the choice is rather simple: who is profitting more from terror? i doubt john kerry's name would even be mentioned. his opponent however, had made billions for his buddies. i didn't think we elected presidents so that they can enrich themselves.

this must be what trickle down economics is all about. they think that if the owners save money, that the money saved will be pumped back into the business creating more for all.

nice theory. only, it's not reality. considering the average CEO pay raise this year alone was over 50%, many in the 70's... and with the common worker pay raise about 2.5%, one can not with a straight face say that the more a company profits, the more the company will distribute back into the business.

sure, there are companies that are doing this... of course. but there are many, MANY more that aren't. considering outsourcing. qwest outsources their services, eliminates say 1000 jobs. the profits saved by that is instead being dumped into more luxuriious accommodations for the elite. how else would you explain why businesses are nabbin up humvee's instead of ford rangers? they get more of a write off on the humvee. so what happens to that write off? it goes into the pocket of the CEO. or it's spent on new offices for them. if it was going back into the business, say like with new equipment, safer conditions, or even raises (god forbid), businesses would be doing so much better than they are.

like the union guy said tonite: how can you expect a worker to lose his job to india, and go work at mcdonalds or wal-mart, and pay for that caddy? this will bite the greedy echelon on the butt if they don't change course.

now that the bushies have admitted to making mistakes about iraq, especially in the aftermath, but who knows, maybe they thought saddam was going to fight harder too. there were reports out that had the two coming to some kinda agreement, but i don't know. however, given the history of what we've laid witness to already, i wouldn't put it past these sick bastards. look at how they're handling osama. nobody's heard from him for months, probably as long as iraq has been happening. which makes you wonder. the paks are to hand him up in october. everybody's layin odds on what day. i say the 18th. why? i have NO idea. it's close enough to the election so that the lapdog obedient presscorp won't get bored with their excitement. isn't it strange how osama will win george the election.

but still, why is nobody looking at WHY they thought the iraqis would be throwing flowers instead of bullets. whatever gave them this impression must have made a BIG impression since they obviously ignored the right advice about needing more troops. i'm sure that had we done 3 things differently in iraq, things wouldn't be this bad, if bad at all.

1. make sure the soldiers are trained in how arabs live. this would alleviate the occupation conundrum.

2. make sure the money FOR IRAQIS that has been requested, and received, from congress GETS SPENT on things FOR IRAQIS. and while we're at it, EMPLOY IRAQIS to do it.

3. get rid of the neocon men behind the curtain.

come to think of it, arnold schwartzenegger's screaming of how 'girley-men' economics is ruining us all, is kinda strange coming from someone who played a pregnant mom.

how can anybody claim that we are now safer than we were before 9/11? are they completely out of their collective minds? the fact that we're more aware of terrorists who are more determined now than ever to strike us again shouldn't be an excuse for george to claim that he's making us safer.

because of him, is why the terrorists want to hurt us. that was true before 9/11, and that's true today. i'm not saying that we get rid of george that we will be immune to a terrorist attack... but our chances sure dive in a heartbeat.

why? because we'll have the real international cooperation that we need to defeat terrorism. and actually, staying true to my rule that terrorism isn't something you can bomb to win, you have to use education to win. and to use education, requires intelligent people doing intelligent things. and we all know intelligence and the bushies are about as foreign to each other as martians are to humans.

one of george's promises in 2000 was to cut taxes.
then cheney uses 9/11 as an excuse to cut taxes (to revive the economy that was "already sliding but fell off the cliff"), wouldn't it make perfect logic to assume that 9/11 isn't the tragedy for bush as he would have America believe? where is his sacrifice?

the problem isn't what george did after 9/11, it's what he DIDN'T do before 9/11. would America have the same adoration for this guy if they knew he expected 9/11 to happen and didn't do what he should have done?

how can America accept that bush is this fighter he projects himself to be, when he holds a history of being a coward? because the media helps to project this image, that's why. there's no other sane reason to support the complete success the ultimate CONjob.

well, the speech was just that. all talk, and no walk. kerry has taken the gloves off, i think. i hope.

God, I hope.

lipstick on a pig folks.

when will people start interrupting this "created a million new jobs" line the bushististas shove down everybody's throat? i mean, c'mon. a million new jobs at wal-mart & burger king maybe. that STILL leaves 1.5 million lost overall.... and those that have been lost were much higher paying. a double whammy if you will.

which is better? being honest about being immoral, or being dishonest about being moral?