arent we doing some forms of stem cell research right now, I mean it seems the biggest complaint is that which is done by fetal stem cells(sorry embryonic), still leaves the door open for the rest of them doesnt it.

well i dont know, maybe a regional thing or something, most of the people I know(average working americans NOT RICH) arent doing any complaining, things seem to be going at an even keel. they do how ever complain about the tax situation.... Im one of those people, since i wasnt deployed all year then i have to pay taxes(only fair) but i mean even after they took it out, i still have to pay more its not a lot but 124 bucks is a 124 bucks you know.

ok I see, so your saying for you, not for the country as a whole? If thats the case then theres no arguing from me, I hope it gets better for you.

really? and you can back that up with what. annual income rose how much last year and cost of live rose how much?

economy101

feast and famine? oh really.......

Economy Better Under GWBush Than Bill Clinton: Statistical Comparison

GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.

Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%

* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; bushrecovery; economy; inflation; poverty; unemployment; x42
A few more tidbits:
* "2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years" ~ The Conference Board's revised forecast, December 2003.
* Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs.
* GDP for the second-half of 2003 grew an incredible 6 percent while inflation was held under 1 percent.
* Real private-sector GDP has expanded at a 5.3 percent annual rate since the Bush tax cuts were passed while in the prior six quarters private-sector GDP averaged only 2.5 percent.
* Foreign exports have been increasing and have actually doubled since six months ago.
* The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s.
* The stock markets (i.e. your pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and college saving plans) have rebounded solidly and are approaching three-year highs.

And so even though GWBush "wrecked" the economy, caused a long and deep recession and threw 4 gabzillion people out of work - in just two years GWBush was still able to keep the poverty rate LOWER than what Clinton had done in almost EIGHT years?
* And all of this IN SPITE OF 9-11, which annhialated one of America's most important financial centers.
* AND in spite of waging two major overseas wars to overthrow two terrorist regimes.
* AND in spite of completely revamping and reconstructing our national security and intelligence agencies to defend against constant domestic terrorist threats.
* And yet we STILL have (as the numbers show) a far BETTER economy after three years of GWBush than when he first took office.
* And, as shown above, GWBush has had a GREATER positive impact on the economy than what Clinton was able to accomplish in his first three years.

Some key points:

As of February 2004, there has been a household gain of 2.4 million jobs.

Monthly job statistics began to be collected in 1939. Since that time, there HAS NEVER been positive growth in jobs two years after a recession ended. Instead, there's been a 0.6% decline. What's going on with the jobs,therefore, is entirely consistent with what's happened every other time there has been a recession. And we've never had a 9/11 before.

The net worth of all US households is $44.4 trillion, the highest level ever.

More than two-thirds of American families own their own homes, the highest percentage ever.

Weekly initial jobless claims have dropped from a high of 459,000 last year to 345,000 last week.

Consumer prices increased just 1.9% in the past year.

The unemployment rate is 5.6%. The average unemployment rate since 1980 was 6.3%. The average unemployment rate in the 1990's was 5.7%.

The stock market has advanced 45%

Factories operate at 20 year high.



but we all know its what have you done for me today with these people, they have no sound ideas of their own and only get media attention for bashing someones else's, and oh by the way for say "I HAVE A PLAN...." AND NEVER SAYING WHAT THE DAMN PLAN IS! I hate pretty much the democrat party, a bunch of brainless people who should be happy that republicans are here to insure that they dont piss away our country.

a voice of reason. thanx

That is truly funny smo, all of it.

its not going to happen, but it sure is funny.

That is a cheap shot no matter what side of the isle their on.

Im glad they stuck to their convictions, to bad there isnt some sort of law against reprisals.

Im just a medic so my opinion should be regarded as conjecture at best.

But yeah, i dont see why we have to keep so many non essentials there anymore... a small ezaple would be the people like the cooks, hell we hired all kinds of civilians to do all that, so cooks dont really ave a job there anymore, there sitting around or pulling BS shifts on a gate that already has more people there than anyones knows what to do with.

So yeah, I think you could pull out 50 or so thousand and not even blink... the problem is the fear factor from that, will the insurgents get the news that it is the cooks that are leaving or will they think it is the combt troops and start back up on killing.

I could make that promise, their just sissies ad have always been noncommittal.

And yet demanding that they be pulled out before the next pres is sworn in is somehow being honest with regard to whats going on in the real world... yet theres tons of press with them demanding that they be pulled out NOW! and no committment to do it themselves. its double standards at its worse, transparent and pretentious.

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/02/04/barack-obamas-anti-war-stance-is-a-fairy-tale/

this is a long one, and one that im sure most will not read, but it pretty much calls it like it is.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=092707_hillary_clinton_barack_obama_john_edwards_debate_msnbc_new_hampshire.htm


and there changing what exactly when it comes to the Iraq question?

Best Syndication) The MSNBC Democratic debates were held Wednesday at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire (See video Below). All three front runners, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, answered questions posed by Tim Russert. Although Obama said he was going to try to get the troops out of Iraq before the end of President Bush’s term, all three frontrunners refused to say they would get them all out by the end of their first term.

The war in Iraq and health care are the two biggest issues facing the candidates this election season. Taking a swipe at Hillary, Edwards said “I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions on Iraq. To me that's a continuation of the war.”

Obama said that we should be “as careful getting out (of Iraq) as we were careless getting in”. He said, as President, he would pull one or two brigades out per month and the “only troops that would remain would be the troops that would have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counter-terrorism activities in Iraq.”

When asked by Tim Russert whether there would be any troops in Iraq at the end of his first term as President, Obama said “I think it is hard to project four years from now.” Interestingly he did not commit to pulling the troops out if he were President, but insists on doing it while Bush was President.

Russert asked the same question to Hillary. “It is my goal to have the troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack, it is very difficult to know what we will be inheriting…. I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this President’s course in Iraq.”

“I can not make that commitment,” Edwards said. “I can tell you what I would do as President. When I am sworn into office in January 2009, if there are in fact, as General Patraeus suggests, a hundred thousand troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down forty to fifty thousand troops… The problem is, we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad, and the embassy has to be protected.”

FANTA!!!!!! zup....


so yeah, consistant if running for president, lesson learn from kerry?

I think the 100yr comment was a more tongue in cheek thing personally.... I mean he knows the history of the region, warring since before 400bc. so saying 100yrs is small in amount of time considering.

but if thats his biggest knock then i guess your voting for mccain over obama.

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1200118934 theres a video of her saying this if you want to take the time to watch it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

for those who believe that you cant trust our own government and wish us to run everything by the UN, here is what the UN itself has to say about the topic of WMDs that you crazy people say we never found.

the man is a rino and votes with you guys more than us, and because he shares some of your beliefs or is at least willing to comprimise his on the bases of helping america , he's now a flip flop king? come on man, tell the truth you liked it when he voted for your side, now your down on him because he's a republican running for president.

ouch,,, well hopefully the sheep will wake up, its not the same when they just lay there.

the cheney thing about him and hal(which he stepped down from and broke all ties with) has never been proven to be unethical or illegal,,,, these chuckleheads on the other hand have been proven to be unethical if not criminal.

I just thought that with people harping on him and not there own guys it was time for a fairer showing on the hypo scale.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

doesnt say that the war is illegal, or that we acted unilaterally.

oh this is just an excerpt you can find the rest of the law in other places on the net but i chose the source;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

your exactly right on there.

and it doesnt matter what the claim is either... complacency with the news to the point where they are spoon fed stories that arent true. what happened to the day of the real scoop hounds, hinding in trash bends to get the real story, their lazy and premadona's and expect people to give them credibilty just because they wear around their necks a press badge. dont know who's worse them or the politicians.