1: No, but I would have to be a pretty liberal democrat to blame my disabilities on Prs. Bush.

2: Yes, because of the $400 check we received, we were able to pay off a couple of credit cards, which lowered our monthly expenses. That, in turn saved us from the minimum monthly payments that our new budget forced us to pay (along with the interest accrued). So far that $400 has saved us over $1000. With that money freed, we were able to add to our car payment, so now that is paid off also. Because that is paid off, we do not need to apply for food stamps. Which, in turn reduces the burdon on the system itself.

3: Yes, recent reports show that Bin Laden's ability to inflict terror is so reduced that he felt the need to enlist the help of Zarqawi in Iraq. Terrorist groups have moved to Iraq to fight against freedom for Iraqis by killing them and our troops. This, instead of coming to the U.S. to kill us. While I don't think that ensures safety from terrorism, I see that they are signs that the Bush plan is significantly reducing the threat.

4: This question is a joke. Leadership is not about taking polls and popularity contests. It is about seeing a problem, deciding what can and can't be done about it, making a plan based on what was decided, and implementing that plan. So far, that is what Prs. Bush has done. Asking who likes us sounds a whole lot like saying, "But dad, little Johnny said that if I didn't do it his way I woudn't be able to be in the club!".

5: Every economic indicator has returned to what is considered "normal" ranges. The only indicators that haven't are the, "how can we second guess the numbers to make Bush look bad" scale.

6: Healthcare and prescription drugs are goods and services traded on the open market. Unless you are advocating socialized medicine, this has nothing to do with Prs. Bush. If you are insisting the office of the president take on the responsibility of healthcare in this country, are you equally willing to grant that office all the authority necessary to take on that responsibility?

7: No. The prevailing military doctrine put too much of our war fighting assets into the reserves and national guard. This was done at the expense of our homeland security. This doctrine predates Prs. Bush, but I'm sure a little thing like FACTS won't get in the way of your rhetoric. The truth is, the #1 thing that needs to be done for homeland security is for the people of America to start paying more attention to what is going on around us, and report what they see that isn't "normal". In fact, in all my security training, the first and most important thing we were taught was, "look for what isn't normal". Of course, any politician (including Prs. Bush) who gets up and says that nothing the government does is as important as an attentive population, and people should start reporting what they witness, they would be thrown to the PC and Conspiracy dogs.

8: But Col Gene, the best thing we can do about Social Security is continue the status quo... right? Therefore, unless you're admitting that Social Security is in trouble, the question is meaningless. If you are willing to accept that, then the best way to secure Social Security would have been for the folks in Congress to leave it alone. Of course, they didn't, so now it's headed for failure. Since Prs. Bush's plan is the only one on the table, I guess we should back this one. Now if any of the naysayers are willing to actually do something other than play Monty Python's Argument Clinic diplomacy games; saying, "No it isn't", to any claims that Social Security is in trouble, we might have something to talk about. Otherwise, we don't.

9: Same as 8.

10: The job figures are back up to what is considered "normal" ranges.... so, yes, the people who create jobs have been doing so.

11: No we're not, and Prs. Bush AND Congress need to work this problem. Of course, in a free society our borders are never going to be all that secure, but more can be done.

12: Yes and No. The National debt will never be paid off, because there is no part of the economy, budget or infrastructure under the Federal Reserve system to pay it off. In other words, every program, department and pork project has higher priority than the debt. Unless you are willing to see us destroy the rest of our economy, in order to pay the national debt, it's going to be with us forever.

13: Yes, and some of that lies with the government, but most of it lies with "We, the People". We are going into some major changes in our society. Name one major societal change in our history that didn't include equally major divisions. You can blame the president if you want, but again, are you willing to give the office of the president enough authority to take on the responsibility of making you and I agree on things?

14: That depends on which "experts" you listen too. Unfortunately science has become so politicized and undemonstrable, that niether side is worth listening to anymore.

15: No, but what laws are you willing to see enacted so that our society sells as much as we (the people) buy? Are you willing to handle the increases in inflation that would go along with those changes? If you are willing to see laws passed, restricting the freedom to choose for others, would you be just as willing to see restrictions placed on your own freedom to choose?

Well, there are my answers. Pretty good topics, it will be interesting to see how this one plays itself out.

I'd like to add a few:

-Abortion: When Clinton left office abortion rates were at a 24 year low. Under the Bush Administration there has been a substantial increase in abortion. Is this a good thing for America?

-Affirmitive Action: I've been reading articles at JU for a year now and can't recall ever seeing a Bush supporter - or Shrub himself - addressing "affirmative action" issues. Affirmitive action is baloney, even a five year old child can see that, and it's got to go. I can only conclude that Bush and his supporters are pro-affirmative action. So my question is: Why are you in favour of race/gender/sexual orientation quotas?

-Divorce: 78% percent of Americans recently polled indicated they believe that divorce is a major social issue. Over half of kids today don't have two parents at home and nearly half of all kids are born out of wedlock. What has the Bush Administration done to strengthen the family? He's done fuck all, so let me rephrase the question: Why is the Bush Administration anti-family?

-Illegal Aliens: Forget 14 million, the real figure is probably closer to 20 million illegal immigrants. I have to confess ignorance here; I just can't see how Fortress America, of all places, allows that many illegals in their country. I just don't understand it. Is it true that illegals get schooling, drivers licenses, etc. in your country without the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? you can do the separation of powers two-step all you want to shift blame elsewhere but I can't believe that the POTUS is so impotent as to let his country get run over by third world immigrants who don't pay into the system. So my question is: why are you pro-illegal alien?

-Deficit: i'll cut right to the chase: why are you pro deficit and in favour of bankrupting your nation?

-War: Let's be honest, the "reasons" given for invading Iraq have not withstood the test of time. Even the most neo-con jingoist doesn't believe that "Iraq has nukes" stuff that Cheney was pimping to get Congress to vote for the war. Are you OK with the fact that your government blatantly lies to you about the reasons for going to war, and that you, as a citizen, have to guess what their real motives are?

-International Co-Operation: Suppose for a moment the "Bush Doctrine" (ugh) of "exporting democracy" is 100% legit. Because Bush & Co. lied to the rest of the world about Iraq, not to mention air force pilots high on military supplied methamphetimines bombing the shit out of their Canadian allies in Afghanistan, USA torture policies and use of stuff like depleted uranium which has led to 325,000 US soldiers on disability, you can forget about ever building a coalition with anything approaching moral authority to take out the whackjob dictators of the world. Do you think Bush's lying, his pro-torture policies, his disregard for the health of his own soldiers, and his bombing of allies helps or hinders America's ability to form *necessary* coalitions to finally stamp out tyranny around the globe?

-Unity: Is Bush a uniter, or a divider?

-Safety: Do you think invading countiries halfway around the world which are under strict sanctions, have never attacked US soil, and don't have the capability to, is a smart way to make your country more secure, or do you believe that invading Muslim countries for God knows what reason actually makes Americans more vulnerable to attack because it gives Muslims a genuine reason to be pissed off?

-Environment: The Bush Administration has significantly weakened environmental laws, clearly putting corporate profits ahead of healthy citizens and clean air and water. Why do you hate clean air and water?

-Science: The Bush Adminsitration's contempt for science is well documented. Are you confortable with an administration that is hostile to science?

-Fearmongering: Ever wonder where those yellow/red "terror alert" thingies went? Ever notice that since Bush wrapped the election up they - and apparently terrorism - don't exist anymore? Researchers and pundits alike have shown a *very* strong correlation between the issuance of these alerts and Bush's fortunes in the polls. Whenever Bush support sagged or Kerry gained traction, a new "terror alert" went out. You can see the chart at slapnose.com/archives/2004/08/06/terror_alerts_vs_bush_approval/ My question to you is: do you agree or disagree with the Bush Administration using these "terror alerts" to try and trick Americans into voting for Bush?

Looking forward to your replies,
David St. Hubbins

How about the elephant in the room: Where are the WMDs?

Latour, I'll answer that the same way I always answer that stupid question:

We know Hussein has them, there is no record of what he did with them, so, instead of asking us where they are as if they never existed, the "Where Are They" question should be, "Where are they now?"

Apparently neither the UN or Bush bashers are worried about them, unless it's asked as a strawman fallacy against Prs. Bush.

Now, nice job of hijacking, but can we stick to Col Gene's questions, afterall, it is his blog!!!

Are you and your family better off financially? Yes
Have the tax cuts helped you? Yes
Do you feel more secure? Yes
Has the way other nations view America improved? Yes - in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan. Europe & South America - don't particularly care

Have we begun rebuilding our infrastructure? Begun? Are you one of those survivalist guys living in a cave somewhere?
Can you afford healthcare and prescription drugs? Yes
Are we doing enough for Homeland defense? Not yet
Have we made Social Security financially secure? No, but that job belongs to Congress
Have we made Medicare financially secure? No, but that job belongs to Congress
Have we created jobs? Yes
Are we controlling our borders? Not as well as I'd like
Are we repaying the national debt? Have before, will again
Is America more politically polarized? Thanks to folks like you
Are we protecting the environment? Yes, adequately
Has our trade deficit improved? It will, just as it has cyclicly during our existence

Enjoy your little non-scientific and pretty much meaningless rhetorical poll. I doubt the answers will have a feather's impact on your thinking.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'll play along.

Are you and your family better off financially? Yeah, but through our own hard work, not due to any politician of any flavor.
Have the tax cuts helped you? No. Well, that first relief check bought a decent dinner at an OK restaurant for 2.
Do you feel more secure? No, but I don't feel any LESS secure, either.
Has the way other nations view America improved? No, and Daiwa's response is the exact reason I feel like conservatives are arrogant and blind. Then again, if you live in South America, your opinion wasn't that great under Clinton or anyone else.
Have we begun rebuilding our infrastructure? Did you have something specific in mind? We've had several major improvement projects in my state for highways, airports, and riverports. So I don't know about "rebuilding" but we've improved ours here.
Can you afford healthcare and prescription drugs? Yes.
Are we doing enough for Homeland defense? Too much in some cases. Not enough in others. Same as it was before Bush.
Have we made Social Security financially secure? Have the Democrats?
Have we made Medicare financially secure? No.
Have we created jobs? Yes, despite the losses of the first term.
Are we controlling our borders? I'm not anti-immigrant, so I don't care.
Are we repaying the national debt? No.
Is America more politically polarized? Not nearly enough.
Are we protecting the environment? No, the environmental record of the Administration is an example of gross malfeasance. Bush's environmental record in Texas was abysmal, he's done no better as President.
Has our trade deficit improved?No.

"Where Are They" question should be, "Where are they now?"

Scott Ritter keeps saying that 98% of Hussein's WMDs were destroyed by 1998. That the anthrax the Iraqis made only had a shelf life of 4 years. That the Sarin nerve agent only had a shelf life of 2 months. Since no active facilities were found, it seems pretty clear that that remaining 2% unacounted for had passed it's peak of freshness, shall we say?

Of course, you probably still think Iraq was behind 9/11.

Scott Ritter keeps saying that 98%

Of course Scott Ritter also swore that Hussein had them and they would have been found if the UNSCOM inspectors were given more time too, so. Either way, there are lingering questions.

Of course, you probably still think Iraq was behind 9/11.

Nice try, but no banana, we went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Hussein in Iraq, both having to do with terrorism, but since 9/11 was not the end all, be all of anti American terrorism, I don't see why anyone would continuously harp on a completely innane question.

You can do better than that Myrrander. If one of your students pulled that trick on you, you'd probably reverse any statements you've ever made about how there are "no stupid questions and laugh at the kid in front of the whole class!! ;~D

Myrr -

You got me thinkin' a little bit (always dangerous). I was being a little flippant with that comment about not caring what some countries think of us.

A more appropriate answer would be that I am concerned less about what some countries think of us than others. I have a tendency to operate under the rule that I can only change or control what I do, that I cannot control the behavior or beliefs of others (nor would I want to). Came out of raising a couple of challenging children. I tend also to generalize that concept to entities like nations, appropriately or not.

I believe we need, and have a right, to make choices we feel are in our best interests and in the best interests of our children's future. Making the reasons for our choices clear to others is appropriate, but we can't force them to endorse what we have chosen to do. I would have hoped that the memory of what this nation did in Europe following WWII would have been a bit longer and would have afforded us some benefit of the doubt, but that is certainly not required. A marker was not attached to the Marshall Plan, and the sovereign countries of Europe are free to form & hold their own opinions. Likewise, the reunification of Germany and liberation of the Eastern European nations through the winning of the Cold War came with no quid pro quo. But there is a certain lack of gratitude which informs much of European thought and political posturing that leaves me feeling a bit indifferent about what those nations think of us. Granted, they have to contend with many of the same issues and may, for reasons of demographics & geographics, wish to take a different approach. However, that should not dictate to us how we go about achieving our security objectives.

Cheers,
Daiwa

-Abortion: When Clinton left office abortion rates were at a 24 year low. Under the Bush Administration there has been a substantial increase in abortion. Is this a good thing for America? -Affirmitive Action: I've been reading articles at JU for a year now and can't recall ever seeing a Bush supporter - or Shrub himself - addressing "affirmative action" issues. Affirmitive action is baloney, even a five year old child can see that, and it's got to go. I can only conclude that Bush and his supporters are pro-affirmative action. So my question is: Why are you in favour of race/gender/sexual orientation quotas? -Divorce: 78% percent of Americans recently polled indicated they believe that divorce is a major social issue. Over half of kids today don't have two parents at home and nearly half of all kids are born out of wedlock. What has the Bush Administration done to strengthen the family? He's done fuck all, so let me rephrase the question: Why is the Bush Administration anti-family?

What do you have rocks in your head? How are higher divorce and abortion rates tied to Bush? Lets get real here shall we?

-Science: The Bush Adminsitration's contempt for science is well documented. Are you confortable with an administration that is hostile to science?

Can you show proof? More than likely not.

re Are They" question should be, "Where are they now?" Scott Ritter keeps saying that 98% of Hussein's WMDs were destroyed by 1998. That the anthrax the Iraqis made only had a shelf life of 4 years. That the Sarin nerve agent only had a shelf life of 2 months. Since no active facilities were found, it seems pretty clear that that remaining 2% unacounted for had passed it's peak of freshness, shall we say?

There is NO proof that they were destroyed!

There is NO proof that they were destroyed!

there's proof a lot of them were -- documentation from both the inspectors and the Iraqi government...sorry, but that WMD dog just ain't gonna hunt, you better stick to the "spreading freedom" thing...

Daiwa -- I appreciate that response, you've once again proven to me that you are thoughtful and reasonable. I don't have the time to respond completely, but you make some good points there.

Some great answers. Keep them comming. My purpose is to stimulate thought and have people ask and answer questions honestly.

There is NO proof that they were destroyed! there's proof a lot of them were -- documentation from both the inspectors and the Iraqi government...sorry, but that WMD dog just ain't gonna hunt, you better stick to the "spreading freedom" thing...

You poked the pooch on that one myr. A lot of them does not equal all of them does it? And it only takes "1" to make a large mess.

Just a follow-up for Myrrander -

One thing that occurred to me after my last reply here might help explain the prevalent anti-American sentiment in Europe, or at least seems plausible. An overwhelming majority of living Europeans were born after 1950 and had no direct experience of WWII, though they might have some childhood memories of reconstruction. I suspect, based on no supporting data, only a hunch, that many of them still view us through the prism of the Viet Nam war, the defining event of our young adulthood, which was far more adamantly opposed over there than here, and we appear through that prism to be rather evil. The outcome of the Cold War was apparently unable to shatter that prism or favorably impact their view of us very much.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Daiwa