# 2004 Presidential Election Issues



## Greg (Sep 17, 2004)

This should probably bring about some interesting discussion. Please vote in the poll and feel free to discuss below.


----------



## Jim W (Sep 17, 2004)

The war on terror is the only issue.

The economy can wait.
Health care reform can wait.
The environment can wait.
A World Series ring for the Sox can wait (and it will)
We can not solve any of our domestice problems if we don't destroy our enemies first.

p.s. The Viet Nam War ia OLD NEWS, people. Let's get back to reality.


----------



## teachski (Sep 17, 2004)

Agreed!

I think there are too many "chiefs" too.  My system has several "quasi" administrators that they fought very hard to keep, yet the music teacher is only there for 1 period a day (grades 8-12) and the 8th grade students do not have access to a music program (they also do not have access to an art or foreign language program.  These positions have been "cut" from their program due to budjet issues.  The Math Coach, Literacy Specialist, Behavior Specialist, etc.  all of whom do not work directly with student, were maintained.  The Behacior Specialist's office is next to my room...I always see her just sitting in her room (on the computer many times) when I am in the hall to monitor transitions between periods.  There is one student with a severe behavior in 8th grade (I work with 8th grade) but she has not consulted on him once.

Too many chiefs!


----------



## noreaster (Sep 18, 2004)

Jim W said:
			
		

> The war on terror is the only issue.
> The economy can wait.
> Health care reform can wait.
> The environment can wait.
> .


 There all important and the war on terror is here to stay.  

Also energy research technology is a separate issue from the environment.  I agree in this election the enrionment is not as important as other issues. 

For the most part corporations do not pay taxes,  hard working Americans pay taxes.  The more outsourcing of jobs the less money Washington has to pay for war against terrorism.  The less money  Washington has the more the national deficit, which federal government loans itself from the Social Security reserve that will probably run out sometime in the next 30 years when the baby boomers retire.  A healthy economy and good health care system makes for a STRONG United States of America. An America that has a HUGE dependency on foreign OIL is not a STRONG America.  World OIL reserves will NOT last forever.  An excellent education system can not wait because we don’t want to graduate children over the next 10 years that can not compete with other countries. 

Health care can not wait. Example,  the National Guardsman now fighting in Iraq receives a letter from his wife that their 2 year old child is very sick.  The problem is National Guardsman don’t have health care for their families.  So here is a letter from his wife asking what should she do when their child needs extremely expensive medical help and they don’t have any  medical insurance. Do we really think the Guardsman is going to be able to be 100% affective in the fight on terror in Iraq.    Why hasn’t the president taken action and supported the Democrats that are trying to make America strong by getting Guardsman health care? 

This is not about Democrats versus Republicans.  The Democrats are not the enemy and the Republican are not the enemy. 

This is about America being strong and working together.  This is about choices and how to solve important issues facing America.  The question is does Bush have the better answers or does Kerry have the better answers?

I agree this is not about what happen 30 years ago.


----------



## pedxing (Sep 19, 2004)

Need to add the War in Iraq.  It has no direct connection to the War on Terrorism.


----------



## smitty77 (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm the loner that voted "OTHER".  I think whoever is in office the next term has to really look at increasing military funding back to where it was during the Reagan years.  Sure it was excessive and mnay thought it was not necessary, but all of the cuts during the Clinton admin. has left us with lack of manpower in Iraq.  I'm not going to get into the right/wrong of fighting on two fronts or even the Iraq war, but I think we would have been better prepared and better staffed to fight two wars had our military muscle not been trimmed so much.

Byond that I would say healthcare and the war on terror.


----------



## smitty77 (Sep 21, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> I think the healthcare *BILLING SYSTEM *should be overhauled and simplified. The clerical work involved is incredible.



Two years ago my wife was going through some severe "morning sickness" early in her pregnancy.  She couldn't keep anything down, got dehydrated, and went to the emergency room.  When we got there, we told them she was 12 weeks along.  They saw us in good fashion, did a blood and urine sample, pumped in 3 bags of fluids, and sent us home.  I get the statement from the hospital in the mail about 6 weeks later and I noticed they did a pregnancy test!   :blink: Hello!  We already knew about that!  I called Blue Cross to tell them not to pay the *$95* for a $10 test that we already knew the answer to 6 weeks prior.  The kind lady on the phone said: "We've already paid it, don't worry about it."   :blink:  :blink: I noticed they kindly increased my insurance premium the following spring.  Something needs to be done.


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Sep 21, 2004)

Write your Congressman and Senators.  The more correspondence they respond too, the more documentation they are forced to live by.  

You'll be amazed at their responses…


----------



## mryan (Sep 22, 2004)

Wow. Some real dimwits here. "The only issue is the War on Terrorism." My thought on that: it's scary that people actually think in such a way. Plants grow from seeds. This, my friends, is terrifying. Please, please people, read and educate yourselves and, for Christ's sake, stop watching Fox News.


----------



## Greg (Sep 22, 2004)

mryan said:
			
		

> Some real dimwits here.


Watch the insults here, mryan.


----------



## mryan (Sep 22, 2004)

Another thing: here we are on a site based on outdoor(environmental)activities and no one, or at least, very few people think the environment is an important issue. Wow. Seems to me your ideology is a bit warped. Don't you think?


----------



## Stephen (Sep 22, 2004)

mryan said:
			
		

> Another thing: here we are on a site based on outdoor(environmental)activities and no one, or at least, very few people think the environment is an important issue. Wow. Seems to me your ideology is a bit warped. Don't you think?



There are some of us who can enjoy nature without losing our perspective on life completely.

My thoughts, FWIW:

Terrorism: 
-First Afghanistan, Next Iraq, next, the largest threat to our national security. 
-Iraq is to Terrorism as Germany was to WWII. That is, Germany never attacked us, why did we get involved there?
-Exit strategy: We'll worry about that once we figure out the exit strategy for Germany and Japan. (Point is, it takes time, not going to happen overnight!)

Environment:
-We're fools to think we can control nature, either for the good or bad. We can have small effects, but we aren't powerful enough to destroy it. Chernobyl, the site of the worst nuclear disaster, is starting to become habitable in places. Animals and plants thrive. Mt. St. Helen's is still a wreck.
-Does that absolve us from being slobs? By no means. We do our part, but I'll never support sacrificing lives for a dung beetle.

Economy:
-Single income family of 5 with no savings and a low (580) FICO score is approved for a no-money down mortgage buying a three unit near $300K house. This wouldn't have happened 3 years ago. Yes I was laid off a year ago. A year later, my income is back up to where it was. 
-All economic indicators show things are up. Unemployment is lower than in the phenom Bill Clinton years. We're supposed to think it's bad? The only thing that makes it "bad" for Democrats is that they can't claim credit for it.

Education:
-Ok, not thrilled about this. Bush tried to make a deal with the devil (Kennedy) and now Kennedy/Kerry are critisizing Bush for the bill THEY PASSED! Bush got suckered into agreeing to another unfunded mandate. Hopefully he won't make that mistake again.

Healthcare:
-To the extent that the companies can be shown to have departed from the free market (ie, anti-trust/monopoly) then they should be reigned in. However, I've torn an ACL, had three kids (well, my wife did), and have paid less than $100 in co-pays for it all. I'm getting a great deal, as are all my coworkers, family, etc. You can get into a management position at McDonald's and get health insurance...
-Bush has spent more money on health care than any other president, and it hasn't helped. Throwing money at it isn't the answer.
-When was the last time you knew someone to come down with smallpox (other than terror-related)? Polio? We've got better healthcare than any other country on the planet (including Canada). 
-So what's the answer? Limited liability for the doctors and nurses who we don't want to pay to take care of us. Cut the frivolous lawsuits (Edwards has made his money on this), so that the cost of malpractice insurance goes down, so that health care costs go down.

Other: Limited government, balanced judges with tight (or no) interpretations of the constitution, elimination of government programs that encourage laziness, overpopulation, and substance abuse (welfare), relentless prosecution of lawbreakers, including deportation of ILLEGAL aliens. Strict restrictions on our borders. (You don't let unknown "guests" wander your house, do you?)

I may not be popular... but you know where I stand.  :argue:   :roll: 
-Stephen


----------



## mryan (Sep 22, 2004)

We can't destroy the environment? That's simply naive greg. And germany, greg, was blatantly(by that i mean using it's own military) to attack and invade countries. iraq, save for kuwait, has done no such thing. you're logic is severely flawed.

environment: of course we can't control nature. but we can, and should, control ourselves. subscribing to the notion that nature is impenetrable is ridiculous. let's take all of our nuclear bombs and drop them. do you think 'nature' will survive. we won't but maybe plants will grow again in a couple thousand years.

economy: show me the indicators things are looking up. numbers. give me numbers. from what i've read(the economist) mr. bush is at a net loss of 2.5 million jobs during the course of his presidency. and his tax cuts? what did it get you greg? you, like me, am a middle class guy. you know what they got me: a couple hundred bucks. call up your millionaire buddies and ask them what they got back. you've been decieved. also, right now we have the largest deficit ever. go tell your kids(you have three) that they'll be paying for that. and that the reason there are such deficits are the willingness of the government to fight an expensive war while coincidentally cutting taxes. but, hey, we got out 400 bucks. what a joke.

i'm worried about this country. but, hey, survival of the fittest right. it's not the government's responsibility to ensure an educated and healthy population. piss on 'em. let's cut all social programs....wait, if i'm become unemployed, i may need that. wait, my kids' schools are falling apart. you're blinded by ideology my friend. ideology has, sadly, replaced reason in this country. 

health care:

greg, how do we have better health care than any other country on the planet when 40 million americans are uninsured. 100% of swedes are fully insured. but that takes the willlingness to pay taxes and selflessness, two things wholly unattributable to conservatives.


----------



## Greg (Sep 22, 2004)

mryan said:
			
		

> That's simply naive greg.


Uh....Stephen posted all that, not me...   :blink:


----------



## mryan (Sep 22, 2004)

sorry. stephen, i mean. 

but let's stop treating each issue as if it were independent on each of the others. they are all interelated and interconnected. without natural resources, there are no cities, without cities there are no jobs, without jobs there are no taxes to pay for the war, without the war we are unsafe....maybe. also: nature is, in fact, controllable. agriculture...the mass production of food. dams....we stop rivers. controlling nature is requisite for the creation of modern civilization.


----------



## ChileMass (Sep 22, 2004)

I think it was P.J O'Rourke who said, "If you think healthcare costs a lot now, just wait till you see what it costs when it's free......."     


Think about it.  There's no way the government can deliver healthcare (or anything else for that matter) cheaper than the private sector.  I don't have a solution for spiraling healthcare costs, but I know the present system is better than a new huge DC bureaucracy........


I'm going to leave the other issues alone, but I largely agree with Stephen's views.........


----------



## hammer (Sep 22, 2004)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> I think it was P.J O'Rourke who said, "If you think healthcare costs a lot now, just wait till you see what it costs when it's free......."
> 
> 
> Think about it.  There's no way the government can deliver healthcare (or anything else for that matter) cheaper than the private sector.  I don't have a solution for spiraling healthcare costs, but I know the present system is better than a new huge DC bureaucracy........
> ...



One of the problems with the current system is that instead of having a huge DC bureaucracy we have a bunch of smaller insurance company bureaucracies.  I'll bet that those bureaucracies have more of an effect on the overall cost of healthcare than a handful of frivolous lawsuits.

Another problem is that I think that too many Americans don't have a clue as to how much their overall health care costs are and what their options are for reducing those costs.  In other words, when it comes to health care, we're a bunch of lousy consumers.

As far as the current administration is concerned, however, I haven't seen any real efforts to reduce the overall cost of healthcare.  I agree with Stephen that throwing more money at the system doesn't work, but where are the real efforts to get the costs down?

Sure, I agree that cutting out the lawsuits will help, but there are a lot of other feeders at the healthcare "trough" (like drug companies, for example) that need to go on a diet.


----------



## LiveFreeorDie NH (Sep 22, 2004)

Not expecting to influence anyone here just a couple qiuick points:
mryan: "but that takes the willlingness to pay taxes and selflessness, two things wholly unattributable to conservatives."  I think that some would consider that we are taxed enough.  By the time you add up ALL the taxes you pay each day you would be surprised.  My newest tax is on internet service 3.29 a month now goes to schools that cannot afford internet service.  Everyone knows that we have to pay taxes.  Some of us would rather just see the system adjust itself and cut some of that PORK spending be cut, not just all Social programs.

hammer: "drug companies, for example) that need to go on a diet"
Not that I disagree but look at how many manufacturers are investing money into vaccines?  In the past we have seen many new vaccines come out.  In the past number of years however I am aware of only one drug manufacturer out of Canada that has worked on any new vaccines.  Hmmm, come to think of it we ran out of that flue vaccine too last winter.  The reason or one reason?  Government regulations on the profit of vaccines.  If they cant make any money at it why bother with the R & D. (Yes the govt does contribute to R&D).

Hopefully one day soon we can start making some progress as it is a big issue.  Hundreds of points can be made for either side, but someone needs to do something about it and not just talk about it during a campaign.  Democrats had 8 years with Clinton in office and the problems are still here.  We had 4 yrs with W and the problems are still here.  Great campaign talks and little actions on either side.

It is amazing at how divided the country is and that people seem to be polar opposites on opinions and comments.  I hope that people can start to come to terms and not just see party lines.

An Independent


----------



## hammer (Sep 22, 2004)

LiveFreeorDie NH said:
			
		

> hammer: "drug companies, for example) that need to go on a diet"
> Not that I disagree but look at how many manufacturers are investing money into vaccines?  In the past we have seen many new vaccines come out.  In the past number of years however I am aware of only one drug manufacturer out of Canada that has worked on any new vaccines.  Hmmm, come to think of it we ran out of that flue vaccine too last winter.  The reason or one reason?  Government regulations on the profit of vaccines.  If they cant make any money at it why bother with the R & D. (Yes the govt does contribute to R&D).



IMO, we should have the Gov't fund more R&D, retain the patents on the new discoveries, and then allow any manufacturer to (safely!) make the medications.

People might not get filthy rich using this approach, but I'd guess that we have enough talented people out there that care more about improving people's lives than making their shareholders happy.

I can't quote sources, but I've read and/or heard that a lot of the money invested by drug companies is in marketing and not in R&D anyway.  Has anyone seen the amount of "free samples" that are available at a Dr's office for a new medication?



			
				LiveFreeorDie NH said:
			
		

> Hopefully one day soon we can start making some progress as it is a big issue.  Hundreds of points can be made for either side, but someone needs to do something about it and not just talk about it during a campaign.  Democrats had 8 years with Clinton in office and the problems are still here.  We had 4 yrs with W and the problems are still here.  Great campaign talks and little actions on either side.



Agree...in a way, the Clinton administration was worse because they actually studied the problem (who was in charge of that?) and came up with a bad solution.



			
				LiveFreeorDie NH said:
			
		

> It is amazing at how divided the country is and that people seem to be polar opposites on opinions and comments.  I hope that people can start to come to terms and not just see party lines.
> 
> An Independent



Here Here   :beer:


----------



## noreaster (Sep 24, 2004)

President Bush's tax cuts are really working. 

There are now 313 billionaires in the country, the largest number ever and a huge jump over last year's 262 members, according to Forbes magazine (search), which Thursday released its annual ranking of the 400 richest Americans.

The combined net worth of the 400 rose $45 billion, reaching $1 trillion this year for the first time since 2000, before the dot-com bust.

See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133383,00.html


----------



## mryan (Sep 24, 2004)

*Why?*

Hi Uphill Climber:

Here's what the government needs to do in regards to environmental law and regulation: stop gutting it. anyone who's been paying even a small amount of attention has realized that major environmental laws(clean air, water, nepa) are being stripped and declawed. this is troubling in that i suspect it has something to do with that ultra secret energy policy meeting cheney had a couple years ago. this is troubling. since the inception of NEPA under Nixon, a Republican(!), several landmark environmental laws have been created: clean air, water, superfund, etc. what these do is protect the natural resources--air, water, food, animals, trees, minerals, oils, trails, forests--we humans, as animals depend on. what i see is the subversion of these laws by special interests(i.e. energy producers: oil, coal, timber, etc.). what am i asking the government to do? stop gutting landmark environmental regulations. let me give a specific example. under nepa regulations, any proposed development within a publicly held land--be it state, local, or federal--is subject to a public comment period of 180 days. in this comment period, the public--that evil word to republicans-- submit feedback and these are taken into account in the decision to grant such development. under this administration(no other administration has done this) many of these public comment periods have been stripped. they're non-existent, meaning the use of decision as of to the use of public lands is being stripped of the public and being handed to......well, you connect the dots. please connect the dots. so many people fail to do so.

why? because environmental regualtions, though to republicans an impediment to the economy, are a requirement. we need regulations. ever hear of  the "tragedy of the commons"? without regulation, individuals or concerned parties, by nature, will seek to maximize their benefits regardless of the impacts on others and, intrinsically, him or herself. this was common in feudal england. natural resources--crops, water ways, trees--were often plundered because there were no enforced regulations or a means of simply stopping people from using everything they possibly could. as a result, feudalism collapsed. resources were plundered, livestock died. trees were cut down willy nilly for timber. look at england now: i challenge you to find a sizeable stand of trees. so they import their timber and paper products at great environmental and economic cost.

also, we have made and are, under the reigning ideology in d.c., making the mistake of believing that that thing called the economy is independet of and seperate from that thing called the environment. it's not. it's interconnected and interdependent. our economy--jobs, products, services--are reliant on our ability to harness and transform natural resources into useable and valueable products. don't you realize that? that steel came from the ground. that starbucks cup came from some tree. that coffee came  from some tree. oxygen comes from some tree. i'm not a tree hugger. environmental laws and regulations are meant to provide the means to preserve and conserve the very things on which this thing called and economy is based. let's hope our politicians teach our citizens that.

that's all. have a good day.


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Sep 24, 2004)

I believe the Enviroment and Energy issues are the most important issues, they are the CRITICAL PATH ISSUES over the long haul and which will effect the other topics listed.  Due to the continuing loss of manufacturing jobs, and retiring boomers, the next administration must take Healthcare into consideration as well.


----------



## hammer (Sep 24, 2004)

My previous tirades on healthcare costs aside, I'd say that the two most important issues to me are the economy and the war on terrorism.

As a parent and (I believe) a responsible citizen, however, I'd say that all of the issues listed are important.


----------



## Stephen (Sep 24, 2004)

mryan said:
			
		

> greg, how do we have better health care than any other country on the planet when 40 million americans are uninsured. 100% of swedes are fully insured. but that takes the willlingness to pay taxes and selflessness, two things wholly unattributable to conservatives.



You live in Mass? If you do I'm assuming you check off the box where you can pay taxes at the higher rate. If not, how much additional do you donate to taxes in order to support the government?

Myself, I think I can spend my money better than the govt.

Oh, and Sweden has a tax burden of 52% of their GNP (as opposed to 29% in the U.S.). You may be willing to double your tax rate for free government health care (do Blood Transfusions come in a generic variety?), but not me.

Oh, and a quick lesson on percentages. I pay a small amount of the tax burden, so I get a small tax break. Billionaires pay a large amount of the tax burden, so they get a larger tax break.

I know I've quoted these IRS numbers before, but let me state them again:

80% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of all wage earners.
96.03% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.

Do you realize what this means? Half of the nation pays (statistically speaking) all of the taxes. I'm guessing you and I fall into the half that pays 3.97% of the tax burden. Is there any surpise our breaks are small and that the "wealthy" get larger breaks? THEY are the ones who really PAY taxes.

Some graphical representations of the above:











-Stephen


----------



## mryan (Sep 28, 2004)

thanks for the percentages lesson, stephen. what your math is off base is here: proportionality. the rich, of course, get more absolute money back in tax breaks, but they get a greater proportion of their taxable income back than do the lower and middle classes. this is a regressive policy. there are tax brackets. the upper classes have had larger cuts, percentage-wise, than have any other tax brackets. also, corporate taxation has fallen drastically. you say yin, i say yang. there is no absolute truth, only multiple truths achieved through a multitude of methods of analysis and perspective. also, i know that the swedes pay 50 something percent of  their income to taxes. this does not bother me. it's another way of looking at things. what's more beneficial: recieving more dollar bills from you paycheck or providing for universal health(and therefore the lowest rates of disease, both mental and physical, in the world), a healthy environment and a healthy economy through higher taxes. it's a question of rampant individualism and socialism. do you work only for yourself of for that and the good of society as a whole. i'd like to apsire to greater things than simply dollars on a pay check. call me an idealist. but thans for the lesson and accompanying graphics.

i'd also like to respond to uphill climbers remarks. you are basing your argument in regards to the public comment period on an assumption: that the average person is passionate enough to keep abreast of all local development. the 180 day period is arbitrary, but i think it is useful in that it allows the average american(the average american reads and writes on the 7th grade level, mind you) to recieve the information and to make a comment. yes, there are people who are activists who reply right away, but the majority of people, i would argue, are not activists and actively keeping abreast of local environmental issues. that said, i think that the lesser the amount of comment period, the lesser chance that the average citizen(perhaps the majority of those to be affected) will be able to comment. i could be wrong. and my argument, like yours, may be based on another assumption, but such is the nature of arguing about societal behavior.


----------



## LiveFreeorDie NH (Sep 28, 2004)

Right on uphill.  Many people choose a profession based on a number of different variables.  If we where not in a capitalist environment I would not work nearly as hard as I do know.  Actually I would probably pick an entirely different job.  After all where is the incentive.  

As far as for the greater good of society,  The US is among the most charitable in the world.  If you would like to make an impact fine, do it yourself.  I donate my time and money to worthy causes and am happy to do so.

However, I NEVER want to give more money to a government that is notorious for waste and in no means can handle any more than it does now.  I am sympathetic for all those who need assistance and for whom hard times have fallen upon.  Sure, Lets help them out.   But the government spooning out more money is not the answer.

The diet this country needs is on Lawyers, Lobbyists and Accountants who cause all these problems.

Thats why I guess I find the whole election process amusing.  Both sides are FULL OF CRAP and it is all to obvious.

My Ideal candidate would address the following issues first:
1) designate English as the National Languauge
2) Not give drivers liscences to ILLEGAL aliens
3) finally define ILLEGAL as I seem to be missing something over the last many years altogether
4) Cut down the political process to make it simpler so that everyone can understand it.
5) Create a new law that a Bill is just that a Bill (not a bunch of Bills put together that you could never even guess what is in it by its name.  1 Bill, 1 Idea, Thats it, not all these other add ins which get burried.
6) Introduce accountability to Gov Departments.
7) Enforce the laws we have know before adding any others.
8) Protect the country
9) Educate our children.
10) Hmmm.  maybe I take that back.  That might be better run by anyone better than the government does.  "Leave no child behind"  We are going to leave them all behind if we teach them that everyone is a winner and everyone should get an A on the test.  Good thinking,  maybe we should take away dodgeball too while we are at it.  Lets take away EVERYTHING that can motivate them to do great things.

Wow, way off base here and all over the road.  Glad I got that one out.  Gotta go watch some more of these great campaign adds that probably will just say what the other guy does not do and how he is our saviour.


----------



## hammer (Sep 28, 2004)

LiveFreeorDie NH said:
			
		

> The diet this country needs is on Lawyers, Lobbyists and Accountants who cause all these problems.



Agree, but aren't most politicians Lawyers or Lobbyists?  How do you get them out of the way if they are the ones in office?  

Kinda leaves one cynical about the whole process...   

Nevertheless, the one thing that I will make sure I do is VOTE, even though I live in MA which makes my vote Democrat regardless of what I put in the ballot box.  IMO, anyone who doesn't should not feel like they can complain about who's in office.

The main thing that I hope for this time around is that we don't have to have the Supreme Court pick our next President.


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Sep 28, 2004)

> My Ideal candidate would address the following issues first:
> 1) designate English as the National Languauge
> 2) Not give drivers liscences to ILLEGAL aliens



First, I find it ironic that two words are mispelled, but perhaps that is just me. :wink: 



> If we where not in a capitalist environment I would not work nearly as hard as I do know. Actually I would probably pick an entirely different job. After all where is the incentive.



Incentive is not always monetary. I realize it is for some, but for others it is physical, emotional, helping others and at times spiritual.

Don't get me wrong...I know/have seen the people for which the comments about "goverment handing out MY money" are directed. At times my ire is directed that way as well. However, I always ask myself, do I want to live that way? The answer is of course no.

Life and time have a funny way of dealing with the people who take advantage of others generosity (both individual/government)...been my
experience anyways. 

Anyways, interesting thread and no ill will intended nor percieved.

Peace.


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Sep 29, 2004)

*This is for the Republicans...*

On a tour of Texas, the Pope took a couple of days off to visit the coastal area for some sightseeing. He was cruising along the sea wall on Galveston Isle in his Pope-mobile when suddenly he notices a frantic commotion just off shore.

There was John Kerry struggling frantically to free himself from the jaws of a 25-foot shark. As the Pope watched, horrified, a speedboat came racing up with two men aboard. One of the men, President George W. Bush quickly fired a harpoon into the shark's side while Dick Cheney reached out and pulled the bleeding, semi-conscious John Kerry from the water.  Then using (autographed Round Rock Express) baseball bats, the two heroes beat the shark to death and hauled it into the boat.

Immediately the Pope shouted and summoned them to the beach. "I give you my blessings for your brave actions," he told them. "I heard that there was some bitter hatred between President Bush and John Kerry, but now I have seen with my own eyes that this is not true."

As the Pope drove off, President Bush asked Dick "Who was that?"

"It was the Pope," Dick replied.  "He is in direct contact with God and has all of God's wisdom."

"Well," President Bush said, "he may have access to God's wisdom, but he doesn't know anything about shark fishing.  How's the bait holding up?"

No ill will intended, I thought the thread needed a laugh...


----------



## mryan (Oct 5, 2004)

i, too, do not want to work for my money simply to have it taken away and given to those who refuse to work. this, however, is quite an oversimplification. and communism is anything but taxes. communism entails government ownership of the means of production. this, i do not advocate. what i do advocate is paying taxes: these are essential to a civilized and healthy society. 

anyway, who really cares. kerry's going to win anyway. and when he does, i'm going to have a huge going-away party for W.

later


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Oct 5, 2004)

mryan said:
			
		

> kerry's going to win anyway. and when he does, i'm going to have a huge going-away party for W.
> 
> later



Are A-Z Forum Members invited?   :wink:


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 9, 2004)

Loved the shark fishing story. 

A great laugh. 

Thanks for posting it Charlie!
 

I call it good natured fun!!


----------

