Will the American people fall for the same tricks again and again?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...17,00.html?=rss

Fortunately, a majority on this forum are not fooled by the likes of your tricks either. Too bad the British tabloids are having trouble with facts, but the British have always been raucus with respect to politics and being fast and loose with the facts.

You're in good company.

Bush really is compassionate! Am I just deluded, or has he increased the size of the state massively, with the biggest increase in Health spending since the 60's.

You can't winge about the defecit on the one hand, and claim that Bush has failed to invest in social goods on the other.

Yes, he has, but it is never good enough for the Collectivists, such as Thaiquila. Further, he is not their steed, so he just has to be terrible and worthy of their hatred.

The worst part is that they are too blinded to see just how hypocritical they are viewed.

No, perhaps you are correct on the spending part, which is related to the medicare changes, which were in effect a huge gift to the DRUG COMPANIES. This sham bush bill allowed NO NEGOTIATION FOR BULK DRUG DISCOUNTS and no importation from Canada, thus massively driving up the price to benefit who? The senior citizens? No. THE DRUG COMPANIES.

As far as other groups and health care, approximately FIVE MILLION more Americans lost their health insurance since the bush "election" raising the number to approx 45 million.

As a budding economics weenie, you are not looking at the holistic picture. Also, most of the increased deficits were caused by WINDFALL TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP FIVE PERCENT RICH ELITE, and massive military spending (much of it needed, much of it not needed as in Iraq).

If you are going to argue, argue HONESTLY!

Here is how weak and troubled the Bush Administration happens to be. In today's ABC The Note, is the following:


Now that shows Bush to be in real trouble, doesn't it TQ?

The ELECTORAL polls still show Kerry will win. That is what matters and what will matter on election day.

It does not really matter, they have plan to steal the election by invoking that Bush will win the popular vote. If he does, you can bet that they will do everything in their power to "blame" the collegial vote. The collegial system is an old and backward system, it should be removed. If things had be done correctly 50 years ago, Bush Jr wouldn't be here today. He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes. That's not Florida.

We have a similar constituency based system in the UK where every constituency elects an MP to the House of Commons. Every so often the boundaries are changed to make the elctions fairer, however this being said, the Conservative Party in the UK always get an electoral majority in the overall vote, and yet they need a massive landslide under the system to get an overall majority of seats in the Commons.

There was ORIGINALLY a very good reason for the electoral college. Back in "ancient days" where there wasn't instantaneous mass electronic communications. The reason was that small states would get attention.

However with today's advances and today's advanced POLLING mechanisms, the electoral system is obsolete and is creating more lack of fair representation than it prevents. For example, both parties know that most states are rock solid for one side or another. Thus, these states, some very important states like New York and California are basically IGNORED when it comes to campaigning and political attention. It is also very alienating for voters in these states to know there is no point for them to even vote if their candidate has no chance in their STATE race, because their vote has zero effect on the national race. I contend this is a big reason for the shamefully low VOTER PARTICIPATION of American voters, which pales in comparison to great democracies like India and Australia.

Reform is needed to account for the changes in modern reality. Ancient voters did not have up to the second polling. The designers of this system could not have forseen these developments.

The system needs to be reformed with a modern electoral system like most developed countries have. A two round system is a must. First round, multiple candidates, second round, best 2 candidates face each other. Under such a system, failures like GW Bush wouldn't have made the first round. Kill off the bugs before they get a chance to bite, this is how a modern system should work.

Hillary Clinton bought tons of stock in pharmaceudicals back when it was important to do so!

HA HA TQ said weenie HA HA

Be nice TQ. I have my doubts at times, but would like to think you a better person.

He!! if anyone should understand name calling, I would think it would be you, and therefore you might have a certain sensitivity.

Why don't you be that good guy?

What the CRIMINY are you suggesting?
That I am "SENSITIVE" or something?
I ain't "SENSITIVE" so why don't you stuff it where the la de da doesn't experience solar power?

You're right.

Thought you were a better person.

I'm sorry for you.

I wouldn't care if all the things the liberals say about Bush were true.....he'd still be better than Kerry!

No, he would be as bad as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao all rolled in one. And if it was true, I'd have to hustle out and shoot him myself.

But he isn't, nor will he ever be. Too bad TQ, Huey, Lamphun, and others.