that war, a civil war, which had little to do with us, and
that since we couldn't win it, we should get out.

That was the truth.

He should hide from it?

Taking your approach, refusing to see the truth about Viet Nam, cost
30,000 needless American lives.

Appeasment refers to giving in to an aggressor.

we were the aggressor in Viet Nam.

We aggressed into the middle of their civil war.

So too in Iraq we are the aggressor.

Saddam learned you can't appease an aggressor. He did what we claimed
we wanted - he got rid of all his WMD - but still we attacked him.

An aggressor, such as the US, only understands force.

Appeasement won't stop it.

The only way to stop Bush in his neocommunist wars of expansion is to
fight him, or frighten him with the possibility of force, such an
North Korea is doing.

You can't appease a dedicated aggressor like Bush.

That's the lesson we sholud have learned in Munich.

President Bush wanted to attack Iraq long before he was elected, and
used the attack on the WTC as an excuse to do that.

Well for me it was as good as excuse as any.

The notion that President Bush is waging a war on Iraq is absurd, and
every day more and more voters wise up to that fact.

As absurd as waging war in Germany in 1945, right?

while Kerry is telling us that if he's elected he will

form a commitee to find ways to appease them.

He said he would increase the number of active duty service men by
40,000 and double the number of special forces. You know about special
forces, don't you? They are the kind of troops who could actually go
find bin Laden and kill him. We have some. President Bush took a lot
of them out of Afghanistan, where they were fighing terrorists, to go
to the pointless war in Iraq.

Do you really believe that? In the Primarys he said exactly the
opposite.

In addition, the war on terror in general is going to require broad
international cooperation. Last I heard al-qaeda had members in more
than sixty nations. We can't invade sixty nations. Terrorists in those
countries must be dealt with by the authorities in them. To the extent
people in those countries hate our guts, they will give anti-US
terrorists a pass. To the extent we have mended fences, have formed
alliances, we can get support for our goals.

What do you mean by 'broad international cooperation"? The
cooperation of France, Germany, Russia and China? Those corrupt
regiems will never cooperate. All they are interested in is making
money off human misery.

It's far better to form a posse to get the bad guys than to just send
out the Lone Ranger.

I think they will remember that Clinton created 23 million new jobs
while Bush has actually reduced the number of Americans working.

Clinton created zero jobs.

That's total *****. Clinton created more jobs as governor than any
other, best out of fifty. You say it's just chance. But it wasn't. He
worked his ***** off to bring jobs to Arkansas, he rarely took
vacations, worked late into the night, to get the job done.

You saying Clinton created 23 million jobs is total *****. What is
the source that says that Clinton created 23 million jobs?

Then he made the US the best job generator of all the industrial
nations. You think it's chance again. IT wasn't. Clinton knew, as
Greenspan did, that long term interest rates were high because of
deficits expected down the line. He proposed and passed credible
deficit reduction, and as a result interest rates were lower than they
otherwise would have been. That's what Greenspan predicted, that's
what Clinton predicted, and that's what happened. Even with far faster
economic growth, those rates did not go up. Huge numbers of us were
able to refinance our mortgages, freeing up vast sums for economic
growth. Investors could finance new ideas. Also Clinton actually
passed Nafta and Gatt. Repubs said they liked free trade, but Clinton
dielivered it. And as virtually every economist will tell you, that
created a ton of new jobs. Clinton also passed many DOZENS of
bilateral trade agreements also lowering barriers to international
trade. Free trade creates jobs, as Clinton understood. Bush? He
decided to go for votes rather than jobs and imposed steel tariffs.
There must be a hundred US workers who use steel than those who make
it so for a few votes in swing states Bush put pressures on the jobs
of a hundred times as many.

Clinton also understood that a huge chunk of new jobs comes from
technological breakthroughs. So he dramatically increased the amount
we spend on research. He knows jobs depend on education so he passed
tax breaks for tuition, student loan interest. He cut the rate of tax
on capital gains in half. He increased the amount of depreciable
equipment which small businesses can deduct in the first year from
10,000 dollars to 24,000. He promised to end welfare as we knew it,
and he signed that into law, putting millions more workers back to
work.

Clinton worked his ***** off to do those things, and lots more besides.
He worked late into the night, all the time, to do that.

Clinton isn't running. Gore lost. What else can I say?

You can call it chance.

Best of fifty governors, best of twenty industrial nations. What are
the odds it just happened by chance? A thousand to one against.

I think they will remember all those things Bush told us four years
ago which we later learned were not true.

I think Bush will win in a landslide. In the end of October you had
better run for cover.

That must be why in the most recent poll Bush is trailing by 13
points.

What poll was that?

And why the undecided rate him very low.

It's nice that you think Bush will win.

You won't think nice of me in November.

But you don't have a single fact to back up your belief.

Polls for a long time have shown Kerry winning.

They still do.

Bush may win, but there is no OBJECTIVE evidence to indicate that he
will.

The evidence will be in the wide margin of vote he wins by.