2008 presidential campaign underway

News flash...job GROWTH is a good thing.

Bureau of Labor stats show that there has been a net increase of 2.37 mil. jobs since Bush took office.

Payroll jobs have been increasing since Sept. 03, immediately following the Bush tax cuts. Jobs are up 2.5 mil since then.

GDP was up 4.4% in 2004, the highest increase since '99s 4.5%

At the end of 2004, unemployment was at 5.4%, down from 6.3% in 2003.

I don't see how anyone can say the economy is doing poorly.

So what you're saying is that only poor students and "less than stellar" people should serve. The elite straight A students should be exempt from service.

Is that what you're saying?

 

The ONLY reason 2000 was amazing is because Gore threw a baby fit. He should have shown the same class that Nixon showed in 1960, be a man and put the country before his personal goals.

Whoever came up with those "Sore Loserman" signs is a genius.

Ummm.... There was no war in 2000, yet Bush's service was an issue.

 

It seems that you are having trouble in understanding a simple post. When did I ever say "only poor and less than stellar people should serve?"

Neither Bush nor Cheney were poor, both came from affluent families. Cheney dropped out of college twice because of poor grades, and had been arrested twice during his early twenties. He wasn't contributing much to society at that point in his life and there was no reason why he couldn't have served.

I was referring to Bush's "less than stellar" military record. Had nothing to do with him being a less than stellar person (even though most people including republicans will agree that he never was known for being too bright).

In contrast, Clinton grew up poor, and went to school on an academic scholarship. He didn't slough off and get everything handed to him on a silver platter like Bush did.

 

I said "poor student" not "poor people". If you're going to insult me please make sure you have read MY post correctly.

What "reason" does anyone have, or not have to serve?

Please define "bright". What evidence do you have that Bush is not "bright"? This seems to be more subjective than a matter of fact. The facts are: Bush has an MBA from Harvard. He was the Governor of TX. He is now the most powerful man in the world. How can someone who is not "too bright" achieve these goals?

All of the people on this board who have a comparable resume, please respond and tell us all how "bright' you are.

 

So what? Getting a Harvard MBA doesn't make someone bright. I know a couple of people personally with Harvard MBA's and their dumb as a box of rocks.

You certainly don't have to be bright to get elected governor. (See: Jesse "The Body" Ventura, and Ahhnold, among others.)

I'll tell you how someone like this can achieve these goals. 1- Money, 2- Having his his daddie's name recognition, and connections

This is how I form the opinion that Bush isn't all that bright:

- Difficulty in commanding the English language in public statements.

- Limited use of vocabulary ( 6,500 words VS the 11,000 avg. for former presidents).

- An average "C" student throughout high school and college.

I don't have a problem with anyone who is an average intelligence, average joe, but I think the US President should be a bit above average.

Some of you loyal little followers keep trying to come up with excuses for his apparent lack of smarts. Why bother?

 

How do you quantify the intelligence of a box of rocks?

Again... provide evidence that these two people are not bright.

Then how do you explain being elected to a second term? Name recognition only gets you so far. Eventually you have to prove yourself. Just ask Al Gore.

None of these have anything to do with a persons ability to lead, or to be respected by other people.

Many people have difficulty speaking in public. Bill Gates is no wordsmith, but I'd say he's pretty bright.

Many bright people have done poorly in school. ie Thomas Edison.

What's going on here is just another feable attempt by the left to discredit this President. You criticize the way he talks, or who his family is, or who his friends are. You dwell on his past indiscretions. You claim that he doesn't have "smarts". You hammer him with ad hominem attacks on everything he does. (Sounds like the same things you accuse us right wing bigots of doing)

But you can't beat him!

Why is it that the best and brightest of the Democrat party can't knock off this dimwitted rube?

 

What president doesn't have help making decisions?

Hell, whenever Clinton made a bad decision, he said it was Janet Reno's idea.

 

He got elected to a second term, because he ran against a poor candidate (Kerry).

I never said they have anything to do with the ability to lead, but they usually have something to do with a person's intelligence.

Bill Gates also isn't running for president. Someone running for president is expected to know how to speak properly.

You can't really compare someone from a different generation. Bush was given all the opportunity in the world to excel in school. Why didn't he? What's his excuse?

 

Since when did Ventura become known for being intelligent? I lived in MN during his time as Governor. I've talked with him on more than one occasion, and I know others that are close friends with him. Not one person that I know of has ever described him as being intelligent. Ventura is still a good guy though, and I have respect for him.

 

I've heard Cheney makes most of the decisions around the white house....

 

Yeah, Yeah...poor candidate, I didn't win the race because I had a rock in my shoe.

How many excuses can you people come up with for getting your asses handed to you? If he was so poor, why'd you nominate him?

Which amendment is it that says a president has to have a certain IQ or vocabulary?

Everyone in this country is given the opportunity to excel. Some do, some don't. I don't see how you can excel much further than President of the United States.

You know, you keep coming up with different attacks and criticisms of Bush. Most are based on opinion, like the one about him not being bright. Some are baseless, like the Supreme Court gave the election to him. And some are just flat out false, like the one about the poor economy. You even insulted me for misreading a post when in reality it was YOU who misread MY post. Criticize all you want, but you can't change facts.

Bush will go down in history as one of our greater Presidents. He is the first to attack terrorists where they live, instead of vice versa.

He will bring about massive change in the Middle East.

He's the first who has the balls to change social security. Something that others have only talked about.

He's not afraid to make controversial decisions. He takes chances. Some pay off, some don't.

I guarantee, you'll never make a mistake if you never attempt anything.

If your idea of a good President is one who sits around the oval office getting Lewinskis and never making a tough decision, then I can understand why Bush is not your man.

 

I've heard the moon is made out of green cheese.

 

In the past it's always been expected that a President should have an above average IQ and Speaking ability. History has set these expectations, not me.

All the stuff I said about him not being bright is common knowledge.

You made a comment, claiming that the economy is "going nuts." Not even close. Jobless claims have risen sharply over the last month. While there has been some slight growth in certain sectors, I would not classify this as "going nuts."

I misread a portion of your post, and you misread a portion of mine. You accused me of saying that only "less than stellar" persons should have to serve. I never said anything of the kind.

I bet your one of those loyal little followers that believe each and every word that comes out of the Bush Administration's mouth. After all, good ole george would never lie to us right?

And as for Kerry's nomination, I was not in support of nominating him. I knew right from the beginning that he had no chance. The democratic party has got some things they need to work on. At least I'm willing to admit my party's faults, unlike yourself.

Hopefully in 2008 we will have some more competent candidates up for election in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

 

And your source for this information?

Among who, the cast of SNL? I will repeat, "brightness" can not be quantified. It is a matter of opinion.

Maybe I'm nuts, but read this from February 17, 2005.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans claiming initial jobless benefits fell unexpectedly by 2,000 last week to the lowest level in more than four years as the U.S. labor market continued to strengthen, a government report showed Thursday

Remember, just saying something does not make it true.

There is no need to try to demean me personally.

I can understand why, after 8 years of Clinton, you expect the President to lie about everything.

As I said before, and you chose to ignore, Bush is not afraid to make tough decisions. Call him a cowboy, or nimrod, or whatever, he stands by his convictions. When he says he's going to do something, he usually does it.

He has the guts to do things that his predacessors only talked about. I respect him greatly for that. He will probably make mistakes. He probably already has. But he also has the potential to do great things that will change the world and this country forever.

No one ever accomplished anything by sitting on his hands.

Even though Monica liked to sit on Bill's hands.

 

You might want to try Reading the latest news. This is from Feb. 24, 2005.

Jobless claims rose by 9,000 to 312,000 for the week ending on Feb. 19th.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050224/bs_afp/useconomyunemployment_050224155819

 

Wow! Somebody deserves a big shiny medallion!

 

Speaking of Pennsylvanians, what do you think of Tom Ridge?
I wonder if he will be throwing his hat into the ring?

 

Thanks for making my argument. Read your story a little further. All the way down in the sixth paragraph.

"The four-week average of initial claims fell 3,250 to 308,750 for the week ended February 19, marking the lowest level of the average gauge since November 2000."

So I guess your statement that they have "risen sharply over the last month" is false.... Hey don't get mad. I'm just reading the story you told me to read.

This is just more typical left wing media. The headlines are gloomy, but if you actually read the story you find out it's not so bad after all.

Keep trying though, you might find a story that leaves out the facts. Try CBS or the NYT.