Go Kerry. Go away, Bush.

[hismajesty]

Everytime there is a presidential scandal the nation has less trust in government. For example, the trust in government dropped temendously after Watergate.

[cefx-]

I wouldn't mind seeing the American people exercise the 2nd Amendment (sp?) and take up arms against their government.

Go Militias!

[Dark-Feanor]

Sorry, I am not a bush-supported, but I will still post my anti-bush shpeal

First off, I live in a city where the bad economy is felt. A place where my city pays ALL OF THE TAXES for the rest of the state, because of the republican legislature. They bleed  the city for all the tax money it has. I see more people begging on the subway trying to sell stuff than I have in a long while.

The whole terrorism issue is fabricated.
It is just used as a pork barrel in order to give away money.
For example:
Wyoming the state, gets $31 per person to help fight terrorism.
New York gets $5 per person.
How does that make sense? Bush promised New York City 200 billion dollars to help rebuild.
We are yet to see any of that money. The current administration wants us to live in fear and uses  the terrorist attacks as an excuse to suspend our constitutional rights and pass reactionary legislation through congress (example: Patriot Act).

Some other issues that Bush is bad on besides terrorism.
The economy: wasted a several trillion dollar surplus raised by Clinton. Gives tax cuts to the upper class and has the entire tax burden of this country on the middle class workers.
Environment: Passed the "Forest Destruction Act" nuff said
Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives.
Abortion: Let people decided what they want to do.
Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up.  Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.).

I was riding the subway the other, and normally I see these adds that say "If you see something, say something" and show a picture of an unattended package. This day, I saw one that say "Junk mail or HATE MAIL?" and showed a postal package in a seat. Then underneath that, someone wrote "or police state? 1984," which made me crack up.  Kind of makes you think about the current administration.

PS. Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe).

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

The whole terrorism issue is fabricated.
It is just used as a pork barrel in order to give away money.

Riiiiiight. Since this goes into Bush's pocket, right?

The current administration wants us to live in fear and uses  the terrorist attacks as an excuse to suspend our constitutional rights and pass reactionary legislation through congress (example: Patriot Act).

So...Bush is going to seize control and become a dictator? Please.

The economy: wasted a several trillion dollar surplus raised by Clinton. Gives tax cuts to the upper class and has the entire tax burden of this country on the middle class workers.

If by several trillion, you mean $123 billion, then yeah he used it...but he also had a little thing called Sept 11 happen. I think somone has been exaggerating a bit.

Environment: Passed the "Forest Destruction Act" nuff said

Yep, you're right, and that's why I'm not a 100% Bush supporter.

Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives.

No reason to argue this as it's been shown countless times before in this thread that it was the fault of the faulty intelligence, and any reasonable leader would act on it the same way.

Abortion: Let people decided what they want to do.

?

Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up.  Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.).

Aka, you're anti-Christian. Those damn Christians! Since they are the dominant religion in the US, they must suck, right!? I mean, Michael Moore told me they do, and he's funny, so he must be right.

He's not fucking anti-anything. Anti-gay marriage is good because it preserves an integral part of American culture. I do believe in civil unions; gay people should have equal rights with everyone else.

He has kept his religion out of policy. The whole Christian thing is overblown and DOES NOT MATTER. JUST because Islam is producing shitloads of terrorists doesn't mean we're targetting Islamic countries because they're Islamic. And what's with Bush supporting Israel, land of the Jews, the people he supposedly hates?

PS. Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe).

Not while he was president.

[Stealth]

Yeah let's totally forget about the Republican Congress too.

And that whole "September 11th" thing - but that didn't have any sort of major impact on the economy. Not at all.

[hismajesty]

Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives.

Oh please. For the left to be so peace loving, I'm surpirsed that you guys don't support the removal of somebody who killed 300,000 of his own people.

Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up.  Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.).

This country and it's government was founded on religion, why keep any or all religion out of the government?

Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe).  

That's irrelevant. He wasn't arrested for anything while in office, but William "I didn't inhale" Clinton, did break the law while in office.

[quasi-modo]

dark, do you want there to be a surplus? A surplus means the government is holding onto money and you are not seeing it. Surplus is not good or bad, it is just money that is not in circualtion. A surplus slows the economy because it ties up funds. A deficit stimulates the economy because more funds are in the hands of the people. f we still had a clinton surplus I would be worried, it would really mean you are not getting your money. Also dark, its called a tax braket. Why does everyone think, "oh the tax cuts are only helping the rich"? I mean we have a tax braket. The more taxes you pay, the more money you got back. The rich have the highest income, they pay the highest income tax, they get the most money back. It makes perfect sence.

[Dark-Feanor]

If by several trillion, you mean $123 billion, then yeah he used it...but he also had a little thing called Sept 11 happen. I think somone has been exaggerating a bit.

Actually, most of the money was wasted to the tax cuts he put into effect. New York City never recieved any of the money promised to us by Bush.

This country and it's government was founded on religion, why keep any or all religion out of the government?

That is not true at all. Our founding fathers went out of the ir way in order to not give the church from any power in our government "Seperation of Church and State." How is our government based on religion?

Also dark, its called a tax braket. Why does everyone think, "oh the tax cuts are only helping the rich"? I mean we have a tax braket. The more taxes you pay, the more money you got back. The rich have the highest income, they pay the highest income tax, they get the most money back. It makes perfect sence.

I dont know what referring to people of a certain income as a tax bracket adds to your arguement, but whatever makes you happy.

I mean we have a tax braket

Yes we do. We have many of them.
How does it make sense to give money back to the ritchest people in the country? It doesnt make "perfect sense" when we give tax cuts that ONLY benefits the wealthiest people in America. As Bill Clinton said in his speech, he didnt want the money back. He doesnt need it. He would rather it be spent in a productive manner.

Aka, you're anti-Christian. Those damn Christians! Since they are the dominant religion in the US, they must suck, right!? I mean, Michael Moore told me they do, and he's funny, so he must be right.

He's not fucking anti-anything. Anti-gay marriage is good because it preserves an integral part of American culture. I do believe in civil unions; gay people should have equal rights with everyone else.

He has kept his religion out of policy. The whole Christian thing is overblown and DOES NOT MATTER. JUST because Islam is producing shitloads of terrorists doesn't mean we're targetting Islamic countries because they're Islamic. And what's with Bush supporting Israel, land of the Jews, the people he supposedly hates

I am not anti-christian, I just feel that a seperation between church and state should be preserved. Bush should not be legislate basted on his religions morals. How can you say that he kept religion out of his policy? Being Anti-Abortion and Anti-Gay Marriage is entirely a religious issue. And Anti-Stem cell research? THat makes no sense, besides it goes againts his religion. Stem cell research will save lives, but he stopped it. How is that keeping his religion out of policy?

So many jews support Bush because he is strong on Israel. I did a little research and discovered that Bush wants a strong Israel, because that is where Christ is going to come back to earth.... Sounds kind of stupid but he believes it. And when Christ comes back to earth, he will rid the world of all non-protestants aka jews. He isnt supporting the jews, just his own religion. And all these bitchy jewish princesses love bush for it.  Ashcroft is an anti-semite as well.

[Arta]

The US was not founded on religion! It was founded by religious people who knew damn well that religion had no place in government. I think that the application of a leader's religious principles in the way he or she conducts their secular activities will always be a thorny issue. For example, I'd have no objection to a religious president using their faith to guide their decisions, but I'd have a big objection to passing legislation that forces other people to conform to their leader's religious principles: EG, abortion, gay marriage.

I think using a surplus to finance tax cuts is populist and short-sighted, and actually pretty reprehensible when you consider the number of american programs that really need more funding: eg schools, medicare, social security. That said, US government spending is pretty stupid to begin with. Far too much money spent on guns and bombs and far too little spent curing disease and educating children.

I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults. As for not supporting the removal of Saddam, I do, and always have - by diplomatic means. Sure, it would have taken a lot longer, but it would have worked in the end.

[quasi-modo]

That is not true at all. Our founding fathers went out of the ir way in order to not give the church from any power in our government "Seperation of Church and State." How is our government based on religion?

can you find separation of church and state in the constitution? It isnt. The estabilishment clause basically says congress cant help or hurt a religion and we should not get entabgled (we should not make a specific church dependent on the governement).

[quasi-modo]

I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.

Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?

[Arta]

I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.

Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?

I agree that the lying was bad. I don't agree that it was any of our business to ask him about it in the first place.

[quasi-modo]

Look, you get back what you paid in dark. The tax cuts help everyone equally because it is a % back of what you paid in. How would you do it? Give all the money back to the lowest bracket? Its called welfare and that would not the economy any or help any of the other income brackets.

[Dark-Feanor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?

How much money did we spend investigating that? What a good way to spend our tax dollars.
I personally have no problem with the fact that he had sex in the oval office and lied about it. What   a PIMP. I wish that I can grow up to fuck a chick in the oval office.

Look, you get back what you paid in dark. The tax cuts help everyone equally because it is a % back of what you paid in. How would you do it? Give all the money back to the lowest bracket? Its called welfare and that would not the economy any or help any of the other income brackets.

I wouldnt give any money back. I would just cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and keep the amount that the upper class pays the same.

[quasi-modo]

I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.

Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?

I agree that the lying was bad. I don't agree that it was any of our business to ask him about it in the first place.

even when it is going on in the oval office? He is a public figure, he looses privacy. Its just like the movie stars with the paparazzi.