Asturian-American Migration Forum

This is the start of a new thread for those who wish to discuss the 2004 presidential election in the US. Please keep in mind that the opinions that generate the most interest are those that hold appeal for those of us on both sides of the Atlantic. The purpose of our forum, after all, is to unite Asturians wherever they may be, and to promote discussion among us. We are all likely to enlighten others by describing our points of view, but we are unlikely to convince them that we are correct.

Posts that relate to this new thread will be relocated here.

I ask that we all refrain from reinterpreting the motives of others as they express their political opinions, and that we all ask ourselves whether what we wish to post would be of interest to those of us "al otro lado del mar."

It is perfectly appropriate to express criticism of a point of view or a politician. It is perfectly appropriate to counter the arguments of others with evidence, or to ask for evidence that supports their point of view. Given that we post in several languages and that even the best translation cannot fully express the original meaning of a post, please try to write in a manner that esepcts the strongly held positions and the feelings of other members.

Bob Martínez
----------------------------------------
Trad. Terechu

Este es el inicio de un nuevo hilo para los que quieran debatir las elecciones presidenciales de EE.UU. Por favor, tened en cuenta que las opiniones que más interés generan son las que tienen más atractivo para los de ambos lados del Atlántico. El propósito de este foro, al fin y al cabo, es el de unir a los asturianos dondequiera que estén y fomentar el debate entre nosotros.
Probablemente podamos ilustrar a los demás describiendo nuestros puntos de vista, pero es improbable que podamos convencerles de que sean correctos.
Los mensajes relativos a este tema se reubicarán aquí.

Pido que nos abstengamos de reinterpretar los motivos de los demás y que nos preguntemos si lo que queremos escribir tendrá interés para los que están al otro lado del mar.

Es perfectamente apropiado criticar un punto de vista o a un político. Es perfectamente apropiado rebatir los argumentos de los demás con pruebas, o pedir pruebas que sustenten el punto de vista de los demás.
Dado que escribimos en varios idiomas y que ni siquiera la mejor traducción puede expresar totalmente el significado original de un mensaje, ruego intentéis escribir de tal manera que se respeten las posiciones enconadas y los sentimientos de los demás miembros.

Bob Martínez

A little on the frivolous side: I want Kerry to win because he's sexier than Bush and because I absolutely love Teresa Heinz! I saw her in an interview and thought she was brilliant and charming, has a great sense of humour and is a true citizen of the world.
By comparison Laura Bush looks like some old maiden (no offense meant to old maidens) in her buttoned up governess outfits and that uncanny fake smile on her face.

Seriously now, I believe the world's most powerful country, the one who dominates us culturally, financially, technically and militarily deserves a smarter president. George W. will drag us into a Clash of Cultures and there's no telling what this all will lead to. The thing is we have to all get along, because that's all there's to it, and there's no goodies or baddies, just different kinds of people with different criteria. The Arab world is pretty much fed up with being made the scapegoats of everything.

------------------------------------------------
Un poco de frivolidad para empezar: quiero que gane Kerry porque es más sexy que Bush y porque me encanta Teresa Heinz. La ví en una entrevista y creo que el listísima y encantadora, tiene un gran sentido del humor y es una verdadera ciudadana del mundo.
En comparación Laura Bush parece una solterona (con perdón de las solteronas) con sus trajes de Srta. Rottenmayer abotonados hasta la barbilla y su inquietante sonrisa.

Ahora en serio, creo que el país más poderoso del mundo, el que nos domina cultural, economica, técnica y militarmente merece tener un presidente un poco más listo. George W. nos arrastrará a un choque de culturas y no quiero pensar lo que puede pasar. El caso es que tenemos que convivir todos, porque eso es lo que hay y aquí no hay malos ni buenos, sólo diferencias de criterio. El mundo árabe está harto de ser los chivos expiatorios de todos los males.

Terechu

I favor George Bush in this election.

As for Kerry, he represents Eureopean style socialism; weak on defense (check out his Senate record); helped pull down the CIA and FBI leaving us weak in obtaining knowledge of potential internal and external sources of terrorism; unpatriotic in abandoning his Vietnam brothers; will increase taxes to create programs that benefit no one in the long run except create a government depended society; flip flops all around the issues with no sense of direction; 17 plus years as a Senator with no track record of any meaningful legislation (if he supports all these new ideas why didn't he as a Senator introduce legislation. The President can not create laws only introduce ideas that Congress must accept or reject); and far too liberal and too far to the left for me.

As for Teresa Heinz Kerry, she is one big NUT. If it wasn't for John Heinz and his catsup money, who knows where this woman would be today. God help this country is she is ever a First Lady.

Obviously, to anyone who's been reading the Politics forum, I'm for Kerry. Here's why:

Kerry wants to repeal Bush's massive tax giveaways to the rich. Under his plan, taxes would DECREASE for all those earning under $200,000 per year, and he would reinstate the estate tax, which only affects a very small percentage of the wealthiest Americans. He will also reinstate the tax on dividend income. I find it morally reprehensible that you pay more taxes on money earned working 8 hours a day than you do on money earned because it's been handed down to you from prior generations.

Kerry would work to cap the amount of interest credit card companies can charge. We have a predatory lending system in the U.S. It's usury to charge 20% interest on a credit card. Kerry would work to stop this abuse of the working poor.

Kerry would reinstate the mountaintop-removal mining protections stripped away by the Bush administration. STOP CHOPPING WV's MOUNTAINS DOWN!

Kerry would promote sustainable economic growth by getting the debt back under control. We have gone from the biggest surplus in our nation's history to the biggest debt in our history in four short years. Kerry will work to relieve our future generations of this massive burden.

Of course, the main reason to vote for Kerry is that he will work WITH the world and our allies to fight a smart, collaborative, winnable war on terror. He will remove most of our troops from Iraq (to be replaced by international forces), and he will FULLY FUND the Department of Homeland Security, not just talk about it.

There are a million more reasons to vote for Kerry (I can think of 70 billion right now), but these are a few.

Couple things here:

I am retired and live on far less than $200,000 a year ("Kerry" benchmark for tax increases). I enjoyed the last tax cut and do not want Kerry or Congress to mess with our tax structure with any increases at any level, but have further reductions at all levels. I believe Congress should look at a flat tax with minimal deductions, if any, or a consumption tax. I want my money, not give to Uncle Sam to create more programs that further indenture its citizens so they rely on our Federal government for subsistance. Or throw around as "pork". As a nation with more and more retirees, I don't want my dividends taxed. Social Security, pensions and dividends are what we live on. Besides taxing dividends amounts to double taxation.

Not sure how Spain works or the states each Forum member lives, but here in Kansas, and if you work in Kansas City, MO, and live on the Kansas side of town you pay a 1% earnings tax, plus a 3-4% Kansas state income tax, county property tax, personal property tax on vehicles, 7.5% sales tax on everything and then Federal income tax, with allowable deductions for the other taxes, except sales tax. Adds up to a big bite out of your gross earnings. Not sure of the total percent, but it probably approaches 40-50% factoring in all types of city, county, state and federal taxes.

Who pays 20% for credit card balances. Seems way high, with the prime rate as low as it is. Just calling your credit card company and seeking a lower rate might work out.

Mountain top mining, you better call the Wise administration in WV. The Dems control that state and mountain-top and strip mining is a state issue, and the Dems won't deal with that one, nor will the Republicans or Independents. Too much at stake in that poor state.

Troops in Iraq and help from the likes of France and Germany, lots of luck. France surrenders with a firecracker going off.

Now let's look at both candidates with issues that from the heartland (middle United States) mean something:

1. Gay Marriages--Bush opposes; Kerry favors
2. Partial Birth Abortions--Bush opposes; Kerry favors
3. Restoring Voluntary Prayer in the Public Schools--Bush favors; Kerry opposes
4. Assault on Mel Gibson for the making film about Christ--Bush supports Gibson; Kerry particpated in the Left's assault on Gibson, suggesting possible anti-Semitism evern though Kerry had not seen the film.
5. Assault on Boy Scouts for belief in God and not allowing Homosexaul Scout Leaders--Bush supports Boys Scouts' stand; Kerry opposes Boy Scouts' stand
6. Asking God's blessing on America--Bush often asks God to bless America in his speeches; Kerry attacks Bush for mentioning God so often
7. Judges--Bush says "we need common-sense udges who believe our rights are derived from God"; Kerry insists on judges who support the ACLU's radical anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-family agenda, along with Senators Ted Kennedy.
8. Overrall Record--President Bush does not vote on issues before Congress but, based on his publicly stated positions, would receive an 85% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union if he did; Kerry, according to the highly respected politically neutral "National Journal" rates Kerry the most liberal US Senator in 2003, more than liberal Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

The above items 1 thru 8 taken from the Citizen Leader Coalition, 2004 Election Voter Guide.

Those are the reasons Bush will carry the mid-Western states.

The Kerry record in Congress speaks for its self. One thing about Kerry he will tell you want you want to hear. The next major debate will be Kerry debating himself on the issues. Wonder who will win that debate?

If you live on Social Security, then you had better vote for Kerry, Ken, because Bush is doing everything in his power to run it into bankruptcy. Do you use Medicare too? Well get ready to pay a lot more for it if Bush gets re-elected. As far as the other "programs that indenture people to rely on the Federal Government," what are they?

Do you drive on the highways? Do you enjoy drinking non-polluted water? Do you like breathing clean air? Do you use the telephone? Do you watch TV? Do you eat? Do you buy electronics or clothes? These are the types of government services and subsidies that will have to be cut to pay for the Bush tax cut and to pay off the deficit. That means that everything will cost more, since the corporations that currently receive subsidies will pass the cost on to us, the consumers.

With all due respect, I don't think you're clear on the regulations regarding mountaintop removal mining in WV (or Wyoming for that matter). The regulations are set and enforced by the Federal Government. For example, the permits are issued by the Corps of Engineers, and the safety regs are enforced by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This is NOT a state issue, it's a Federal issue, and Bush has hung the local populace out to dry on this issue.

And when it comes to welfare, I guess we should just let poor folks (the vast majority of whom work two or three jobs) starve? Should they just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in all their free time when they're not pulling overtime at Wal-Mart just to scrape together enough rent for this month? Should they go to college? With what money? Most can't even get enough together to pay a deposit on an apartment, so they are forced to live in temporary housing. Life is tough for America's working poor, and it's getting tougher thanks to Bush's policies.

Most of your other points presume a belief in God. This nation is secular, and always has been. We are free to worship whatever we choose. I choose to not believe in a god. So why should my children be expected to endure the humiliation of being the only kid in class not praying? Would you still support prayer in schools if the prayers were to Allah or Buddah?

If you believe in Jesus, good for you, believe in him reverently, personally, and don't try to bring him into the schools, courts, and other secular institutions in our country. This is not, nor has it ever been a Christian country. Jesus said to go into a closet and pray. More people should take his advice and we'd be much better off.

And what's wrong with gays getting married? And please don't answer that they destroy the "sanctity of marriage." What are they going to do, make the divorce rate even higher than the current 60%? Why do you care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Nobody asks me how my wife and I have sex, because it's none of their business. I don't ask anybody else for the same reason. Just not liking homosexuals because it says not to in the Bible is not a valid reason. That would be like saying it was okay to stone disobediant children, since that's in there too. Again, keep your religion to yourself, I'll keep mine to myself.

The Republicans foist these "values" issues on the public to distract them from the fact that they are getting poorer while the richest 2% are getting richer and richer. I think people should vote with their brain and their pocketbook, not their Bible.

Xose, I really can not reply to you any further. You are too far out in left field for any rational conversation.

You stick with Kerry and I'll stick with Bush, and let's leave it that way.

PS: I do receive SSN, but not medicare. Not quite 65 yet. I buy my health insurance. Mountain top mining, as I remember reading about it in the Clarksburg Telegram, Fairmont Times-West Virginian and the Morgantown Post (all West Virginia daily newspapers) the WV legislative body backed away from the issue. Never remember any US government body being involved.

Jeez, Ken! I believe you're farther right than the Pope!
I honestly think that Kerry will do more for the "little people" any time than any member of the mighty Bush family, regardless which one.
Just the fact that Bush is against a national health service, in my eyes, makes him a mean and merciless individual. Denying poor people the right to health care and meds is the lowest there is.
As to Laura Bush, her hypocritical speech last month on stem cells was more than I could bear, especially considering the many death sentences her hubby signed when he was Governor of Texas.

I find gay marriages a little disturbing myself, it's turning my world upside down, but I have gay friends and I love them dearly and wish them to be happy, so if one of them ever marries, I'll attend the wedding proudly.

Take care
Terechu

Ken, I don't think supporting equal rights for all Americans (including homosexuals) and trying to ensure that poor people aren't left to fend for themselves are out in "left field."

I'll leave you with one last thought on health care under the present system: A recent study has concluded that the premiums for basic health insurance for a family of three is approaching the GROSS wages for someone working on minimum wage. That means that even if they paid 100% of their PRE-TAX income, they still could not afford health insurance. That is wrong. Health care is a basic human right.

Kerry wants to guarantee that everyone in America has access to the same level of health care that the Congress does. I don't know how anyone could not support that.

In an earlier post I laid blame for any mountain top mining control soley on state governments, and in this case West Virginia. I need to correct my statement. The US Dept of Interior does set some regulations on pollutants into streams that would result from strip mining, via the EPA. However, the WV state legislative body can step in and provide the same legislation, but has failed to do so. There have been many attempts in the past to reduce or ease the requirements for pollutant levels into streams during the previous Clinton administration and in the Bush administration. When ever coal mining legislation is brought up for tightening or loosening controls in WV it becomes an emotional issue with the trade offs of employment versus lack of employment in the coal industry, that state's major employer (besides Wal-Mart, which is now, I believe, the number one employer in WV). Recent hot bebate in WV was weight limits on trucks hauling coal.

I guess its not a secret that I support President George W. Bush for re-election...In my mind he is the best man for the job. Yes, I do feel safer with him as our President.

I would like a clarification of what type of Health Care you talking about? Would it be something like they have in Canada? If so, then President Clinton would still be waiting ...either to see a Cardiologist which takes several weeks, and then another several weeks for the much needed bi-pass Surgery. I am not a President Clinton supporter, but I am very glad his problem was taken care of as swiftly as it was. Didn't Hilliary Clinton have a problem with this Health Care situation when they first came to the presidency?

The high prices that Doctor's and Surgeons charge is due for the post part to the high cost of Mal Practice Insurance, they have to protect themselves...Didn't John Edwards make his fortune as a Mal Practice Lawyer?

I am a Senior Citizen on Medicare...I have no fear that this will be taken away. There are safe guards in place to protect SS. One of the Dems main things is to try and scare Senior Citizens...this has happend so many times before...they need to sing a different song.

Prayer in school...It would be nice if what they would do is give a minute of silence for anyone who wants to reflect in whatever beliefs they have. Not necessarily to anyone's religion.

Homosexual marriage. I think you probably all know how I feel about that. I don't feel that they should be able to marry...but thats how I feel.

Abortion...How can anyone believe in late term abortion, this is a child...it really puzzles me. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. There are many methods out there to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Could someone out there please tell me what Senator Kerry has accomplished in his 20 years in the Senate?...a question...

I am talking about a government and privately funded, comprehensive health insurance program that guarantees a minimum level of care for every citizen in America. At the very least, the government should ensure that every citizen has access to a doctor and a way to pay for it. Europe does it. Yes, Canada does it. In fact, EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation on the Earth does it, except for one: us.

Health care costs are indeed affected by malpractice. But not to near the extent of price gouging by HMOs and Drug manufacturers. Why do you think the same drugs cost 1/3 less in Canada than they do here? Greed, that's why.

We need to quit pretending that we don't have two separate health care systems in this country. The rich and those lucky enough to get health insurance at work have one system; the poor or those working at jobs that don't offer insurance have another--theirs is characterized by waiting until you get sick enough to go to the emergency room, and by then the condition usually costs exponentially more to treat than it would have had it been caught early.

By the way, this type of system could be funded by taxes on dividend income. If we still taxed it.

And Barbara, your SS will be going away if we continue on our current course, because Bush is trying to drive it into insolvency. That is the goal of his debt policies.

Please read this article regarding SS and healthcare costs: http://usatoday.printthis.clickability. ... nerID=1660

Here's another article on the coming SS insolvency from the Fed itself:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Et ... socsec.htm

America today is far behind almost any other industrialized country in its social programs. Why is that?

One reason is that very few of us like to pay taxes and politicians have been pandering to this desire.

Sure, wanting to keep your money is normal. That's why we need leaders who are willing and able to explain to us why it is important to fund social programs. We've had leaders in the past who got us excited about paying taxes, who gave us a vision of what America could be if we worked together. But American politics in the past 20 or so years, has had no such leaders. Even Clinton, so reviled by the right, tended to take the easy way out and thus failed us on that count.

Yes, it's very possible that big government IS a problem that gets in the way of the social good. But there is still a essential role for efficient governmental social programs.

There are several good reasons why social programs -- and our taxes to support them -- are important. One is that it's just and humane. Given my religious upbringing, that tugs on (appeals to) my conscience. I'm always surprised that the religious right don't see this as part of Jesus' demand on us. Did the Beatitudes recently get chopped out of the Bible?

I realize that many won't be convinced by the need for justice and humane treatment of each other. So, how about self-interest?

I'm reminded of a friend who aggressively insisted that the government shouldn't take care of the weak. Then he became ill, lost his job, and was even incarcerated. Do you think he refused help from the government then? Any one of us is just inches from needing social services. What do you think Social Security is? It's welfare for the retired, disabled, and survivors of the deceased. And it's good.

We don't see that welfare for one of us is also welfare for all of us. How so? Because when one of us isn't getting their basic needs met, we all suffer. Let me explain.

What happens when one segment of society doesn't feel that it is receiving a share of the wealth and other benefits? They grumble, cheat, work half-heartedly, rob, kill, and otherwise make life miserable for all of us!

Usually our attempts to deal with these problems lead us to lock up the criminals: hire more police, make tougher laws, build more prisons. What we fail to recognize is our own role in creating the situation.

Which companies are doing the best nowadays? The ones that are treating their employees well! And which countries are doing best? I'd bet that it's the ones that are treating all of their citizens as if they matter.

No, I don't think social programs are going to fix social problems, but they do help smooth the rough edges and thus keep our society in better balance. When anxiety and jealousy increase, our civilization deteriorates.

So, one goal of government should be to make sure that these negative forces don't get out of control. Taxes are one way we can balance the extremes of society, making sure that almost everyone has enough to feel vitally connected to it. It's a small price to pay for a more gracious life.

That's why it's so important that everyone have food, housing, health care, education, work, a role in our society -- and a voice in our democracy.

If you want to experience hatred, chaos, and pain, start taking away those basic rights so that some have and some don't. Make it obvious that some have a thousand times more than others.

Say what? You think that's America a la 2004? Well, yeah, we really are moving toward this sad state and we're doing it to ourselves!

Why are we so cheap and greedy? Because that's the way we humans are wired. You know, Jesus didn't come talk to us because we were perfect. He came with a pointed message for us. And I think he believed that we can do better than we usually do.

Of course, we're not going to hear this from our "leaders" in this election. But we should.

-------------

Hoy América es detrás en el extremo de casi cualquier otro país industrializado en sus programas sociales. ¿Por qué es así?

Una razón es que a muy pocos de nosotros les gusta pagar impuestos y los políticos han estado consintiendo a este capricho de deseo.

Seguramente queriendo conservar su dinero es normal. Es por eso que necesitamos a los líderes que están dispuestos y capaces de explicarnos por qué es importante financiar programas sociales. Hemos tenido líderes en el pasado que nos hicieron excitados sobre el pago de impuestos, que nos dieron una visión de que América podría ser si trabajáramos juntos. Pero la política americana en los 20 y tanto años pasados, no ha tenido ningunos tales líderes. Incluso Clinton, tan insultado por la derecha, tendió a tomar la ruta política más fácil y así nos falló sobre aquella cuenta.

Sí, es también posible que el gobierno grande sea un problema que dificulta el social bueno. Pero hay todavía un papel esencial para las programas gubernamentales sociales eficientes.

Hay varias buenas razones por qué programas sociales - y nuestros impuestos para apoyarlos - son importantes. Primero es que es justo y humano. Considerando mi formación religiosa, me apela la conciencia. Siempre estoy sorprendido que la derecha religiosa no ve esto como una parte de la demanda que Jesús hizo de nosotros. ¿Recientemente se corta las Bienaventuranzas de la Biblia?

Comprendo que muchos no serán convencidos por la necesidad de la justicia y el tratamiento humano el uno del otro. ¿Pues, qué le parece el interés propio? ¿Le interesa?

Me recuerdan de un amigo que agresivamente insistió que el gobierno no tenga que cuidar del débil. Entonces se enfermó, perdió su trabajo, hasta fue encarcelado. ¿Piensa usted que él rechazó la ayuda del gobierno entonces? Cada uno de nosotros somos solamente pulgadas del borde de necesitar servicios sociales. ¿Qué piensa usted que la Seguridad Social es? Esto es una asistencia social (Nota: Asistencia social, o "welfare", tiene un sentido muy malo en EU y los del clase media no quieren pensar que reciben "welfare".) para el jubilado, minusválido, y los sobrevivientes del difunto. Y está bien.

No vemos que el bienestar de uno es también el bienestar de todos nosotros. ¿Cómo es eso? Cuando uno de nosotros no encuentra sus necesidades básicas, sufrimos. Déjeme explicar.

¿Qué pasa cuando un segmento de sociedad no siente que reciben una parte de la riqueza y otras ventajas? ¡Ellos se quejan, hacen trampas, trabajan sin ganas, roban, matan, y de otra manera hacen la vida miserable para todos nosotros!

Por lo general nuestras intentos de tratar con estos problemas nos conducen a encarcelar a los criminales: contrata a más policía, haga leyes más severas, construya más prisiones. Lo que fallamos en reconocer es nuestro propio papel en la creación de la situación.

¿Cuáles empresas prosperan mejor hoy en día? ¡Los que tratan a sus empleados bien! ¿Y cuál son los países que prosperan mejor? Yo apostaría son los que tratan a todos sus ciudadanos como si ellos importan muchísimos.

No, no pienso que programas sociales van a arreglar todos los problemas sociales, pero sí, ellos realmente ayudan a alisar los bordes ásperos y así mantener nuestra sociedad en el mejor equilibrio. Cuando aumento la ansiedad y la celosía, nuestra civilización deteriora.

Por eso, un objetivo de un gobierno debería ser de asegurarse que estas fuerzas negativas no salen fuera del control. Los impuestos son un modo en que podemos equilibrar los extremos de sociedad, asegurando que casi cada uno tiene bastante para sentirse sumamente relacionado a la sociedad. Es un pequeño precio que pagamos para una vida más amable.

Así pues es importantísimo que cada uno tenga el alimento, el alojamiento, la asistencia médica, la educación, un trabajo, un papel en nuestra sociedad - y una voz (un voto) en nuestra democracia.

Si quiere experimentar el odio, el caos, y el dolor, quita aquellos derechos básicos de modo que unos tengan y otros no tengan. Hágalo obvio que unos tienen mil veces más que otros.

¿Diga qué? ¿Piensa que hablo de América del año 2004? ¡Bien, sí, realmente nos marchamos hacia este estado triste y nos metemos en estos follones!

¿Por qué somos tan tacaños y ávidos? Es como estamos "construidos" (como comportamos naturalmente). Probablemente sabe que Jesús no vino porque estamos perfectos. Vino para danos un mensaje puntiagudo. Y pienso que Jesús creyó que podemos comportar mejor que hacemos por lo general.

Desde luego, no vamos a oír palabras así de nuestros "líderes" en esta elección. Pero sí, deberíamos oírlas.

Wouldn't Teresa Heinz Kerry make a "special" First Lady...


On hurricane relief efforts: ``Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while - at least, the kids.''


On opponents of her husband's health-care proposals: ``Idiots.''


On the title ``First Lady'': ``Ick.''


On her detractors: ``Scumbags.''


Someone should talk to her about whats right and wrong when your husband is campaigning for the highest office in the World.

I know, I know, some of you will say you admire her shoot from the hip remarks, however, this is all very inappropriate. I am sure some will disagree with me, but thats what makes the world go around.
-------------------------------
Trad. Terechu

No sería Teresa Heinz una Primera Dama "especial"?:

Sobre las ayudas a los damnificados por los huracanes: "La ropa es maravillosa, pero que vayan en cueros un poco - por lo menos los niños."

Sobre los que se oponen a las propuestas de su marido para sistema de sanidad: "Idiotas"

Sobre sus detractores: "mierdecillas".

Alguien debería decirle lo que está bien y lo que está mal cuando tu marido está haciendo campaña para el puesto más alto del mundo.

Ya sé, ya, que algunos admiráis sus comentarios estilo disparo desde la cadera, sin embargo esto es muy inapropiado. Estoy segura que algunos estarán en desacuerdo conmigo, pero eso lo que hace que el mundo gire.

And this has to do with the race for President how? This is a typical attempt by the Rebublican attack media to distract voters from substantial issues.

Now, back to important topics:

U.S. deaths in Iraq: 1,035
U.S. wounded in action: 7,032
Iraqi civilians killed: Between 12,800-14,843
Number of stable governments in Iraq: 0
Number of Osama bin Ladens captured: 0

And speaking of flip-flopping:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --G.W. Bush, 3/13/02