50 Votes

The only less regulation that Bush likes is for is dismantling the Clean Air act.

No surprise though since when asked how history would remember his presidency, the best he could come up with was, "We wont know, we'll all be dead".

He hasn't veto'd a SINGLE spending plan placed on his desk while in office.

He hasnt fired ANYONE for the string of mistakes leading up to 9/11. People resigning for "personal reasons" are not the same. Even Rice said that when those planes went into those buildings is when we knew how serious the threats were. Yet the PDB that said "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" was a "historical document". Fuck of course! It's SO vague!

But of course, they had *only* been in office for a mere 232 days...that excuses all mistakes apparently..

Oops, but I forgot.. He has made NO mistakes according to himself. What a brilliant humble man.


Good god, whats the use, LMAO! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You also dont need much to realise that this is not a PARTISAN issue, it's a competence issue.

I think when someone gives a number (ie: another 30 percent of your income), that it's specific enough to assume they read a plan of Kerry's that actually states it. I personally would like to read it, because such a plan might INDEED change how I vote. Not likely, but worth a shot.

You know it's pretty foolish to assume that nobody is going to have to pay for all the shit thats been spent since Bush has been in office if Bush wins again. Do you think if Bush somehow wins the election that you wont be paying your share of the billions given over to rebuild a country we destroyed on reasons that were admittedly wrong at best, and outright lies at worst? Thats just foolish.. it doesnt matter which party wins which election. We're paying, oh yes. For a long time.

Bump! Anyone care about international policy?

Non-Americans should not be allowed to vote. :)

this is actually only a part truth. Yes Kerry wants to shift tax cuts and take them away from the people that make a lot a give them to the people that don't. So depending on how much you make this is either good or bad for you. Really, if you are not making a lot a tax cut isn't going to give you much more money in the long run.

Neither party is for porn but so far the democrates have been a little more relaxed about it. Janet Reno said that the attorney gernerals office has a budget and they can't go after everything so they pick thier agenda. One of Clinton's agendas was going after militant religious groups the koresh. With bush they've made no secret that ashat was getting together a large group to go hard after porn but then the 9/11 attacks happened and they had to shift thier focus to that. If bush is re elected he will probably come after us in a hardcore way. Also, he may be appointing as many as 2-3 judges to the supreme court. The last COPA law was a 5-4 vote.

As for a law limiting the amount of free porn on the net being good for profits I have to disagree. For some it will be good but I think for most it will not. Any law the US passes will only affect 40% of the porn on the internet. The rest is owned/operated by non-US based people. So instead of having 10 free sites to pick from the surfers will only have 6. So this will reduce the amount of free porn on the net by 40% but I think all it will do is serve to make those sites that are non-US based even bigger and better. How may affiliate programs rely on US-based webmasters that submit TGP gallleries and make free sites or run TGP/link list sites? They can kiss most of that traffic goodbye.

In the end it may help weed out some people, the part timers and the hobbiest. But I think overall it would have a very bad effect on many more people.

just my 2 cents.

Kerry/Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

duh :)

if I could vote, I'd be voting for anyone against bush :2 cents: