posted August 15, 2004 10:27 AM              

Voltaire - 'I dissapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

posted August 15, 2004 11:53 AM              

I wouldn't come out and say I support Bush outright, but I definitely prefer the Republicans over the Democrats any day of the week.

For those who oppose the war in Iraq - where was the liberal pacifist outcry when Serbia was bombed in 1999? Both NATO and UN conventions were disregarded in that action, many reports of human rights abuses were lies (hence false pretenses for the bombing... look up the truth about the mass graves in Racak for one) and Iraq's track record for human rights abuses is easily thousands of times worse than Serbia's real or fabricated atrocities.

posted August 15, 2004 12:21 PM              

I am not a card carrying anything, and reserve the right to judge the individual on his personal values, and how expresses them. I have registered Democrat and voted Republican and vice versa.

A man's personal history is always open to debate just as any woman's. No one expects Bush to be perfect but his campaign was won on mud slinging towards Clinton, doesn't anyone remember that? Everyday Clinton was insulted by the media and by the Bush campaign because he looted the White House, filled his pockets, had no regard for women, was weak and cried on camera, the insults were never ending.

Now that Kerry is doing the same thing, Bush is defending himself nobly. He wasn't that noble in winning the election, politicians will do and say anything to get elected.

Their promises are like air, good for one day.

Kerry is doing the same thing, so negative press is always a smokescreen from the Message.

What if anything will this candidate to differently for the people? how easy to focus on the negative. What is Kerry's record? So far the economy is still in a slump in the US compared to other countries including Canada so Bush hasn't done much to bolster confidence that way.

He may lose in the Carolinas and that's tough to do for a Repub. But look at the economy there? Want to work for Kentucky Fried Chicken anyone?

Looking at track records, which is the more compassionate candidate? If you believe a tough man is needed for the job than you are not looking for someone compassionate. How will out leader compare to Roosevelt who by the way had Moon in Cancer? How can a leader pull a country out of a slump if he doesn't show he is capable of being not only a general but a father figure?

Laura Bush is doing the smart Scorpio thing, she is baking cookies so people think of her as the Mommy of the country. Bush is trying hard to portray himself as someone we can trust. Is this an act, or is it real?

Which candidate bottom line do you trust to make a good leader, and save lives?

posted August 15, 2004 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

yeah like it's very hard to get a degree from those places when your dad is the president/in politics

---

George Bush earned his Bachelors Degree from Yale in 1968.
George Bush earned his MBA from Harvard in 1975

posted August 15, 2004 01:28 PM            

''George H.W. Bush, education and political rise:''
After the War he attended Yale University where he joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, and was inducted into the Skull and Bones secret society, helping him to build friendships and political support.''

''The family has built on his and his father's political successes, with his son George W. Bush's Governorship of Texas and subsequent election as President, and his son Jeb Bush's election as Governor of Florida.''

Just something I pulled off an online encyclopedia. I wanted to share it, to support what Ariesrocks said. Perhaps this is what she meant, although more simply put....

posted August 15, 2004 01:39 PM              

'We've had some real arguements on GU mainly because there are some who cannot contain themselves and insist on attacking the President on a personal level instead of voicing disagreement with the Presidents policies'

'Carter was the most inept, bungling meddler whoever sat in the Whitehouse'

Hmmmm???

xxxxxxx

posted August 15, 2004 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

I resent most strongly the statements 'those with a limited intellectual capacity' and 'those who continue to repeat the lie Bush didn't win Florida merely ignorant or is it a more genetic problem?' - how exceptionally rude and ill mannered; be that statement directed at myself or anyone with a differing opinion to ones own.

---

Well, are you one of those people who are going to continue in the fairy tale that Bush did not win the state of Florida in the 2000 election, a person living across the big pond in Britain? Are you one of the people who after 5-6 recounts of Florida ballots, recounts monitored by the DNC and an army of Democrat lawyers hired by Algore, now going to insist Gore won Florida?

Are you going to insist the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the Tribune Co. newspapers, the St. Petersburg Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Palm Beach Post, and CNN, a consortium of media who spent over $900,000 and nine months in an exhaustive study of the Florida ballots
came to the wrong conclusion? A consortium of mostly ultra liberal media who were against a Bush Presidency and only took up the study to prove Bush did not win Florida.

They are all factually wrong and you are presumably right? See what I mean? You know soulsista, you can have an opinion that there is or is not a God. You can have an opinion that you are in contact telepathically with a long deceased relative and I'm not about to call that ignorance. You cannot have an opinion contrary to proven fact and keep repeating that opinion in the face of proven fact without having either your motives or your intellectual capacity called into question. You might as well assert that Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Your lack of knowledge about the American system of government is shocking to say the least. The United States has an unbroken line of elections going back to the first election in 1789, the Washington Administration and each election has occurred exactly on time as mandated by the Constitution and the US government has been turned over to a new administration, many times to the opposition party.

With that said and in view of your allegation of dictatorship, please state your factual authorities that the US is degenerating into a dictatorship. Or is your allegation to be considered only your opinion. Because if it is only your "opinion", I have some opinions I could share with you about the past, present and future of Britain. I could start with your insane King George III, but wait, that isn't opinion, that's fact. Perhaps it's a fact your lying media, including the lying BBC has concealed from you.

Your allegation the American Press is censored is absurd but you're welcome to state any proof you feel will absolve you of ignorance of the relationship between the government and the press.
I'll state my authority for my statement the US press is not controlled by the US government.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.

Further, anyone with an ounce of common sense would have to conclude that if the government controlled the American Press, one of two things would be true. One, the incessant press attacks against the President would not have occurred and would not now be occurring. Two, a hell of a lot of reporters would be in federal prisons.

The state of Texas did not vote for Jesus Day.

The only Americans I know who are in the grip of paranoia are the far left radical Marxists who see their dreams of a Marxist America evaporating before their eyes.

You should not be confused by my statement that Europeans are incapable of defending themselves. They've proven that several times. Your friends across the Channel surrendered to the Germans with hardly a shot being fired. Last time they surrendered to the "little corporal", next time they should find someone of lower rank to surrender to.

American troops have been in Europe since WWII and after WWII were stationed in Europe to prevent the Soviet Union from adding Western Europe to their empire.

Europe wasn't even able to take care of a problem in it's own back yard and called on the US to intervene. I'm talking about Millosovic. One small country, Yugoslavia and it's later subdivisions, genocide and ethnic cleansing and you folks had to call on the US. Pretty disgusting display of hand wringing incompetence.

I don't know what they teach you in school in Britain or the rest of Europe for that matter but as for whether Britain was rescued by the US or not, I would remind you that France surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940. Britain suffered a crushing defeat at Dunkirk and had a General been in charge of German forces instead of the little corporal Hitler, Britain would have lost over 325,000 troops instead of only losing all it's capital war materials and weapons abandoned at Dunkirk when British forces were evacuated.

Point is, that by the time the US entered the war on December 11, 1941, it was Britain against Germany, France having already surrendered and the perfidious French had already began cooperating with Hitler. Britain had retreated to British soil and geared up for an invasion by Germany. It is a fact that your forces fought bravely and with distinction but you were outnumbered and Hitler had the entire resources of Western Europe to draw on, including the Italians. So, did the US rescue Britain? I would have thought you in Britain would have been grateful for the help....as we were when France intervened in our fight with England for our independence.

The US did deal with Stalin and Stalin's successors. We prevented any intrusion by the Soviet Union into Western Europe and stayed with it for close to 40 years. The cost to the US was and still is enormous but the President is preparing to withdraw troops from Europe, hopefully all. Then you in Europe can see to your own defenses.

As for the rest of the despots around the world, we'll get around to them too. First things first.

Are you attempting to suggest that earlier versions of the New Testament didn't feature Jesus as the principal figure in Christianity? Are you attempting to suggest King James had Christ make up by contemporary writers for political reasons?

It is demonstrably true that Carter was inept, bungling and incompetent in both domestic and foreign policy. It is proven beyond any doubt by recorded history.
Still, that isn't an attack on the essence of Carter. It doesn't question his intelligence...something he couldn't help in any event, nor does it question his spiritual nature both of which I have seen people here question about Bush. The one is fact and the other is lying rhetoric.

posted August 15, 2004 03:25 PM            

''Further, anyone with an ounce of common sense''....

Seems more personal than something in a debate, especially after all that has recently gone on in this site.

I'm not pointing this out to start another arguement, or to attack jwhop in any way, but I just would like it if we could have a debate, all differences of opinion shared, without resorting to that.

One other thing that bothered me:

''Your lack of knowledge about the American system of government is shocking to say the least.''

Sorry, but how many American's can say they are complete historians about English/British events? Certainly not me, and I live over here now and am in the process of reading several books on the subject, and planning on attending university studying it. Reason? So I can know what their view on their/our history is, as I'm sure there are many inconsistancies....

Please don't take what I said badly. I like reading what you have to say, you obviously have been well educated and do make for a good debate. But let's keep things a bit more civil, obviously Soulsista is taking what you say personally.

posted August 15, 2004 04:26 PM              

Most of the people who actually voted, were elderly conservatives, those who didn't have to work. Not that I am saying Bush lost Florida, but the media was horrible in saying that Gore won when he didn't, thereby encouraging more people to stay home from the polls.

That election was anything but normal, and it's obvious from living in South Florida, well can we spell corrupt? S.FL is one of the most corrupt places I've ever seen in or out of the U.S, every official seemed to be in the news, and the news wasn't good.

So when I heard about the election being rigged, trust me, no one in S.Fl denied it, or even questioned that. Maybe that's the way that state is, very apathetic, but there were serious problems getting to and voting at the polls.

S.FL is not New Hampshire, with friendly roads, and moderate weather in November, instead poll workers are rude, the weather nasty, the roads undrivable and if you have to drive an hour you may as well have to get to the moon if it's during rush hour. Officials in S.Fl are must more interested in lining their pockets than doing things like routine road work. The roads are the worst and the traffic lights barely work. You are taking your life in your hands just driving across town and I'm not joking.

The fact is, it's sad it came down to Florida for a decision since that state has always been a mess for voting, non union, but as many hispanic voters as California. Most politicians do not reflect the needs or the desires of the average person.

Last time I was there, they just spent 16 Million on one part of South Beach, but a few minutes away people live in total filth. So I can't say Florida was a fair fight at all,

However Gore dropped the ball big time by not doing enough to get people to the polls. What ever happened to plain old door to door getting people to register? They do this in smaller states but not in Florida. Florida is made up of tiny neighbourhoods and so door to door would have worked. Instead Gore relied on TV advertising when most people don't rely on TV as Florida is an outdoors state.

I am sure Gore would have been as unprepared for 9/11 as Bush since both were just concerned with their election. But is War necessary as if when we waste more lives, we are justifying something?

Regarding the argument
"what else can we do but go to war"

Well, a whole lot more, just because someone strikes first doesn't mean you send off people to be killed without a plan, fighting fire with fire just causes more harm,

Talk to any woman who has lost a son and I doubt you will find such a gung ho attitude about going to war, those troops are made up of people.

I will glady listen to anyone who supports war in general who has a family member missing a leg or eye who has to support that family member for the rest of his or her life.

Compassionate? War is never compassionate, Hiroshima did not save lives in the end. Talk solves a lot of problems and war is for the lazy in my opinion.

And yes I know Clinton dropped the ball, but he didn't talk much either, in fact he ignored most foreign policy in favor of domestic.

Possibly we need two Presidents, one for home and one for foreign affairs, or is it time for the First Lady to become Co-President?

Isn't it the job of the President to save lives and avoid war if possible by talking and negotiating? What will Kerry or Bush do next year?
Dare we ask the canidates the truth or can we guess what we will happen?

posted August 15, 2004 04:47 PM            

Gemini Nymph
posted August 14, 2004 01:09 PM
Well, no, but the sad thing is I think that bush didn't ave to be so uncompassioante. He's has a lot of emotional instensity about him but he's channeled that energy into being petty, small-minded, power-hungry and vindicative. I'm sure not being terribly bright hasn't help him make better choices. He's an alcoholic, so he definitely has ego and self-esteem problems, and being so privileged, I doubt he's been in a position where he's had to face those problems even if he's not currently drinking. That soemeone this dysfunctioanl became president is a very sad reflection if the poliyical climate of the US right now

The US aided the IRA in acts of terror for years, and somehow we still have the audacity to enlist the help of British troops who lost family members because of the IRA... Sorry to have turned this into a rant, sometimes I do that... it just seems to me that our intrests in that area of the world are not about freeing their people and setting up a democracy, there's oil in them there oil fields....

Ariesrocks!
posted August 14, 2004 01:23 PM
Not voting is very dangerous for democracy, I beg everyone to vote, if not the whole world will turn into a fachist regime

soulsista
posted August 14, 2004 03:27 PM
The United States are already progressing towards a dictatorship in my opinion. Yes, I agree with the last statement that everyone must vote but look what happened in Florida, it makes you wonder if America is a democracy in name only. I am British and I totally respect the political beliefs of all Americans on this site but for my say, I am praying that Bush voters wake up and see the truth. He is merely a puppet to front the real power, the neo cons

Ariesrocks!
posted August 14, 2004 03:43 PM
Well it makes sense that the biggest idiot in the world is a cancer,

Not that I wasn't interested in the original premise of the thread but this was all said before I made any comment.

There are those who say they don't want to fight but this is not the right road to a peaceful discussion and if you can't take it, the best policy is don't dish it out in the first place.

posted August 15, 2004 08:12 PM              

The Texan people didn't vote for Jesus day... exactly... religious fanatacism being shoved down the throats of the American people by misguided Xians that believe THEY are better than those of us who don't get caught up in that kind of unhealthy addiction ... addiction to religion. The government has no business mixing with Xians... they are two separate entities.

I will state again, the US IS NOT a Christian country. Just because there is a lot of them doesn't make them dominant. That's as ridiculous as saying most of the people in Washington state are white, so therefore Washington state is for WHITE people. Somehow Christians in this country think it's okay for them to discriminate because they are under the silly notion that they are closer to god. Well, most of the (so called) Christians in this country are no closer to god than Osama or Saddam. Sticking their noses, and family values into everyone elses busness... it is time for this to come to an end.

Don't get me wrong... I respect Christians that are actually Christian. The ones that don't judge. The ones that don't peddle their religion door to door. The ones that don't force it on anyone, but know it is OK to be of another faith. There are very few of these types of Christians. If the end time theories are true... I'm sure the majority of them WILL NOT meet up with Jesus. I'll tell ya something else... you sure won't find most of these Christians in large chruches. Actually, many of them wouldn't set foot in a church with those Christians. They know they're not good people. They're frauds.

So... you really think GWB follows the word of god? Let's ask ourselves about this situation in Iraq, shall we? What would Jesus do? Would he open a prison expressly for the torture of captured human beings? Would he throw bombs and shoot machine guns? I think not. Jesus was not the warmonger these so-called Christians are trying to make him out to be. Using the name of Christ for such brutality... it sickens me.

posted August 15, 2004 10:18 PM              

I'm sorry but Bush didn't lie, he was misinformed by three intellegence agencies all saying the same thing. He was misinformed by British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, and Russian intelligence. As the President of the United States, would you not think these were credible sources? I would. There is a fine difference between lying and being misinformed. Three intelligence agnencies all sayig the same thing, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." What else was the president going to do? Another thing, please stop playing that religion card over George W. Bush. There are millions and millions of people who would agree with Bush and his religious beliefs. When it comes to religion, the majority is on Bush's side.

posted August 15, 2004 10:44 PM              

I consider myself a Christian, but I do not agree with Bush's "Chrisitan act" or his pretense that the US is a Christian nation (and if you can't see that, you're not paying attention - sorry). Bush himself has been playing the religion card since 9/11. Therefore it's a legit *and* responsible for us US citizens to critique him on those grounds.

posted August 15, 2004 11:29 PM              

The Democrats are not fighting the Republicans, the bigger picture has a war going on that's much larger that affects us all. There are people in between..the undecided, other parties, and those watching, those who can't vote like children, all those who are affected by decisions made by politicians matter.

Who is right and who is wrong, is a very simplistic argument, are we arguing about which party is better or which candidate is a better leader? They are not the same thing. The President has to represent and care about the majority of the people in the US that includes both parties. IF he is in it for his career he's the wrong choice.

I am worried about those voting for a better world, there is not better world, we are only saving lives. Neither party is perfect, but if you are looking for perfection you will fight about it forever, what about right now?

Which candidate will save lives ultimately?

posted August 16, 2004 05:14 AM              

Show me proof he's not lying about lying, please. ... right... you can't.

Even so... someone was lying, and they should be fired. I presume it is him since he is not able to step up and make some heads roll for this. SOMEONE LIED... and he did NOTHING.

If you can't pack french fries into cardboard fast enough in this country, you get fired. But for this... nothing. Please. Give me a friggin' break.

And as I said in GU... I will stop playing the religion card against him when he stops playing it in MY government. There is no place for it there. This country is made up of more than Christians, and I demand to be represented in my government!

So, you get him to lay off... and so will I. Turn about is fair play.

posted August 16, 2004 08:42 AM            

These are the Presidents and their church affiliations. Do you suggest none of them were qualified to be President because they were members of religious organizations?

Perhaps you're not aware but Methodists are not at all considered to be fundamentalists. Or, is any person who goes to church and believes either the teachings of the church or believes what's written in the Bible a fundamentalist. Perhaps right wing fundamentalist?

Not to worry, John Kerry is probably your man, he obviously doesn't believe the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible.

President Religion
1 George Washington Episcopalian
2 John Adams Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian later in life, belonged to no specific religion held many Christian, Deist and Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison Episcopalian
5 James Monroe Episcopalian
6 John Quincy Adams Unitarian
7 Andrew Jackson Presbyterian
8 Martin Van Buren Dutch Reformed
9 William Henry Harrison Episcopalian
10 John Tyler Episcopalian/Deist
11 James Knox Polk Presbyterian/Methodist *
12 Zachary Taylor Episcopalian
13 Millard Fillmore Unitarian
14 Franklin Pierce Episcopalian
15 James Buchanan Presbyterian
16 Abraham Lincoln raised Baptist;
later no specific denomination
17 Andrew Johnson no specific denomination *18 Ulysses S Grant Presbyterian/Methodist *19 Rutherford B. Hayes Methodist
20 James A. Garfield Disciples of Christ
21 Chester A. Arthur Episcopalian
22 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
23 Benjamin Harrison Presbyterian
24 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
25 William McKinley Methodist
26 Theodore Roosevelt Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian *
27 William Howard Taft Unitarian
28 Woodrow Wilson Presbyterian
29 Warren G. Harding Baptist
30 Calvin Coolidge Congregationalist
31 Herbert Hoover Quaker
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Episcopalian
33 Harry S. Truman Baptist
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower Jehovah's Witness/Presbyterian
35 John F. Kennedy Catholic
36 Lyndon Baines Johnson Disciples of Christ
37 Richard M. Nixon Quaker
38 Gerald Ford Episcopalian
39 Jimmy Carter Baptist
40 Ronald Reagan Presbyterian
41 George H. W. Bush Episcopalian
42 William Jefferson Clinton Baptist
43 George W. Bush Methodist (former Episcopalian)
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
BTW, you never mentioned any law, policy, rules or procedures the President has implemented that shoved religion down your throat. Would you care to specify what Bush has done that compels you to either do or refrain from doing anything related to religion?

posted August 16, 2004 09:54 AM              

That has everything to do with politics and less to do with saving lives.

Kerry would like to criticize, that's true, but in the end, they are both politicians whose first responsibility is to get elected,

Who after the election is going to keep more from being killed and does anyone even care?

How cynical can you be if you think that religion and politics are worth dying for?

Ask me if I want to die for my religion first before waging war,

How much of this war is about terroism and how much is about intolerance for other cultures? Americans are not the most tolerant people on earth of other cultures you have to agree..

So again, I ask, who will do the better job, aside from popularity?

Roosevelt was very unpopular at the start too..
Carter was hated but his economic plan helps boost the economy that later politiicans took credit for, do we want a working President or a good looking correct one?

posted August 16, 2004 02:58 PM              

Overview http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/
Restore America's Respect in the World and Make us Independent of Mideast Oil

Today, we face four great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq; Fourth, end our dependence on Mideast oil. To meet these challenges, Kerry and Edwards will:

* Launch and Lead A New Era Of Alliances.
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike us. Kerry-Edwards will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its Allies.

* Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats.
Kerry-Edwards will ensure that our forces are fully prepared for the dangerous and vital missions they may face, and that America's military always remains second to none. We must extend our capabilities to better face new threats of terrorism, failed states and homeland defense.

* Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal.
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. Kerry - Edwards will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

* Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil.
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. Kerry-Edwards will create a new energy and conservation trust fund to accelerate the development of innovative technologies, such as more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, and creating clean, secure, hydrogen-based energy. Kerry-Edwards will also expand the supply of natural gas, assure 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and make clean coal part of our energy solution.

Create New Jobs, Strengthen the Middle Class, and Ensure Educational Opportunity

* Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America.
The Kerry-Edwards plan will end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to reduce the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, cutting taxes for 99 percent of corporations. The Kerry-Edwards plan also includes a New Jobs Tax Credit for new hiring in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

* Strengthen the Middle Class.
As incomes decline and costs rise, families are having a hard time paying their bills, let alone saving for tomorrow. Health care costs are up by nearly 50 percent, college tuition has increased by 35 percent, and gas prices have skyrocketed. A Kerry-Edwards administration will provide relief to middle class families by cutting taxes and investing in health care and education.

* Invest in the Jobs of the Future.
To keep America competitive for the future, a Kerry-Edwards administration will invest in research and technology and provide tax credits to unleash innovation in broadband, energy and small business. They will also provide a tax credit on up to $4,000 for each of four years of college tuition. And they will work for responsible immigration laws that honor America's promise and strengthen America's economy and security.

* Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington.
Kerry and Edwards have a record of fiscal discipline that is absent in this administration, and they have promised to live within the budget principles that helped lead this nation to balance the budget. Their plan will cut the deficit in half in four years, increasing economic confidence and keep interest rates from rising.

Provide High-Quality Health Care, Improve Education, and Strengthen Families

* Up to $1,000 of Health Care Premium Relief
The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide relief for employers who offer their employees quality health coverage by helping out with certain high cost health cases - saving families up to $1,000 per year.

* A Health Plan for Every Child
The Kerry-Edwards plan will pick up the full cost of the more than 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid. In exchange, states will expand eligibility for children's health coverage and low-income adults and enroll every child automatically.

* Manage Skyrocketing Health Care Costs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will improve health outcomes while reducing health care costs by cutting administrative costs, waste, fraud, and abuse; enhancing disease management efforts; and reforming malpractice insurance.

* World Class Education
The Kerry-Edwards plan will support more resources and more reform in our schools. The plan will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act so students have smaller classes and more textbooks. The plan will make reform work for our schools, supporting innovations in public schools like smaller schools, all-girls schools focused on math and science, and charter schools. And the plan will invest in afterschool programs so that 3.5 million children have a safe, quality place to go after school.

* Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher
The Kerry-Edwards plan will raise teacher pay, especially in the schools and subjects where great teachers are in the shortest supply, and will improve teachers' professional development and training opportunities. At the same time, the plan will create rigorous new tests for new teachers; provide higher pay for teachers who have extra skills and excel in helping children learn; and ensure fast, fair procedures for improving or removing teachers who do not perform well on the job, while preserving protections from arbitrary dismissal.

* Every Young Person Graduates
Today 3 in 10 young people do not finish high school, and half of Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans don't graduate. Kerry-Edwards will keep better track of graduation rates to hold schools accountable for raising them; will offer more tutoring and mentoring to at-risk youth; will make big high schools smaller when they are not working for their students; and will strengthen the high school curriculum so all students can graduate with a meaningful diploma.

I have found a flaw in his campaign. No parties. GW Bush has parties in supporters home's in every state, Kerry does not offer parties.

If you want voters you must offer a party or get together at least by GW's standard. I think GW may be on to something here.

If Kerry would just do the party thing, he may win.

Natasha

posted August 16, 2004 03:03 PM              

Are my examples not good enough for you?

I'm sure I can dig up all kinds of idiotic quotes from GWB Like THAT has ever been hard.

Again... people didn't vote for Jesus Day... GWB took it upon himself to put it into effect.

I'd be happy to find more evidence for ya though, JW I get a kick out of reading about his ignorance

posted August 16, 2004 03:34 PM              

OF COURSE THE BRITISH KNOW GEORGE III WAS COMPLETELY BLOODY BARKING - WE POSITIVELY CELEBRATE THE IT!!!!!!! (That really made me laugh)

Nothing has been taken personally Ghani - 'fact' ;-)

This particular Libran will return to the debating forum when I have a bit more time.

Ciao

posted August 16, 2004 04:21 PM              

What's the matter, hon? Can't come up with anything?

You're so quick to point out that Liberals can't point out facts... well, I have done just that.