PRINCE OF PEACE

Jesus was a radical,
Jesus was a Jew.
He was born of Mary;
The Son Of God,
To salvage me and you.

Jesus was quite liberal,
Jesus was a freak;
He condmned those who cast first stones,
And loved the mild and meek.

Jesus preached forgiveness.
Jesus promoted LOVE.
He encouraged Peace and Understanding,
Jesus was a Dove.

You say your God's a Conservative,
You claim He's on your side.
You should hide in shame, from the Prince of Peace,
Your words and acts, He never would abide.

Copyright 2004 Jill Vuckovic (guavmom)

I was watching TV last night, and I saw Bush's new campaign ad. In it, he repeated an older bullshit claim, long debunked. But he's still saying it!

"John Kerry supports a .50¢ gas tax increase."

Well no, not really. Sen. Charles Robb introduced legislation— a decade ago—that phased in a 50¢ increase.

John Kerry did not vote for this bill.
John Kerry did not co-sponsor this bill.

Kerry's support was so insignificant that the only trace of it is an old newspaper clip in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter:

"Kerry said [the Concord Coalition's scorecard] method did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers' efforts to cut the deficit. 'It doesn't reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,' Kerry said."
—"Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers," The Boston Globe, 3/1/94

That is the total extent of Kerry's "support" for a .50¢ gas tax increase. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now. Bush's ad is totally misleading (like his presidency)—it makes it sound like Kerry supported a gas tax increase recently, or supports one now. And his "support" was so minimal as to be irrelevant.

The irony part:
The chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers backs a 50¢ per gallon increase. Gregory Mankiw said: "Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax."

Furthermore, if we're going to talk about the past, let's talk about October 1986, when Dick Cheney said on the House floor, "let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States." He then proceeded to introduce legislation to create a new import tax that would have increased the price of oil and gasoline by billions of dollars per year.

The Congressional Research Service studied the effects of Cheney’s bill on consumers. The report stated that if Cheney’s plan had been enacted, it would have cost consumers $1.2 trillion. A study done for a Federal Reserve Bank suggested that a $5 per barrel fee would lead to the loss of 400,000 jobs nationwide and cause inflation to soar.

(By the way, John Kerry opposed Cheney's bill, and sponsored a resolution to help block it.)

But yeah, "Kerry supports a .50¢ gas tax increase." Know why it's true? Bush said so. And he's the epitome of honesty. Trust him.

I'm honestly starting to think that the only reason half registered Republican citizens are even Republicans at all is because they believe the endless string of blatant lies that Republican leaders tell them. They swallow it hook, line, and sinker. If half the shit the GOP said was actually true, I'd probably be a Republican too.

throwingstardna is awesome for posting this.

A few weeks ago when I was having that all out debate with someone on the most extreme opposite end of the political scale as I, I brought up the fact that during the entire 8 years that Clinton was President, all economy was on an upward trend.

Both he and my friend Adam chimed in and said that everyone knows that economic changes take 4 years to take effect, and that Clinton's great records were not because of him, but because the economy was left that way when he got into office. If you were to ask them, they'd say that the economy sucks right now because of the way Clinton left it.

First of all, Clinton was in office for 8 years. If their suggestions are true, Clinton would have had to plan for the economy to start going down at the beginning of his second term. Even if this 4 year trend WERE true, think about it: Did Clinton just lay back the first 4 years? Since the economy didn't start going down until after Bush was elected, Clinton would have had to known he was going to have a second term and purposely wait to make the economy bad.

From http://www.awolbush.com/ :



( more graphs on job creation, stock market, and deficit since 1989. )

Can they really look at these upward (or downward in the case of unemployment), 8-year long slopes and tell me that it takes 4 years for economic changes to take effect, and that Clinton is what made the economy bad now?

Well, take a look at this gem on today's CNN MONEY:

Census Bureau says 1.3 million more slipped into poverty last year; health care coverage also drops.
August 26, 2004: 12:26 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the U.S. government said in a report Thursday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years, the Census Bureau said in an annual report. The rate for adults 18-to-64 and 65-and-older remained steady.

The bureau also said the share of aggregate income for the lowest 20 percent of Americans fell to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent.

[read more on CNN MONEY]

I think it's extremely obvious that another 4 years of Bush will push the United States even deeper into the hole.

I got it at "retro vs. metro".

The Swift Boat Veterans are the people that put on the commercials that even Bush has put down and declared false.

Of course, by the looks of the last 5 posts I made (all of which had a lot of information about my political beliefs), most people will skip this entry.

Oh well, I tried! (someone has to)

ps: new icons.

Cheney describes same-sex marriage as state issue
But president 'makes basic policy'

DAVENPORT, Iowa (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he believes the question of same-sex marriage is best handled by the states -- a position that puts him at odds with President Bush who proposed amending the Constitution to ban such unions.

"At this point, my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. "But the president makes basic policy for this administration, and he's made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Cheney, the father of two adult daughters -- one of whom is a lesbian -- was asked for his views on "homosexual marriage" during a campaign rally here.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with," Cheney said as he began to explain his view.

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody," said Cheney, who took the same stand during the 2000 presidential race. "People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Cheney then spoke specifically about marriage.

"Historically, that's been a relationship that's been handled by the states," Cheney said. "States have made the basic fundamental decision (as to) what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four years ago when this question came up in my debate with (Sen.) Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide and that's how it ought best be handled."

Cheney described Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples as a response to a court decision in Massachusetts that opened the door to same-sex marriages.

But Cheney did not endorse Bush's point of view, even as he detailed it.

"His perception was that the courts in effect were beginning to change without the people being involved, without their being part of the political process," Cheney said. But he said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act "has not been successfully challenged in the court, and it may be sufficient to resolve the issue."

Cheney was referring to a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton that defined marriage -- for the purpose of federal law -- as the union of a man and a woman.

A proposed constitutional amendment that would have effectively banned same-sex marriage failed on a procedural vote in the Senate in July on a 48-50 vote -- well short of the two-thirds majority needed for such amendments to be sent to the states for ratification.

Both of Cheney's daughters are active in his campaign. He spoke fondly of both.

"We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them," he said. "They're both fine young women, and they do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us, and we were blessed with both our daughters."

I'm glad he finally said something on the matter, although it's a shame he didn't defend his daughter instead of just sitting on the fence. I suppose it wouldn't be a good political move for a vice president to completely disagree with the president on the issues.

Check out DearMary.com and Newsweek's story about it. [talkleft]