George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

If Bush wasn't so dangerously electable - in other words, if his failures stuck to him the way they do to normal politicians - we'd have a better opponent than Kerry; somebody who could advance those positions that are right but unpopular.As it is, though, Kerry's what we have because Kerry's the only one who can beat him. I would have preferred Dean.

Bush might actually have a valid claim to the term "outsider". Seeing as how he has, after all, spent a great deal of his term outside his office, on vacation.

Heh, "calm", that's one way to put it.Another way to put it would be "displaying a criminal disinterest in the situation."

I think the burden of proof for proving slander charges against public figures is so much different than against private citizens that generally, slander/libel suits are all but useless.(Isn't it libel, anyway, being as it's in print?)But yeah. Aren't we all tired of Whatever's stupid repetitions? I know I am.

I dunno.Americans have a weird relationship with the intellectual community; we respect intelligence and expertise but we love seeing eggheads find out that they're not as smart as they thought they were.Getting the Nobel Prize, though, means you are as smart as you think you are. I've never heard anyone dis a Nobel Prize winner.Like on the West Wing, I'd like to see a President with a Nobel Prize, possibly in Economics, Medicine, or Literature. (Physics might be a reach.)I'd love to see that guy run against Bush - "I have a Nobel Prize in Medicine. How many Nobel Prizes does Bush have? Oh, right. None."Then again I'd imagine a 527 group called "Swift Doctors for Truth" or something would claim to have been in Stockholm around the time the candidate recieved his prize and try to convince people that what he actually got was a fake prize from Kinko's.

... but what exactly is Bush's agenda for the next four years?What's he going to do about health care costs and the right of patients to sue their HMO's for denial of care?What's he going to do about the sluggish economy? How many more tax cuts can he offer if he's got an occupation in Iraq to fund?What's his plan for fighting the war on terror, assuming he even believes that it's a winnable war?I'm watching the RNC, and all I see is "Kerry this, Kerry that." Just like Bush's website. What's the deal? How does Bush expect to run a campaign based just on "anybody but Kerry"?Did he maybe forget that he's been the president for the last 4 years? Exactly when is he going to bring up his record instead of the made-up failings of his opponent?

Well then you haven't been watching or reading about the RNC, I guess. Or seen Bush's webpage.Bush's webpage mentions Kerry more than Kerry's webpage mentions Kerry. Bush doesn't appear on Kerry's webpage.It's not hard to see who's running on their own strengths as a candidate and who's running on a platform of "the other guy is a waffling Massachusets liberal."I agree that many people support Kerry because he's Bush's opponent, and that's a valid reason to vote. But that's not the platform Kerry is running on.

Really?I know that the wealthy enjoy considerably greater access to government services and representatives than I do. The governor of Missouri doesn't give a good goddamn what I think; but if I was in a position to donate millions to his campaign, I know he'd take my call personally.There's about a thousand examples of the rich enjoying better treatment from the government than I do; I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay more for it. It's just their fair share, after all.

Not exactly.I don't propose to tax every rich person simply because some how I "allowed" them to get rich. I'm not claiming to have any part in the creation of their wealth.But the police would take considerably greater interest if Bill Gates' house were robbed or his daughter raped; much greater interest that if that were to happen to me or mine.If I get caught smoking marijuana, I go to jail. Manditory sentencing, etc. On the other hand, Bill Gates' daughter would get some bullshit community service or whatever.We all have heard of "celebrity justice", etc. It's a very real privledge of being wealthy and affluent. I don't think its unreasonable to exact a tax surcharge for that privledge.Paying for what you use. Isn't that the American way? Well, the rich use more than the rest of us.

Well, ok, fuck the rich. I can work with that.

Yes, I agree. Gas taxes tend to be very regressive, as fuel costs are a larger percentage of a low-income person's income. Also, low-income persons are not often able to afford fuel-efficient vehicles, so they pay even more.

I guess you didn't read hard enough - it's the Ninth amendment.

Obviously Congress will protect the rights of Christians; they're guaranteed their religious freedom under the same amendment that protects the Buddists, the Muslims, and everybody else.

What about their religious beliefs? The ones that say that it's ok for a gay man to be a member of the clergy or a Boy Scout leader? You're absolutely right. No one should force you to have gay intercourse.Short of that, though, your religious beliefs are not being infringed.

Right, that's exactly it. That's where it says women have the right to have abortions.