57% of Americans disagree with Bush on "issues that matter"
 

How the fuck did this guy get elected?

TWICE!!!!

Oh BTW....my source for the 57% is CNN.....just saw it on inside politics.
Not sure if it's on their website or not.

see sig :error

Where did you get that from?

by scaring the crap out of the american people for terrorism and by saying 'god bless america' at the end of every speech

by implementing computer counted voting machines this year and half way through saying OH FUCK THEY HAVE BUGZ :1orglaugh

Yea, cnn also had Kerry with 65% in ohio at 6pm on election day.

Maybe the polls are not as scientific as the activist organizations would want us to believe.

I'm going to an Anti-Bush protest later this week, as he'll be here bullshitting about something.

Dear MoveOn member,
You can help save Social Security in Rochester this Tuesday.

On Tuesday, President Bush will visit Greece, New York to push his risky Social Security privatization scam that would cut benefits and explode the national debt.

The president's trip to the Congressional District of Republican Tom Reynolds shows that he needs to buck up support for his unpopular Social Security scam among his own base. But we can't yield an inch now, especially since the U.S. Congress is now drafting a Social Security bill. Any shift in momentum in favor of the president's privatization plan would be bad for Social Security.

MoveOn is working with the coalition fighting to protect Social Security, Americans United to Protect Social Security, to organize a Tuesday rally to voice opposition to the president's privatization scheme. You are invited to attend and join with local Members of Congress, senior citizens, students, union members, people of faith and others concerned about the future of Social Security.

WHAT: Rally to Protect Social Security from Privatization in Rochester

WHEN: Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 1:30 P.M.

WHERE: The Liberty Pole, near the corner of Main St. & East Ave. Rochester, NY (Rain Location: First Universalist Church, 150 S. Clinton Avenue, 4 blocks from the Liberty Pole)

RSVP ONLINE: www.americansforsocialsecurity

Or the voting machines in Ohio aren't as scientific as the right wing would want us to believe.

I really think your smarter than that.

Make sure you make some signs that show democrats were hell bent on changing social security in the 90's. We wouldn't want moveon to be telling everyone that President Bush was the first president to propose changes.


President Clinton: ?This Fiscal Crisis In Social Security Affects Every Generation.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: ?[F]irst, And Above All, We Must Save Social Security For The 21st Century.? (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: ?So That All Of These Achievements ? The Economic Achievements ? Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children ? All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: ?Now Is The Time To Strengthen Social Security For The Future. ? We Can And Must Accomplish This Critical Goal For The American People.? (The White House, ?Presidential Statement On Social Security,? Press Release, 4/23/99)

President Clinton: ?But Because A Higher Percentage Of Our People Will Be Both Older And Retired, Perhaps Our Greatest Opportunity And Our Greatest Obligation At This Moment Is To Save Social Security.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98)

President Clinton: ?[I]f You Don?t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won?t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society ? Of Taking Care Of Our Generation?s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: ?And Above All, To My Fellow Baby Boomers, Let Me Say That None Of Us Wants Our Own Retirement To Be A Burden To Our Children And To Their Efforts To Raise Our Grandchildren. It Would Be Unconscionable If We Failed To Act, And Act Now, As One Nation Renewing The Ties That Bind Us Across The Generations.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98)

Also, when you get a chance.

Shoot me an email that outlines the democrats proposals for saving social security. I've googled my ass off, but I havn't been able to find one single plan.

I'm sure if people are taking enough time to form a protest, they have a better plan of action than the plan (person) that they have decided to protest.

I wonder how many of the 57% actually VOTED in the past election? A lot of people like to bitch after the fact when they are too busy come poll day.

Look like some GFY user has written a bot that finds political threads and copies and pastes articles from RushLimbaugh.com.

I didn't expect an answer to the question, just another shot at a polical radio show from someone who took the time let everyone know he is from "free speech land."

Perhaps you can outline the democrats plan on social security.

If there is no plan, then you can prove that those are inacurate quotes from billy clinton on the crisis of the SS system.

I'm not sure I have heard anyone say SS is not in trouble some time in the next 20-40 years or so. The president and repubs do not want to budge on the privatization of the system. There should be debate, there should be wiggle room and compromise. The republicans aren't willing to do that. W claims he is a uniter, not a divider. I wonder how he says that with a straight face.

Point is would you rather follow a drastic 'plan' that still doesn't address the problems and be completely steadfast about it or should you compromise on something everyone agrees needs improvement?

you ever notice.... YOU'RE the only one that ever mentions Rush?

I can picture you in a little room, listening to his show taking notes with one hand while the other scratches around in you shit-and-piss-stained underwear, then calling up dig, rich, and directfiesta to make sure you're talking points are in sync, preparing for yet another days worth of nonsense posts.

ahh look, the idiot is back. The guy who supports Bush one day and then says he doesn't the next. Back on Bush now I see. I guess being stupid is a part of growing up.

I'm not "on" Bush... I'm on you idiots.

as for being stupid being part of growing up....
if that's what you're using for an excuse, gimme a shout when puberty passes... by then you might be able to come up with something other than the same old recycled nonsense you've been posting for two years.

Glad rich showed up.

More proof they are all sitting in the basement somewhere jacking off on each other to liberal headlines on moveon.

To the best of my knowledge the President has yet to come up with a plan to cover the predicted shortfall...of funds that will become critical in forty years or so.

It is my understanding that privatizing a portion of SS...actually will remove two trillion dollars from SS and does zero...nada...to resolve the short fall of available funds...that will become critical in forty years or so and in fact the two trillion dollars removed from SS will increase the short fall problem.

There are only a hand full of ways to resolve the short fall of funds that will become critical in forty years or so and to the best of my knowledge the President has not offered up a plan with any real solutions to this problem...just as the Democrats have not at this point...but I do think that most Democrats are against privatization.

cuz people vote against their own best interests to appease their beliefs on issues that the government shouldn't be involved in anyway.

Very very true :)

Bush won because Kerry is a dumbass

Hmmm 57% disagree with him on important matters so that's 43% that agree with him and he got 51% of the vote just 6 months ago. So that means at least 8% of America is EXTREMELY STUPID.

I dont believe that is accurate.

The first statement he had was to encourage debate on possible solutions. He even said anything but raising payroll taxes. The democrats stopped participating in the debate at that point.

How many people at that rally do you think will know if the plan is designed to be optional or not and what percentage is designed to be placed in private accounts?

The privitization is not designed to "fix" social security, but is but one step in the process to alleviate shortfalls in the future. It is desinged to supplement the traditional checks.

I'm pretty sure the protesters have just been told that their grandmas are going to loose their money.

I also think you are discounting the increased return that will available in the future to those who choose to participate in the private accounts. Wouldn't the increased return be a good opportunity for young people beginning to pay in.

I'm not an expert on the proposals out there, but I do know that this is the 2nd major issue in the last 5 years that democrats have demanded and then done a 180 when president Bush decided to follow through.

That didn't hurt.


An extremely liberal democrat was running for president on a platform to:

1) Keep Tax Cuts In Place
2) Send More Troops to War



Every wonder why liberals seem so confused?

thank you sweetie pie.

When I am allowed to get out of my basement, I will reply.... :321GFY


TheKing: your post is accurate. Hard to say, but if you a right, well you a right...It shows that you are higher in the chain than FunForOne or 12shits ....

That certainly did not help one fucking bit.

It's unfortunate that most politicians in the Democratic party are also lying corporate controlled stooges. The only advantage I see that the dems have is that they're not controlled by religious fundamentalists. Sure that's a big difference, but other than that they're the same party; pro war, pro corporate control, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, etc. Everything is the same but the rhetoric. IMHO Clinton was a good man with his heart in the right place, but he was just as controlled as Bush is, only not so much by the cold war hawks. He balanced the budget on the backs of poor people while giving the banks, corporations and war profiteers the same free ride they're always had.

Too bad no real opposition is given credibility, the two party system is the biggest scam in the history of "democracy". :2 cents:

FYI...the US has many political parties...Richy boy...it is just a fact that the two oldest parites are the most popular parties. Voters have an opportunity to change that during any election...they have chosen not to up to this point. No need to thank me for educating you...Richy boy.

No we have a 2 party system. Name anyone from another political party curently a memeber of congress? NONE and that's 535 members combined. The Dems and repubs rig the sytem so other parties have basically no chance to participate. Explain WHY the GOP and DNC are in charge of the presidential debates? Shouldn't that be left up to a INDEPENDANT orginzation? It's simple the Green party would take way Dems votes. And the Libertarians would take away votes from the GOP. If the Dems were smart they'd let the Greens have all the extreme left Dems. It's their views or at least the way Republicans can distort their views and then paint ALL dems with that "liberal" brush and thus cost Dems elections. If the extreme left went to the Green Party, Dems could say "Nope that's not us, that's the Greens"

Well...in fact there are one or more members of Congress from the Independent party...but I am not going to take the time to look up their names.

Any of the mulitple parties that exist can be a part of the debates but they have to have a certain percentage of members in their party (relative to the size of the big two) to do so (I believe the number is as little as 5%...but I could be mistaken). As I stated the voters/public can oust the GOP or the Democrats as being the two most popular parties during any election period...if the so choose.

Those that do not have the percentage to enter into the GOP and Democrats debate still can be seen debating via PBS and C-Span...and Town hall venues...if people are interested. Most are not.

So, brainiacs at CNN, can anyone in that wonderfully intelligent mob of yours perhaps shed some light on what exactly would be considered an "issue which doesn't matter" ??

I'm just wondering....

They don't have to agree with him on major issues to vote for him. TV tells them to vote for him, so they do, it's as simple as that. People have to stop trying to read something more complicated into the situation. Television is in control of the American population, once you realize that everything starts to make sense. It's the same reason they're not outraged by torture being committed in their name.

" FYI...the US has many political parties...Richy boy...it is just a fact that the two oldest parites are the most popular parties. Voters have an opportunity to change that during any election...they have chosen not to up to this point. No need to thank me for educating you...Richy boy."


lol, well he said Richy boy twice so what he said must be true.

Could you guys do me a favor and try to stop quoting Pathfinder? It defeats the purpose for those of us who have him on our ignore list.

You owned yourself...Richy boy...and proved yet again that you are a liar. No one quoted the post.

"Issues that matter" to one person aren't important issues to another person. I voted for Bush last November, and I voted for him because he stood for the three issues that matter most to me: foreign policy, national security, and abortion.

I would rather have no plan, than a plan that the current administration cooks up.

I just bet if Dick wasn't around, I could sell GW on a plan to save the planet by using dehydrated water.