___________________ The more aggressively we use our power to intimidate our foes, the more foes we create and the more we validate terrorism as the only effective weapon of the powerless against the powerful." - John Brady Kiesling Posts: 15 | From: USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Every so often events conspire to throw up a period that will be defined by the men who play significant roles in shaping that period. When we cast our eyes along the long thread of history we find so many activities and pains and human response to them that no one remembers now. For example, the Assyrian mother's cry for a son lost in battle, the clang of steel as Uthman Dan Fadio dominated his will and religion upon the seven Hausa kingdoms. Almost, everyone who ever lives sooner or later gets forgotten. Nothing of them exists. But along that long thread of history there exists some slight bumps to denote specific periods when human history experienced cataclysmic events. These moments are often defined by the men who mastered or at least tried to master the storm. Hannibal and the Carthaginians remain with us today because of their heroic attempt to defeat Rome before it conquered all of Italy. Also, when we think of the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries we think of the grim men of faith who attempted to master it like Loyola, Cardinal Richelieu, Oldenbarnevelt and Mazarin. The two world wars provided such historical bumps and littered the stage with its cast of heroic characters, Eisenhower, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and of course, Hitler.
My point is that certain events have to play themselves out and in the process provide historical bumps for which humanity in that period gets remembered through the masters of that epoch. It would appear that it is the same with president George Bush II.
At the just concluded Democratic Party convention in Boston, the Democrats had an excellent opportunity to present themselves before the country as opposed to the war in Iraq, instead, they spent all their time talking about different ways to fight the war. "We will work with our allies...", the party nominee, John Kerry told us. In so doing, I think he committed the equivalent of a political suicide - that is he surrendered the agenda and the election to Bush II. He agreed with Bush that the Iraqi war and the U.S instigation and participation in that war must continue. He further failed to provide his listeners with an exit strategy and a time line for leaving the hornet's nest that is now the Iraqi misadventure.
History will now play itself out. The fissures that make the few bumps that we remember in the long unsung and unrecognized thread of human history are already at work. The war in Iraq was a grevious error but its denounement will inelectably occur. Both parties, the U.S and the Iraqis and their fellow Arab/Muslim sympathizers are locked in a civilizational war though they do not know it.
The two world wars were also civilizational wars but their beginnings were inauspicious. It took a shot from a Serbian nationalist to trigger a war that destroyed the flowering youths of Europe. When Austria felt it must avenge the Serbian assasination of its duke and Russia was drawn in by the compulsion to defend Serbia and the slavik race. Germany had to enter on the side of Austria. The rest as they say is now history. But why would countries such as Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain throw away their fortunes and incidentally, their futures on the roll of a dice? It gets murkier. Germany must attack Russia, newly industrializing and thus a decade away from achieving military parity with Germany. France, with a declining birth rate must attack Germany because Germany is a decade away from surpassing the French in population. Thus that which was historically inevitable had to occur. WW2, came about too based on errors. Would Germany have attacked Poland in 1939 if it knew what precipitious response it would arouse in London and Paris?
So it must be with the present civilazational war which will get worse because John Kerry did not present a clear alternative on the Iraqi war and because of the character of the man, George Bush II. Bush II will win re-election because Americans want war. I suspect that such internal pollings were responsible for John Kerry's support for continued American military involvement in Iraq though with the proviso that the allies be invited to share the burden and probably not the war fortunes that acrues to the conqueror of Mesopotamia. And Americans throughout their history rarely vote a sitting president out of office in times of war. Lincoln, who came close to losing because of the barbarity and carnage of the American Civil War, won his re-election.
I had spoken earrlier about the character of the man, Bush II. What I would like to add is that he is equipped for making the war in Iraq into something else. His nature and probity will allow him to play on the fears of the American electorates. By this measure, he will control the political agenda and the topic that will play out on the evening news which is where a majority of Aeericans get their facts from. But he actually believes in what he is doing he will not mind a further escalation of the war and horrors in Iraq. No, he will not use American soldiers for the new horror that is about to unfold there. Rather, he will bring in the Pakistanis and he will bribe the Russians to send their soldiers to Iraq. There, the Russians will use battle field tactics - the kind that destroys everything on its path and denudes forests of their trees - perfected in Checyna. The stage is being set.
First, Putin, ever the cagy spymaster, reveals to the world press with specific attention to an American audience, that the Russian successor to the KGB secret police, had uncovered plans that Iraq was looking for ways to attack America.Voila! Just like that. And no one asked the critical question. "Why did Russia not reveal this information to the Americans before now?" If they did, the refused to pursue it to its logical conclusion. Why would Russia want to play the American game and favor Bush?
It boils down to countries having permanent interests and never permanent friends. Russia was a patron to Iraq before and after the Iraq-Iran war. But Russia needs something from America which its old friends in the Arab and Muslim world cannot provide it. It needs control of Central Asia especially with a restive Muslim population. Russia cannot act willfully there because of Turkey, a member of Nato and an ally of the United States, will intervene, to support the Turkmen who are spread across that part of the world. Turkey that is under the control of an Islamic party and whose policies in Iraq have become an obstacle to American wishes for the Kurds of Northern Iraq.
Russia will be compelled to act in Iraq before the November election here. Forget finding Bin Laden or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Russia and their involvement in Iraq will represent Bush II trump card and further reinforce the political paradigm he is running on and with which he will squeak back in to the White House for a second term; tough on security, tough on terror and one that can be trusted to deliver the homeland from the danger of middle eastern terrorists.
Today, Bush II spoke about the danger that lurks around the United States. Unspoken but not forgotten is Iranian effort to build nuclear bombs. Pakistan had already acquired its own. Bush and a great deal of Americans understand that Iran must be stopped. Otherwise, the cnsequences of doing so later will be catastrophic. Israel understands that all too well. Bush, for good or ill, sees himself as being on a mission. He will attack. That is his nature. It is also his character. More able men will shudder at the choices before them but not Bush. He is not the thoughful kind as is John Kerry(remember the accusation that he waffles)to recoil from these choices. He is ruthless. He will not sit on his hands while "danger gathers around the United States". The electorate knows that of him. They do not know that of John Kerry, a war hero with three purple hearts. And the electorate, at the end of the day will vote for the devil they know. Then, the tragedy will begin. The fissues will form. And this bump of history will be completed. Enjoy
___________________ Acting Major Benbella Posts: 27 | From: Madison, Wisconsin | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
Look man, it should have been a political mistake if Kerry had set a timeline to pull the troops from Iraq. In my veiw, he was right not to have done so.
Bush has been widely criticized for unilaterally going to Iraq without the major allies (France, Germany and Russia). So, there was nothing wrong in stressing the need to work with internatinal community including the UN to bring the war in Iraq to an end. Kerry needed to show too that he is not weak on defence which is Bush'biggest strenght.
Kerry, on that day, laid out his economic plans to move America forward again. I think he covered much about everything.
Posts: 288 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
Welcome back from Boston. I have some bad news for you and your party.
The Democratic National Convention was a failure. As they are wont to do, the Democrats squandered another opportunity to define the issues and discredit their opponent. Kerry and Edwards have failed to explain satisfactorily why they voted for the war in Iraq, but Kerry voted against funding the war. Speaker after speaker in Boston was pre-admonished not to attack Bush. Hence, the Democrats did not lay a glove on the record of the dullest brain to ever occupy the White House. What is the use of a convention if you are not going to attack your opponent who has spent 90 million dollars attacking you?
It is therefore no surprise that Boston, which was supposed to produce the bounce that would propel Kerry into the White House has turned out to be a concrete trampoline, with zero or even negative bounce for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. For the first time in decades, a convention has failed to produce a bounce for the candidate of a major political party in the US, and Kerry seems to be doing the same or worse in the polls than he did before the convention. Kerry will have other opportunities to redeem his candidacy during the presidential debates.
He should start reviewing the script of that master politician, "The Man from Hope;" LOL! the man who stood on the podium and told the incumbent Bush Sr., It is the Economy, Stupid. Today, the economy is shot, but It is the Security, Stupid! Beyond pledging to work with "our allies," (whatever that means), the UN, etc., Kerry must tell Americans how he differs from Bush on homeland security, and what he would do differently. Otherwise, I see a lot of Ketchup in his future. That is if Theresa Heinz does not dump him for wimping away the election to Bush. Pittsburghers don't mess around; we don't call them steelers for nothing.
___________________ No Biafran will be permitted to play Mother Theresa to the Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani, but play Osama Bin Laden to the Igbo or Biafrans! Posts: 1182 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
"Kerry, on that day, laid out his economic plans to move America forward again. I think he covered much about everything." - Rick
Rick:
You may be right but time will be the final arbiter of how the election plays out. Speaking of "economic plans", you must admit that even on that Kerry was not specific in his acceptance speech. He provided us with an overview of what he intends to do. This may be explained by the time constraint he faced.
The economy is for Bush to lose. And Kerry's to exploit its weaknesses against Bush. But as important as the economy is this election will be decided by the war in Iraq. It was Kerry's responsibility to shift the paradigm that Bush introduced by invading Iraq last year. He failed to do so. Instead, he quibbled about the conduct of the war but not the war itself. Therein lies his probable defeat.
If the war must be fought as Kerry appears to agree with Bush then who among the contenders does the American electorate believe will make a better war president and lead the country to safety? Bush or Kerry?
___________________ Acting Major Benbella Posts: 27 | From: Madison, Wisconsin | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
You see, Kerry's hand is tied because he voted for the war in Iraq. So, to avoid being seen as waffling, he has to be very diplomatic. And, he was indeed. His main attack on Bush is how the war is being conducted and not why the war is being fought.
Damian,
Not constantly bashing and attacking Bush during the convention was a good strategy. If the Democrats lose, it is not because, they did not bash and attack Bush during the convention. The planners of the convention were happy that the convention went well as planned.
Posts: 288 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
Glad to have you back in here. Each time I hear folks screaming about bush I wonder why. I do not wanna delve into it further than this since I don't intend to start another rounds of fight. People check this, an ex friend of mine in Houston who you won't believe bush made unemployed is one of his biggest worshippers. After several attempts to figure this mess out I finally sent an email to his wife informing him to stay away from me, men.
The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition, defines "liberal" this way: "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad minded." And this is a crime? Bush defined
How anyone who was seriously employed under Clinton would turn around and support someone based on removing saddam beats the crap outta me. Guys, this is not the time to be hanging with mental midgets. You never know the s*h*i*t could be highly contagious and it is infectious.
In ending, Nwa Biafra remember the name you bear, when it came to pass, remember BIAFRA. In my hearts of hearts I wish the rest of nigeria everlasting peace though without us. Enough already!
Acting Major:
quote:If the war must be fought as Kerry appears to agree with Bush then who among the contenders does the American electorate believe will make a better war president and lead the country to safety? Bush or Kerry?
Someone who served and fought for his country or one who dodged and boozed his way back to pappy's enclave? If you want to maintain objectivity and fairness without pandering to Fox News old line, you tell us. Remember our Igbo saying that goes thus; "the one who called first on the cops does not necessarily win." Bush started an illegal and unjust war does not by any imagination mean he knows what he's doing or should be allowed to continue. In fact in a situation like this a regime change becomes necessary. Look at it this way during your time in secondary school it took the intervention of a third party to end a feud. Right?
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Acting Major Bendella and Damian,with all due respect this thread is for the discussion of the trouble in upcoming Republican National Convention. Both of you conveniently did not say anything about that.
It is really interesting that both of you are going againt warning by Webmaster and the Administrator of this forum to keep discussions in appropraite threads.
There is a thread already for the Democratic National Convention which the proper avenue to discuss the issues both of you are discussing in here. I will respond accordingly if you guys take it to the appropriate thread.
By the way Damian thanks for welcoming me back from Boston. Same goes to you MeBiafran my friend.
MeBiafran,
I hear what you are saying, make not mistake about it, I'm keeping my eyes on the PRICE...Biafra.
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
I hope you enjoyed Boston, welcome back.How come you did not admonish MeBiafran the same way you did to Damian and Benbella ? I feel they were all guilty of the same crime if they was any crime at all.
Anyway Bush is going to come to the RNC and insist on life as usual. He will defend the war easily because Kerry had nothing new to say and like many are saying it will boil down to the devil you know. I am not particularly crazy about Bush, but to be honest Kerry has not given people any reason to jump ship. The RNC will actually be more succesful than the DNC, because once again Bush will set the new agenda for the elections and Kerry will still be trying to define himself.
Posts: 1532 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: How come you did not admonish MeBiafran the same way you did to Damian and Benbella ? I feel they were all guilty of the same crime if they was any crime at all.~~~Chiboy
I did not admonish MeBiafran because he was responding to the two fellows mentioned above. If you noticed I did not admonish Rick either for the same reason.
As to your reference to crime, crime is not right term violation of the rules is more like it. Which the Administrator can remedy by moving the posts to an already existing appropriate thread if deemed not relevant to the discussion of this thread.
Responding to what you said about Bush setting the agenda, everyone already know what Bush's agenda is, if he tries to lie again about "compassinate conservertism" the people will see through all that. Bush is simply put a NEOCON and the people of America know and reject that.
Make no mistake about it, I give Republicans credit for being masters at spinning and being on the offensive(wish Democrats could be half as good) but the public is ready for change and Bush has not offered them any reason to re-elect and give him 4 more years.
The issues people vote on when it comes down to it economy, since Bush's economic policy effect on the American people is so bar they will vote him out come November.
Therefore, come January 2005 you and the general public will have John Kerry as the President of Untied States.
By the way, Chiboy thanks for welcoming me back. It is nice to be back home and to get back into this forum.
Thank you dear for that answer that was gonna be mine before I read yours. I'm sure our brother chiboy does not have any problems with that explanation as to why the radar missed me. lol.
Chiboy how are ya? I see you're still feisty, huh? Anyway someone told me that we're both Chicagoans.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
You must pardon my error if I unwittingly posted my musings regarding Bush II's chance for re-election on this thread. Because you had titled this thread "Republican National Convention", I felt it appropriate to deploy my comments on the leader of the Republican Party, George Bush, here.
MeNiafran:
I was particularly struck by your overall comment but chosed not to quibble with it except the portion that you specifically addressed to my attention below.
"Acting Major:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the war must be fought as Kerry appears to agree with Bush then who among the contenders does the American electorate believe will make a better war president and lead the country to safety? Bush or Kerry? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone who served and fought for his country or one who dodged and boozed his way back to pappy's enclave? If you want to maintain objectivity and fairness without pandering to Fox News old line, you tell us. Remember our Igbo saying that goes thus; "the one who called first on the cops does not necessarily win." Bush started an illegal and unjust war does not by any imagination mean he knows what he's doing or should be allowed to continue. In fact in a situation like this a regime change becomes necessary. Look at it this way during your time in secondary school it took the intervention of a third party to end a feud. Right?"
Well, the story of what Bush did during the war in Vietnam is old news now. It was there in the last election four years ago and I think that the electorate will not vote against him this time for that. Just as they didn't in the last one. The point I made and which you appeared to have missed is that Kerry will lose because of what he failed to communicate to Americans regarding the Iraqi war. He chose to play it the Bush's way and may very well regret that poor choice.
You act or sounded in your posting as if I am a republican and thus interested in Bush's re-election. Nothing can be farther from the truth than that assumption. I simply weighed what transpired at the Democratic convention and noted Kerry's significant failure to take advantage at the problems Bush created in Iraq and in the world by invading Iraq. By choosing to talk about the degree of American involvement and the choice as to how to conduct the war, he played into the Republican hands. And he will pay dearly for that. Bush is now a legitimate war president and no American president except for James Buchanan had lost an election during a time of war.
Bush will spring a surprise or pull a rabbit out of a hat which will further reinforce the perception that he must know what he is doing in Iraq. Since no one saw fit to question his involvement in Iraq in the first place he will determine the agenda and the course of the electoral debate. Kerry will be forced to react. On Iraq, for example, it might interst you to know that neither the democratic party voters nor the European allies sees Kerry's policy there as different from Bush 11. No matter how you see this or chose to conclude you must admit that where no delineaton exists between the incumbent and his presidential opponent the advantage and the benefit of doubt goes to the sitting president.
I will be out of town for a couple of days. I may not be able to check this thread or to respond from where I am but I will certainly do so when I return. Enjoy!
Damian + Chiboy:
I agree with your takes on this issue. Barring any major hiccups such as the economy tanking or revealations of U.S atrocities in Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush II now in the driver's seat will drive this caravan to another term.
___________________ Acting Major Benbella Posts: 27 | From: Madison, Wisconsin | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
quote: I will be out of town for a couple of days. - Acting Major Benbella
Have a very smooth and safe trip. Your points are noted what remains is to see whose predictions are right on the dough, NwaBiafra or you.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I just wonder what Georgie the liar is going to say on the stump now? I can hear him now saying keep me in office and it will get better in the coming years. WHEN?.. after he leaves office, that's when..
Read below why Bush will be back to Crawford Texas come January. It is the economy stupid!!
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Hit with high energy prices, consumers in June slashed their spending by the largest amount in three years.
The Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Tuesday that consumer spending dropped by a sharp 0.7 percent in June from the previous month. The retrenchment came after consumers splurged in May, ratcheting up spending by a strong 1 percent.
Americans' incomes rose by 0.2 percent in June, down from a solid 0.6 percent increase the month before.
The figures are not adjusted for price changes.
The latest snapshot of consumer spending was weaker than economists were expecting. They were forecasting a tiny 0.1 percent dip in spending and a 0.3 percent rise in incomes for June.
Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States. Thus it plays a key role in shaping an economic recovery.
Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites), appearing before Congress last month, acknowledged that the economy had hit a soft spot in June. He said that higher energy prices had sapped consumer spending but he predicted that the softness in spending would be short-lived.
Greenspan expressed confidence that the economy, which grew by a disappointing 3 percent annual rate in the second quarter of this year, would pick up momentum in the coming months. He noted that anecdotal data for July seemed promising.
In June though, the weakness in consumer spending was fairly widespread.
The 0.7 percent decline in spending was the first since September 2003 and the largest drop since September 2001.
The decline was led by a cutback in spending on automobiles and other big-ticket durable goods. Spending on durable goods declined by 5.9 percent in June, compared with a 3.7 percent rise in May. For nondurables such as food and clothes, spending dipped by 0.3 percent, following a 1.4 percent increase. Spending on services rose by 0.2 percent, down from a 0.3 percent increase.
Greenspan and other economists have noted that auto sales after a bad June have improved in July as dealers offer more generous incentives to boost sales.
Wages were flat in June after a 0.6 percent rise in May. That reflected a sluggishness that hit the job market, causing businesses to show more caution in hiring in June. Tuesday's report is consistent with a string of other economic data in June — including the employment report, retail sales and industrial production — that suggested the economy took a bit of a breather during that month.
Even so, economists are still expecting the Federal Reserve to boost short-term interest rates again when it meets next on Aug. 10. The Fed on June 30 increased interest rates for the first time in four years. It raised a key rate to 1.25 percent, from a 46-year low of 1 percent at that time.
Economists believe the Fed will raise rates next week by another 1/4 percentage point in a bid to keep inflation from becoming a problem.
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
The election is not till November. Kerry still has the debate and state by state campaign rallies to attack Bush. He is already doing the attacking now on the campaign rallies, I guess you don't listen to the mainstream news, fox will not carry it you know?.
As to attacking Bush during the Convention, Kerry did the wise thing by not wasting his time attacking Bush at the convention, he needed that time to tell the people who he is and he successful in doing that in my opinion.
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
NwaBiafra: Why waste time and energy discussing things that need not be talked about with people who have an agenda of their own? The question those who question Kerry's well thought out approach at the Democratic Convention have to answer is WHY ATTACK SOMEONE WHEN YOU CAN EASILY DEFEAT HIM/HER ON ISSUES?
History shows that those who resort to personal attacks are often those who havn't got CONVINCING case to make based on ISSUES. That much we have witnessed on this board of late. So you should view the position of those making these critism from the above angle.
You can be sure that had Kerry and co attacked Bush at the Convention, same people would have come here to accuse Kerry and co of being "attack dogs" and without issues to talk about, or no "new ideas" to offer the American people.
Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't lose a minute sleep over what these people say. After all, is it not same people who have gone on record on this board to say that they are for Bush and the continuation of his lying administration?
Now they accuse Kerry of voting for the war in Iraq. Didn't we see many legislators from the Republican party go on record to say that if they knew what they know after the 911 Commission report that they also wouldn't have voted for the war as they did? So if there's any crime Kerry & co committed when they voted for war, (which was based on now fasified intelligence report provided by Bush and co) it is that they trusted a Bush administration that they wouldn't have trusted at all. Looking back in hidesight, would any reasonable person honestly hold Kerry and his fellow senators criminally liable because they believed what their commander in chief told them then was a "dunk case"?
My advice to you in the Democratic party camp is that you guys should continue with your message of HOPE and ISSUE-ORIENTED campaign. Do not heed to the ill-advice of those who would have loved to see the Democratic convention come to an abrupt end without any resolution reached.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Since you guys asked lots of questions about what Kerry said and should have said, it is only fair that we ask Bush Jr. to answer the follwings questions during Republican National Convention.
These are his record to run on. So the whole world is waiting to see what he has to say about it if at all he will mention it.
The Bush Results On Jobs: Jobs Lost, Lower Pay
1.8 Million Lost Jobs. 7 Million Jobs Short Of President Bush’s Prediction. Since George Bush took office, the economy has lost 1.8 million private sector jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics] After 9/11, the tech bubble, and the recession, the Bush Administration predicted nearly 6 million new jobs would be created between January 2001 and May 2004. Instead, we lost more than 1 million jobs - seven million jobs short. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic Report of the President, 2002]
Jobs Are Shifting To Lower-Paying Industries Paying $9,160 Less. On average, jobs in growing industries pay $9,160 less – or 21 percent less – than jobs in contracting industries. [Economic Policy Institute, “Jobs Shift From Higher Paying to Lower Paying Industries,” January 21, 2004]
The Bush Results On Health Care: More Uninsured, Higher Costs
Family Premiums Increase by Over $2,600. In the United States, the total family premium for health insurance has increased by $2,630 to $9,068. [Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits, 2003]
3.7 Million Americans Have Lost Their Health Insurance.Since George Bush took office 3.7 million more Americans without health insurance. There are now over 43 million Americans without health insurance coverage. [US Census, Current Population Survey, Health Insurance Tables]
The Bush Results On The Budget: Higher Deficits
Record Deficits. This year the budget deficit will break a new record coming in at above $400 billion. This breaks last year’s record of $375 billion. [CBO; OMB]
$800 Billion Worse Than Four Years Ago.In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated a budget surplus of $397 billion in FY2004. Instead, the Bush Administration has run the country on a budget deficit of $420 billion - $800 billion worse than four years than was predicted four years ago [Congressional - Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget]
Increased Costs Are The Results For Middle-Class Families:
Child Care Costs Increase by $2,050. In 2000, a family with 2 children under age 5 in full-time daycare was spending $10,860 on child care. By 2004, that figure increased to approximately $12,910. [Census Bureau, Consumer Price Index, Analysis by Amelia Warren Tyagi]
With Oil Hitting $44 a Barrel, Household with Teenagers Pay $725 More For Gasoline. Oil has increased dramatically over the past year. Oil hit over $44 a barrel, an increase of over $10 a barrel since Bush took office. Households with teenagers are paying higher prices for gasoline than ever before. In the United States, households with teenagers are paying $759 more per year for gasoline since George Bush took office. They now pay on average $2,846 per year. [Department of Energy, Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1994, Table 5.2, August 1997; AAA Fuel Gauge Report; NYMEX]
College Tuition Increase by $1,207. Since Bush has taken office, tuition in the United States has increased by $1,207 at four-year public universities – a 35 percent increase. [College Board]
Does any student of politics think Bush Jr. will answer the above questions or even mention those during Republican Convention? The American people needs to know what he is going to do to get us out of the mess and how it differs from Kerry's winning plans.
We all wait to see what happens. If he fails to speak on the above, I hope Damian and Co. call Bush Jr. out on it as they are doing with Kerry for not speaking on some issues.
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Has this anything to do with the topic? You bet.
quote:Special treatment for the Bush daughters? A US Airways Shuttle flight from Boston to Washington Reagan National made an unscheduled stop Saturday at Albany, N.Y., to pick up 22 stranded passengers — including President Bush's two daughters, according to NBC-4 TV of Washington, D.C. Those passengers became stranded in Albany when mechanical problems grounded their flight. NBC-4 reports that the Boston-D.C. flight was already 20 minutes late when it took off, and that the unexpected stop in Albany resulted in a two-hour-late arrival. A US Airways spokesman said the decision to divert the plan was unrelated to the Bush twins, and said the procedure is not unusual. Industry experts, however, told the station that such a move is extremely rare. Posted at 6 a.m. ET
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)