The Bush Political Machine Starts Rolling Out With The Goods!!!!

[kcmcdonald]

Check this out it's about time that Rove started bashing this guy!!!!
http://www.georgewbush.com/TVAds/

 

[Avatar4321]

Interesting how "Forward" Doesnt even really name John Kerry. Bush is going all out to not look like he is going to descend to Kerry's level. its nice because we can contrast the candidates without getting trashy.

 

[winston churchi]

The ad's are well done. No lowering to the Kerry standards of name calling. It is nice to see , if Kerry plans to do the same, what their issues really are. Anyone can call out names to one another - so it's nice that Bush is not doing that.

 

[kcmcdonald]

and don't forget "he approves those messages."

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Quote from an ad

"Kerry wanted to wait until the UN approved to defend ouselves (shows images of Iraq)"
We weren't defending ourselves Iraq didn't attack us...

"Kerry plans to raise taxs at ~least~ $900 billion"

Can anyone please find any proof of this? If they can I will support him less than I already do.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
Quote from an ad

"Kerry wanted to wait until the UN approved to defend ouselves (shows images of Iraq)"
We weren't defending ourselves Iraq didn't attack us...

We should have done it just to enforce U.N. resolutions. WHy didn't you think U.N. resolutions should have been enforced? Simply please.

"Kerry plans to raise taxs at ~least~ $900 billion"

Can anyone please find any proof of this? If they can I will support him less than I already do.

Someone added up all his promises.

 

[Zhukov]

The Bush camp's math rests on a series of assumptions. Campaign manager Ken Mehlman said the $900 billion reflects independent estimates, which Kerry does not dispute, of the cost of his health care plan over 10 years. Since Kerry's proposed tax hike on the wealthiest Americans would raise about $250 billion during that period -- and he has vowed not to increase the budget deficit -- the Bush team argues that he would have to make up the rest with increased taxes.

"If you care about the economy ... you should be very afraid of a plan to raise at least $900 billion in taxes," said campaign manager Ken Mehlman. "It would destroy jobs."

Kerry has not fully explained how he would pay for his health care plan, which would help provide insurance to most of the 42 million Americans who now lack coverage.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04072/284552.stm


Mr. Kerry obviously isn't going to come up and say he's going to need $900,000,000,000 so the Bush team decided to do the math themselves.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Don't worry CrazyLiberal, Kerry has never said he will raise taxes and the Bush advisor admitted Kerry never said he'd raise taxes. Where they get this from, which of course they don't want to say b/c it looks bad for them, is that Kerry wants to roll back the tax cut for the top 2% to create gov't programs. The majority of Americans will not see that as a bad thing.

The US shouldn't follow any resolutions of a WORTHLESS organization like the UN.

 

[eric]

is that Kerry wants to roll back the tax cut for the top 2% to create gov't programs

For God sake this is the last thing we need in this country today, to create new government programs, what we need is a reduction in the number, size, and scope of the programs already available. Then we need to restructure and optimize the remaining programs to run effectively as would a private corporation.

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
We should have done it just to enforce U.N. resolutions. WHy didn't you think U.N. resolutions should have been enforced? Simply please.

I don't understand conservatives sometimes, they don't care what the UN thinks about them going to war, but then they turn around and say one of the reasons thy went to war was to uphold UN resolutions.... Hypocritical much?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
I don't understand conservatives sometimes, they don't care what the UN thinks about them going to war, but then they turn around and say one of the reasons thy went to war was to uphold UN resolutions.... Hypocritical much?

I fail to see how this is hypocritical.

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Pretty simple.. Conservatives wanted to go to war in Iraq when majority of UN oppose, then after war is over they say that one of the reasons they went was to uphold UN resolutions.. Sounds hypocritcal to me. Now I don't exactly support the UN, but you don't go to war against somebodies wishes and then say one of the reasons you did it was for them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
Pretty simple.. Conservatives wanted to go to war in Iraq when majority of UN oppose, then after war is over they say that one of the reasons they went was to uphold UN resolutions.. Sounds hypocritcal to me. Now I don't exactly support the UN, but you don't go to war against somebodies wishes and then say one of the reasons you did it was for them.

No, the hypocritical part is where certain nations signed off on the resolutions and then later failed to force compliance.

It was hardly the majority opposed, more like a few key nations that insisted on a veto.

The US just continued on the path that started 12 years prior and finally finished the job that the UN set out on before backing off.

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Originally posted by jimnyc

It was hardly the majority opposed, more like a few key nations that insisted on a veto.

Sourt of like how by 500,000 votes the majority opposed George W Bush in 2000 but a few key minority votes won him the electoral college in Florida.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
Sourt of like how by 500,000 votes the majority opposed George W Bush in 2000 but a few key minority votes won him the electoral college in Florida.

Why do liberals change the subject when they don't have an argument?

 

[acludem]

I live in a "battleground state" so we are already seeing many of these Bush ads. The attack ad against Kerry is remarkable for the lies in it. Like PalestianJew said Kerry is not going to raise taxes like Bush claims. Kerry would've been more cautious about going to war, yes, but that's a good thing. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, he had no WMDs. Saddam is scum, and I'm glad he's gone, but if we go to war against every dictatorship in the world, we'll be at war forever.

acludem

 

[CnsrvtveChrstn]

Kerry said he wanted to roll back Bush tax cuts. That's just like saying "I'm going to raise taxes"

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by acludem
Like PalestianJew said Kerry is not going to raise taxes like Bush claims.

KERRY: MAKE RICH PAY 'BUBBA' TAX

By DEBORAH ORIN and BRIAN BLOMQUIST


March 11, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - John Kerry yesterday said he wants to hike taxes on people earning more than $200,000 a year to the level they paid under President Bill Clinton - a move that would hit New York harder than most states.
Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) also ratcheted up the rhetoric - perhaps not realizing his microphone was still on as he was talking to a group of supporters - when he blasted Republican critics as "the most crooked . . . lying group I've ever seen." ....................................................


Kerry's call to hike taxes back to the Clinton levels means raising the 35 percent bracket back to 39.6 percent and the 33 percent bracket to 36 percent and taxing their dividends at 36 or 39.6 percent rather than 15 percent...........................................


The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, says Kerry's plan would mean a nationwide tax hike of $27 billion with $3.5 billion or 12.2 percent hitting New Yorkers - a disproportionate share since the state has just 6.7 percent of the national population........................




"New Yorkers live in a high-cost state so their salaries tend to be higher and any tax hikes aimed at the so-called wealthy will disproportionately impact New Yorkers," said foundation chief Scott Hodge.
The president expressed sympathy with economic anxieties in the state - it's lost more than 200,000 jobs since he took office..................




Link to full article

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Saddam is scum, and I'm glad he's gone, but if we go to war against every dictatorship in the world, we'll be at war forever.

So you either go to war with all of them or none of them? Brilliant. I guess I should never help anyone with anything because if I can't help everyone, how is that fair?