Presidents can and do draft laws just like congress... they just have to be sent thru both houses to be ratified. In some cases a senator etc will pay a favor back by bringing forth a presidents law as his own as well.


And sorry, Bush doesn't do THAT, he just uses the presidential order to bypass all of that. IF he gets re-elected, I think he might try to pull out ALL of the wartime powers if he gets the chance to.

I wish I could bring out all that I learned when I worked for a national union. Their facts were facts, unbiased and by the numbers with strict statistics going back to the beginning of this country as to who did what and why.

But even if I still worked there, I'd get hung for posting what they paid to have people put together. I'm sure anyone really wanting to know these things thatthere are other resources to glean it all from.

And again if he gets back in and still goes after porn, WE will be the new Islamic country. I'm sure they have plans to shut out porn in toto. And pull the domains from ALL porn owners as an extra effort. lol

hahahahaha - boy, did they have you brainwashed

Yes they did dog... right up until I asked rhe hubby and he researched on net on federal sites and I'll be d*mned! The union was dead on with what the government as well as independent sites had to say.

We've since checked numbers etc etc against hard copy in libraries. SO I guess they are ALL in some sort of secretive measures right?

You didn't address your miss wording on Pres's don't make law I notice. I have been out of school as long as YOU have and even *I* remembered that part. He IS part of the executive branch (shich includes lawmaking) ;-)

But hey we all can't remember EVERYthing can we? Maybe you had a poor school district that had outdated books.



But trust this much, *I* am very anti-union and the hubby wanted me to see THAT side so I did. They just said here are the numbers and they also provided the FEDERAL sources WITH access to view them to back up their numbers.

Btw, I am NOT any party by favor. ;-)

Rooster?

Ugly?

:1orglaugh

Let me know if he gets over 1.6 million sigs like Gray Davis out here in CALI!:thumbsup

That site doesn't have my vote!:321GFY

Originally posted by iroc409

Quote:

i can't remember... is it john kerrey or bob kerrey running for pres next round?

It's John Kerry. BTW, for those not following politics in the United States, here's the 9 or so democrats(Wesley Clarke may run) running for their party's nomination in order to face GWBush.

Howard Dean

John Kerry

Dick Gephardt

Lieberman

John Edward

Dennis Kucinich

Bob Ghram

Carol Mosley Braun

Al Sharpton

I'll focus on Dean, since he's the front runner.

Howard Dean is leading in key states and catching Lieberman in the national poll.

Basically, Dean is now getting more and more attention as the front runner, and ther others are fighting to keep up as the mumber two guy in the Democratic race.

Here's the surprise. Howard Dean(a doctor) has raised more money than any other Democrats and may even opt out of matching fund like Bush.

To put it short, nearly all of his contributions are from the INTERNET. Beside gay issue, this guy is completely in the center. He's one of the few Dems that has an A rating from the NRA, and one of the few fomer governor (balance the budget) that has left his state (Vermont) with a 10 million dollars surplus, while 49 other states are facing deficits.

It would be fun to see Dean debate Bush. Unlike Gore or Clinton, Dean will speak frankly without all the fancy words. If he thinks Bush is lying, he'll say it. Ofcourse, Karl Rove(Bush's advisor-the most powerful guy in the U.S.) had wanted Dean right from the start.

ummm

Because iraq/terrorism and the economy are both in a position to only get worse, thats why. Right now the country is indeed pretty much split, but another year is going to give more and more people time to see that this guy has just made a mess of things. True its not all his fault, but almost everything he has done is making things worse. He is making the terrorist threat worse, has turned most of the world against us, the economy cant possibly get better with the spiraling deficits and exported jobs, etc. His democratic opponent will be stronger this time as well. Neither howard dean nor john kerry nor wesley clark will have the negatives amongst most people that gore had, even democrats had to hold their noses to vote for him. The question of whether you are better off than 4 years ago is going to be asked often. People are going to see more and more that bush is an empty suit and just a lot of talk. Despite all his campaign money and spin he will be the one with big negatives this time. He wont even get the military vote. If you want more reasons check my other threads here, i have been saying he will lose for a long time now, and he will.

I believe Bush 1's campaign said the same shit about Clinton....woops, sometimes that's just a tough guy front...

they'd not be doing well to say "OH NO, please don't bring on that guy!"

;)

If you are so sure about that, why do you need 1000-1 odds?

Republicans have caused the deficit. Look at history Democrats are not the "spenders" and the simple reason is that guns and bullets cost a hell of a lot more then welfare.
Reagan tripled the national debt.
Bush senior increased it at the fastest rate of any 4 year term until he caved to the tax increase.
Clinton ran surpluses.
GW is following in daddies footsteps.

You could argue that Democrats just run the economy so much better that is looks like they spend less. This does tend to increase the discrepancy.




:

:thumbsup

Anybody -- you, me, the President, can write a bill; but only a member of Congress (House or Senate) can introduce the bill for consideration.

I cannot vote as I am not a U.S. citizen but I paypaled them a few bucks to support their effort to get rid of this fucking asshole. And I hope this will happen soon.

rather than wasting money, why don't you send some my way? I will even put a link up to your site

I can see them going either way. I don't see that the reasons you gave are anything near guaranteed nor are they the only factors to consider in strength of economy & "war on terrorism". The war in Iraq and on terrorism could easily get better. Consider the possible effects of capturing Osama three months before election, for example.

On the economy side, deficit spending often does improve the economy (Keynesian economics). The obvious reasoning is that spending is an increase in the GDP. Every dollar put in the economy is spent many times over (economists call this "money velocity"). For that matter, many economists do predict a better 12 months ahead than behind.

I think that you think Bush will not get elected because you don't like Bush. It's wishful thinking. Sure, many Democrats hate Bush just like Republicans hated Clinton.

That being said, I have no opinion on who will be elected. Too many factors ahead, too much time ahead, we don't even know who Bush will run against, who their campaign manager is, what kind of campaign they will run and so forth, or what the global conditions will be.

i dont need those odds, all i got is $5
looking for some quick cash :Graucho

i dont know where you got your info, but its complete wrong. reagan didnt triple the national debt, and clinton didnt run a surpluse. clinton came into office and took credit for something that started long before he was elected. clinton is a fucktard just like davis. come to california and tell people that democrats dont spend. davis turned our surpluse into a 40bil debt. last i checked davis had the D next to his name. :1orglaugh

Bush is a war criminal.
He should be detained and turned in to the United Nations.
That is prolly the only thing we can do to gain some respect in the world as an honorable nation.

idiot

Blind sheep bleat and wander to the slaughter easily.

Move along "Bringer" follo the herd.

here, let me try this again

idiot
you have no basis for saying he should be charged with a war crime.
CLICK ME AlienQ

Here ya go.
Its just a couple but there are a few other violations as well.
I leave it to you to learn the rest.

Geneva Convention Violation.

Educate yourself.

i should of know.... democrats.com is evil

Facts are facts.

Accept them if ya can, however most choose not to see how things really are.
It is easier to accept the spoon fed picture.

just because its posted on democrats.com doesnt make it fact. they are someones opinions on what took place. when will people learn that idiots post their opinions as fact in hopes of getting other idiots to join the idiot parade. congrats on joining :thumbsup

oh jeez, please don't tell me you are from CA, and obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about if you don't think that Reagan tripled our National debt (at least)

Please, what country/planet are you from? War criminal . . . yeah right.

oh, well that changes everything. If it is on the Internet it must be true.

Well, at least with this level of intelligence you probably do not show up at the polling place until a week after the election if at all.

you don't have any idea how much it pains me to agree with bringer, but damn you are scary.

sorry, i was 4 when he got out of office. all i know is what i read and from that ive learned he increased spending on defense and built the military to what it is today. in all my years in school, there was no mention of him tripling the national debt.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

"In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression."

dont worry, soon ill have complete mindcontrol over you and you will become one of my minions :1orglaugh

Very close to tripling.

Also, the debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 33% when Reagan took office to 50% when he left. When Bush left it was 64%. When Clinton left it was 58%. Right now, it's about 60%.

very interesting, ill try and remember that

I think you made an earlier comment about "just because its posted on democrats.com doesnt make it fact." The same thing applies to whitehouse.gov

It is called propaganda. I am sure if you looked at the site when Clinton was president it said something dofferent.

and while Alienq is equally as disturbing as you are, Clinton was the best president we have had in many, many years.

Reagan was the only reaon why most people even understood what the word trillion meant. As I recall, we had a 4 trillion dollar deficit by the time we got rid of him

I will take a bullet to the brain before that happens, trust me

A few of my bookmarks:

US debt: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Great site for GDP data.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Ta...=2003&Freq=Qtr

For example, Look up 1945 on both pages.
Debt 258.7 billion
GDP 223.0 billion

So you can see the debt/gdp ratio was actually higher in 1945 than it is today (It ballooned from pre-war figure of about 43% to greater than 100% by end of war )

In 1950, it was still 87%.

:1orglaugh
clinton was a joke who got lucky with the internet boom
i could careless about the whole bj bullshit, but his policy was idiotic.

What about his economic policy did you disagree with?

what policy was idiotic?

his foreign policy?

im going to bed, we can continue tommorro once my mind is clear.

Ahhh. I thought you meant economic.

I would think conservatives would have liked Clinton's foreign policy. Bosnia, Haiti, bombing of Iraq. Reminiscent of Reagan's limited operations (Libya, Grenada, and Lebanon).

hey, we have to test new technologies somewhere, and Canada is too close.

what about his foreign policy? no matter what position we take someone isn't going to be happy.

the question you have to ask is are you better off now than you were before he took office, and when he was president, we were better off than when Bush was pres.

will be interesting to see if it helps :winkwink:

Not surprisingly, people are pretty split.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 9-10, 2003. N=1,029 adults nationwide. .

"Do you think the country was better off with Bill Clinton as president, or is better off with George W. Bush as president?" Options were rotated

Clinton 46%
Bush 49%
No Opinion 5%

Yes Reagan did, look it up. And yes there was a surplus under Clinton for almost every one of his 8 years. Clinton inherited a fucking mess if you look back to 1992. Look at some stats on national debt, you can even go back further and see who increased it.