Bumper Stickers for the GOP, 2004

[lost_sailor]

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
Bush/Cheney '04: Assimilate. Resistance is Futile.
Bush/Cheney '04: Apocalypse Now!
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good
enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!
Bush/Cheney '04: Get used to it!
Bush/Cheney '04: In your heart, you know they're
technically correct.
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Less CIA -- More CYA
Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!
Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a time.
Bush/Cheney '04: Or else.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The economy's stupid!
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to
cast.
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!
Bush/Cheney '04: We're Gooder!
Bush/Cheney: ***** of Evil
Don't think. Vote Bush!
George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency.
George W. Bush: Leadership without a doubt.
George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There.
Peace & Prosperity Suck -- Big-Time
Vote Bush in '04: "I Has Incumbentory Advantitude"
Vote Bush in '04: "Because every vote counts -- for me!"
Vote Bush in '04: "Because I'm the President, that's why!"
Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier.
Vote Bush in '04: It's a no-brainer!
Who would Jesus Bomb?
Bush/Cheney '04: "Leave no child a dime!"

[El-Kabong]

nicely done

EK

[fish assassin]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

-assAssin-

[skahorse]

LS,
Funny Stuff. With your permission(seeing as you are the author), I would like to make the following my new signature:

Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a time.

I like it! I'm a Bush supporter and would love to have this bumper sticker.

--Skahorse

[Cool Texan]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Straydog]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by skahorse:
LS,
Funny Stuff. With your permission(seeing as you are the author), I would like to make the following my new signature:

Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a time.

I like it! I'm a Bush supporter and would love to have this bumper sticker.

--Skahorse

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">ehhhh ... author unknown, it's one of those Internet wonders - public domain I reckon.

I think Himmler had the same slogan on his car ... you really DON'T get it, eh?

[freespool]

LS,you are a very funny guy. But my fav is, Vote Republican it's easier than thinking.

[El-Kabong]

Try

The USA is forever in-debted to the Republican Party

I saw these one recently
"Re-elect Gore on '04"

[Thumper]

It's gonna take a whole lot more than bumper stickers to beat Bush in '94. Especially with the dweebs you guys have running now.

[lost_sailor]

That's DOCTOR Dweeb to you!

The next president of the United States.

Originally posted by Thumper:
It's gonna take a whole lot more than bumper stickers to beat Bush in '94. Especially with the dweebs you guys have running now.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We'll see Jack...we'll see but please refrain from the name calling okay? Remember GW has pretty much the same bunch of people advising him as his father did in 92 :tongue: Hey maybe they can get old Baker to come back for the campaign

[ 09-05-2003, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[TH]

I saw this topic and knew Stewy wouldn't be far!
:grin:
How are you stew?

[Thumper]

Dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb dweeb etc.

[Stratocaster]

Dont forget dweebette. :grin:

[happybrew]

The Democratic Party platform: Made in China.

Most important plank in their platform: legalize marijuana. You have to be stoned to vote for them, and not to notice what they're doing when in office.

The Democratic Party slogan: ******!!

[happybrew]

I still remember when Bill Clinton vetoed the child tax credit when the Republicans passed it, then put it in as a campaign promise the next time he ran. Sorry, but the Democratic Party has lost all credibility with me.

happybrew

[Thumper]

You are a good and honest man, Happybrew. Good-looking, too. :grin:

Once again you GOP clones, and I say clones because you all sound alike, never fail to take a cheap shot.

[Stratocaster]

Once again you GOP clones, and I say clones because you all sound alike, never fail to take a cheap shot.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The GOP sure do not have the exclusive rights to that, clones, cheap shots, sounding alike etc. Hypocra....cough...hmmmm....blaaaaghk

Originally posted by fisherdan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Once again you GOP clones, and I say clones because you all sound alike, never fail to take a cheap shot.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The GOP sure do not have the exclusive rights to that, clones, cheap shots, sounding alike etc. Hypocra....cough...hmmmm....blaaaaghk </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">:tongue: Did Rush tell you to say that Dan?

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Thumper:
You are a good and honest man, Happybrew. Good-looking, too. :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you are referring to my avatar, that is not me. It is the Virgin Mary. My old avatar with the alien swigging beer was a better likeness of me.

Stew: This began with cheap shots, and it is about cheap shots. Cheap shots are entertaining and fun sometimes. I am entertained, and having fun with this. I particularly liked "Compassionate Colonialism". As a Republican, I've been advocating that for a long time. During the '80's and early '90's, I thought our problems in Mexico and Central America could be solved by simply annexing them and putting the population on welfare. We wouldn't even need to invade. Just tell them that's what we were doing, and start mailing the checks. It would be cheaper than propping up dictatorships and building up the military, it would take care of the poverty thus removing the root cause of Marxism there, it would reduce illegal immigration, and best of all, we'd be in charge, paving the way for democracy, McDonalds, Sportman's Warehouse, Crispy Creme, and all the other accoutrements of American civilization. In return, we'd get cheap bananas, cheap coffee, and a market for cars and electronics, and HMO's. It may have been said with sarcasm, but I proudly claim that slogan as my own. I am a true believer in that cause, and henceforth I shall devote all of my energies to promoting the benefits of compassionate colonialism! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

happybrew

[Stratocaster]

Rush? Never heard him. Actually the fairness birdy told me. :tongue:

I'll get back to you happybrew as soon as Michael Moore, Al Franken and James Carville tell me what to think

[ 09-05-2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by happybrew:
The Democratic Party platform: Made in China.

Most important plank in their platform: legalize marijuana. You have to be stoned to vote for them, and not to notice what they're doing when in office.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Except for Kucinich, who is hardly credible, the Demos sound just like the republicans on the marijuana issue. There may be one that supports medical use, but none that I am aware of have come out for any sort of change in the legal status of pot.

As to having to be stoned to put up with the democrats, you're right, the 90's WERE kind of like being stoned. Everything was peaceful and prosperous...

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by Thumper:
You are a good and honest man, Happybrew. Good-looking, too. :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You boys need to get a room. :smile:

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Stew:
I'll get back to you happybrew as soon as Michael Moore, Al Franken and James Carville tell me what to think

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Carville's waiting for his wife, a conservative, to tell him what to think.

happybrew

[Jetsledder]

I am not Dem or a Rep. Wouldnt it just be nice if politicians would just start thinking about the people and not sticking with parties. I was raised that no matter what elected leader is in office we should respect that elected official even though you disaprove of something about that elected official. Getting out and protesting, and saying slandering remarks about a person in office and doing civil obedience just isnt that answer.

[Silver Hilton]

Unfortunately, the parties have successfully engineered things so that it is virtually impossible for a non-democrat/republican to ever get elected to natioanl office in this country, again. Kinda sad.

[pdxkevin]

Vote Democrat – It’s easier than working

The Lord made us all different... Democrats want to make us all the same!

Friends don’t let friends vote for Democrats

The road to Hell is paved by Democrats

Democrats = Beaureaucrats

clinton/gore = trickle down corruption

Liberals -- First they take our guns, then our elections

AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE (Some restrictions apply, see official rules for details)

Lobotomies for Democrats? Why be redundant?

I’m too self-reliant to vote Democratic

Vote Republican – It’s less taxing!

I am Pro-Lifejacket and I Boat! &lt;== my favorite!

[Jetsledder]

Another thing I learned are is people are to busy pointing out the mistakes and faults of others then thier own.

[Pyramid]

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan... what we need
now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.
Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here's one plan:

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their
affairs, past &present. We will promise never to "interfere"
again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with
Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We
would
station troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.
&gt;
3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and
leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will
be
gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are.
France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90
day visits unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation
would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself. Don't
hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any
more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't
attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise.
This will include developing non polluting sources of energy but will
require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou
will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel
for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will
not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain,
cement
or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them gets "lost" or is
taken by their army. The people who need it most get very little, anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the
spies
and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless
shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) Use the buildings as replacement for the twin towers.

11) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can
call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

12) Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?

13) "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your
tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's
yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS ON

[freespool]

Bush economic recovery or just reverse Robin Hood?

[ 09-06-2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Jetsledder:
Wouldnt it just be nice if politicians would just start thinking about the people and not sticking with parties.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

The "party line regardless of whats best for the people" mantra is dragging us down in a big way.

Publicly financing campaigns would go a long way towards solving that problelm, IMHO.

I would love to see a viable third party! The donkeys and elephants have dominated too long and I'm sick of partisan politics
Although he may have been a little whacko Ross Perot said a lot of things that made sense.
When he was debating NAFTA on the Larry King Show with Al Gore he said "That sucking sound you hear is your jobs going to other countries if NAFTA is passed" ...how right he was.

[DanS]

These figures should help, regardless of you party affiliation.


Truman First Term: 60,000 jobs gained per month

Truman Second Term: 113,000 jobs gained per month

Eisenhower First Term: 58,000 jobs gained per month

Eisenhower Second Term: 15,000 jobs gained per month

Kennedy: 122,000 jobs gained per month

Johnson: 206,000 jobs gained per month

Nixon First Term: 129,000 jobs gained per month

Nixon/Ford : 105,000 jobs gained per month

Carter: 218,000 jobs gained per month

Reagan First Term: 109,000 jobs gained per month

Reagan Second Term: 224,000 jobs gained per month

G.H.W. Bush: 52,000 jobs gained per month

Clinton First Term: 242,000 jobs gained per month

Clinton Second Term: 235,000 jobs gained per month

G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs lost per month

[crabbait]

Thumper - I have a bill with a picture of a man who was never president on it that says you're wrong. Care to take me and Ben up on it?

G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs lost per month
Kind of jumps out at you doesn't it? :shocked: Must be Clintons fault :tongue:

[lingslayer]

Originally posted by Stew:
G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs lost per month
Kind of jumps out at you doesn't it? :shocked: Must be Clintons fault :tongue:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually there is alot of truth to that statement. If you look at the shift from the manufacturing sector jobs, to service sector jobs that took place during the Clinton '90s, you will find the answer.

During the Clinton years, the service sector's employment figure skyrocketed. Service sector employment more than doubled in the 90s, while manufacturing employment was cut by more than half. Clinton's policies toward raw material acquisition, (many of which were environmental based) WTO, NAFTA and corporate tax breaks were devastating. He sold us down the river.

Unfortunately the service sector produces no tangible assets, I.e., "real goods." Investors that lost their butts investing in these industries and the associated companies learned the hard way and many became gun shy.

Loss of manufacturing jobs cost this country dearly while clinton was standing proudly on his economic house of cards. (There is plenty of evidence if you look at how the population of city cores, especially in the east, were gutted leaving housing in inner cities vacant, with no way to attract residents. There is a lack of jobs in larger city cores due to manufacturing plant closures.)

Since then, GW has been trying to rebuild the job picture by placing more emphasis on jobs and industries that produce more tangible assets I.e. goods that contribute more to the GDP, and remain assets even in slow economic times. (service sector jobs don't produce goods that retain their value during warehousing and storage).
Investor confidence will come back, hopefully, and the jobs will return with it. It will be a slow process, but one that will provide a much more stable economic base.
Slick willie went for the easy fix, and either didn't know how to control the trend, or was too busy bowing to the applause to care.
I applaud GW for having the courage to do what is needed.

The economist I worked for in the late 90's told us all we were headed for a bad recession more than a year before GW was elected, much less inaugurated.
He was a good liberal democrat too. He was devastated.

The next time someone advocates closing goods-producing industries in favor of tourism and service jobs, pay closer attention.

Bring on the flames,
Jamie

[Stz ll]

GOP. How about GREEDY OLD PEOPLE. :grin:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by lingslayer:

Since then, GW has been trying to rebuild the job picture by placing more emphasis on jobs and industries that produce more tangible assets I.e. goods that contribute more to the GDP, and remain assets even in slow economic times. (service sector jobs don't produce goods that retain their value during warehousing and storage).

Jamie

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Such as Military Industrial Complex jobs in the name of national security?

Not buying that GOP hyperbole ling. Reason is in the 90's the company I worked for(manufacturing) and the company we supplied parts for(Freightliner Corp) experienced record growth. The number of jobs quadrupled at all facilities as a matter of fact and this was happening everywhere. It makes sense that service oriented jobs would increase due to increase consumer confidence consumer spending.
Companies got used to 10-20% profit return for their investors which was great! When the profits took a downturn to more normal levels that wasn't good enough anymore and jobs were shipped overseas under NAFTA (Thanks Bill Clinton and GOP Congress )
Problem was that US workers did not gain that much in the 90's after years of concessions given to companies to keep them afloat. Now we are right back into give backs and takeaways
So before you give GW a pat on the back for all he has done to revive the economy read between the lines.

[lingslayer]

Sorry Stew,
It's not hyperbole. Working for a parts producer directly related to a service producing industry, (trucking) you may have experienced "record growth". But the facts are the the facts. And despite what you experienced, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics proves you wrong. And while I am sure he thought the growth would trickle down, the services sector isn't known for economic stability.

1) Between 1993 (clinton's inaugural year) and 2001 (Bush's inaugural year) the workforce in the US grew by 21.2%. We're talking total workforce here. All people available to work.

2) The goods producing job sectors grew by only 7.4% over the same period.

3) The manufacturing sector's growth over the same period peaked the year before willie left office at just over 2% growth, and shows a net LOSS of nearly 2% over the same period.

4) The service sectors grew by 21.8%, outpacing the growth in the overall workforce.

Want proof? Here is the website for historical data by job sector at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Do a little math, its all there.

This wasn't happenstance. It was the result of poor economic management and lack of long term vision. Furthermore, there were unique circumstances during willie's terms that should have given us a HUGE upper hand economically. The collapse of the Yen and Indonesia's troubles during his presidency presented opportunities that could have allowed us huge strides in domestic economic growth through goods producing industrial growth. Unfortunately he didn't have the foresight or economic savvy to run with it.

My previous post wasn't just my opinion. It is based on hard data used for economic predictions the dept. of HUD uses daily to underwrite housing construction loans.

And Stray,... Give it up. The phrase Military Industrial Complex was coined by a conservative Republican.

Jamie

[ 09-07-2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

The point is ling that during the boom in the nineties consumer confidence was up! Way up! and with that came the purchase of large ticket items like cars etc.
What is consumer confidence like now? GW's poorly thought out tax cuts have not worked and is one of the reason the budget surplus is now a huge deficit.
Think what you want but Clinton promised to balance the federal budget and did it!
Bush may masquerade as a fiscal conservative but he is as free spending as the most liberal democrat. Thing is he over-spends on different programs than the liberals do.
Actually I think Ike was more of a moderate.

[lingslayer]

Stew the point of my post was to show that our woes are most likely the result of clinton's mismanagement. You contested that.

Willie made a "boom" all right. and it went boom and all we have left is the hole. Which GW now has to fill. I believe he will fill it with more substantial jobs and a more stable economy overall especially in the long term. But first he has to rebuild the infrastructure. That starts with goods producing jobs and tangible assets.

And the balanced budget was balanced with the first GOP congress (the people that hold the purse strings) in more than 50 years. Given the circumstances I mentioned, willie could have left us sittin' pretty economically for 20 years,... He blew it and left us with a recession that HE laid the groundwork for and booted us into.

Since all you dems want to blame someone, lets put the blame where it belongs and stop trying to blame it on GW. He inherited this mess.

Clinton was better than GW at convincing you that all was well tho,... (or at least Stephanopolous was, 'till even he couldn't stand it anymore) Most dems still believe it. What was the Jerry Garcia line?? "Goin' to he11 in a bucket baby, but man I'm enjoyin' the ride!"

And yes Ike probably was more moderate by the time he left office. But he still knew how to play hardball in terms of foreign policy. And I believe he'd have done something similar in Iraq as we're doing now.
But then in the '50s we didn't have the noisy left faction the press loves to listen to now.
Jamie

[ 09-08-2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

Sorry ling but I'm not buying the "GW is an economical genuis" argument you're pitching. I guess the old Reagan (probably one of your heroes) favorite line when he debated Jimmy Carter in 1980 which probably won him the election.
"Are you better off today than you were in 2000? "How many people are going to say yes?
The GW inherited this mess is another tired argument.
Anyway ling it was fun exchanging ideas with you without it getting nasty...I appreciate it

[lingslayer]

Pour you another cold one?

You too Stew
J

[lingslayer]

And oddly enough, I Am better off!! :grin:
J

:grin:
I'm about the same

[Thumper]

And 50,000,000 people in Afganistan and Iraq are better off now with a real shot at freedom in their futures.

[TheRogue]

And the balanced budget was balanced with the first GOP congress (the people that hold the purse strings) in more than 50 years. Given the circumstances I mentioned, willie could have left us sittin' pretty economically for 20 years,... He blew it and left us with a recession that HE laid the groundwork for and booted us into.
[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I remember watching some stuff with Greenspan in the late 90's. He constantly railed against the "false ecomony"...that is, the stock market was driving the economy, not the other way around. So many people were making money on NOTHING (read, the dot-com bubble), that they were in effect taking away from the real economy....in other words, pumping up the volatile service side, and not investing in the manufacturing side (as stated in a post above). Not sure exactly how we can blame Clinton on that...but it is convenient, since most of those dot-com'ers were young people concerned about social ills and the environment (read...Democrats). Maybe we can blame Al Gore, since he IS the "Father of the Internet"?

GW in 2004....Can we really afford 4 more???

TR

[foxer]

I wonder what the economy would be like if 9/11 didnt happen. Something to think about when railing against GW.

[Snapset]

I think one point that Lingslayer makes very well is that the loss of Manufacturing jobs is seriously damaging the economy. This is clearly a non-partisan issue and rather than point fingers of blame, I feel we should look at the Economic forces that have caused this.

A few of these are the abundance of cheap labor, lower Environmental costs, and the lack of tariffs for foreign produced goods. Look at the merchandise you buy, most of it will say Made In China. That is where your jobs are going, and the result of the loss of those manufacturing jobs is that if you don't have an advanced degree (yielding a service job), your real buying power is down and destined to continue to drop. I don't see any hope for that to change until an economic equilibrium has been reached, as happened in Japan with the price of labor to produce a car. Then some of the jobs came back home.
With automation, the number of jobs will continue to drop, however, those who are trained to run the automation will be more productive, more difficult to replace, in more demand and recieve a higher wage.

Stew, maybe you ought to start a topic about the loss of Manufacturing jobs. That might result in a good discussion.

"Stew, maybe you ought to start a topic about the loss of Manufacturing jobs. That might result in a good discussion"
How right you are Snapset
NAFTA and WTO is killing the middle class.The thing is that alot of these companies were making profits....good profits but they wanted even more! So they opened their factories in Mexico, Canada,China and Malaysia and are making a bundle! Nope can't blame Bush Jr. for that. It started with Bush Sr. then Clinton picked up the ball along with Congress and away we went. Things went great for awhile as long as there was a bull market but when the stock market went south so did our jobs.
In the final analysis Ross Perot was right wasn't he?

[Snapset]

Absolutely, Stew. And in the long run, a diminished manufacturing base affects more than the standard of living, it has even more serious ramifications for national security. NWO is coming, it appears and we may not like the "Order" one bit.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Stew:
In the final analysis Ross Perot was right wasn't he?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yup....
Who'd a thunk it, huh?

[Thumper]

I guess whether we like it or not it is truly a world economy now. Not much chance of rolling that back. Bumper stickers of whatever kind probably won't help.

So we best get our competitive juices going. If the playing field is level nobody can beat the American worker.

[DanS]

So we best get our competitive juices going. If the playing field is level nobody can beat the American worker

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So true. Thumbs up on that one, Jack. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[lost_sailor]

If the playing field is level, the "American worker" will be earning about $2.60 an hour. (Yes I made up that number)