NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so I can't vote at all. But I can make believe. Kerry is an interesting candidate. Boring, indecisive, but rather interesting. He is the first in a long time to go against the grain of popular American feeling, mainly by the fact he is liberal. Even the more conservative Democrats don't seem to notice this, giving Kerry a freebie because he isn't Bush. However, the Democrats can't just choose a candidate just because he isn't Bush. They also need to pick the Democrat they feel is best for America, and a couple of guys at the primaries did have those plans. Democrats must now ask themselves this: even though I hate Bush, will Kerry be any better? Let's look at some of his campaign promises, and let's see if anyone is happy with them.
1. All trade agreements, including the WTO and NAFTA, will be put under review. Judging by what he has said in the past concerning how these pose a concieved threat to America, Kerry will end up pulling out of these agreements. Buisnesses here won't like the fact that Kerry has basically isolated our national economy, and restricted foreign markets. Overseas investors will be unhappy that they can't invest in the most lucrative market on earth. It may even effect jobs. This will undoubtedly make many businesses angry, and that's bad, because what I'll describe next needs their cooperation.
2. Environmental policy. His rich wife, Teresa Heinz, is a classic liberal with money: she cares primarily about the environment when it comes to politics. It'll make Kerry a shining star in environmental policy too, right? I doubt it, because if any policy needs to work, it also needs to protect the growth of the US economy. Kerry, however, will loose business support, even if he is elected and does nothing beforehand. In the end, he'll have to go from an environmental policy that works with businesses, to one that relies on legal fiat to carry its will out. Again, the economy will be mired because of Kerry's anti-growth policies, because I suspect that it'll focus most on the business that pollutes the most, but also needs to cooperate the most: the coal industry. In any case, it's a surefire way to loose the Rust Belt vote.
3. His healthcare plan is the most monstrous thing I have ever seen. Requiring more funding than anything else except Social Security, it will consume $900 billion/year just to get it started. It'll probably be higher, like all government programs, because of bureaocracy. Kerry also wants to reduce the $400 billion deficit, so how will he pay for it? Take a wild guess.
4. In the years of Clinton, the military became digitalized. With the help of Bush, it was refitted into the 21st century. With the help of Kerry, all of that will be tossed down the drain. He wants a bigger, Cold War style military. He wants at least two more divisions, for example. This is dangerous for two reasons. One, despite the trumpeting, they aren't needed, because the military can operate with far less troops than even ten years ago. With the rapid movement of military technology, Iraq could be defended with around 125,000 troops by year's end. Two, this reflects that his zealotry for defending jobs, even if it means squandering new ones. Why? There is the advancing field of military robotics, and as they are showing, the soldier will be a formality of war in a few decades. Not him. He wants to keep the military large and bloated just so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks, even at the risk of military defeat. He'll destroy the progress made in the military in the past 12 years, by adding troops, and trying to squander new military hardware.
5. Trial lawyers will celebrate his arrival, especially because of his running mate, a former trial lawyer. In an era of high insurance premiums due to excessive rewards, it will send the wrong message to lawyers. The vice president's election will assure lawyers that Edwards is against tort reform. Whether or not he is is irrelevant, as most lawyers, by nature, are against tort reform, and Edwards hasn't spoken on it much. In any case, lawyers will begin a volley of new suits for more ridicolous reasons, and will drive insurancen premiums through the roof. If it's related to healthcare, however, lawyers will still sue, and either the surplus Kerry promised will disapear, or our taxes will go up even more. Otherwise, buy your home, life, and auto insurance policies now, because the premiums may be unaffordable later. It'll have bad effects from raising the value of a new home to an excessive rate, to making auto sales less attractive, to encouraging more money to be locked in trusts (and less of it to be invested). It'll have far reaching effects further damaging the economy, but hey, do lawyers care? Probably not, and Edwards will assure them that they don't need to care.
I know this rhetoric isn't just an attempt to win votes. When Clinton campaigned, he adapted the Democrats to be further right. The Democrats are still, whether they admit it or not, fairly right-winged compared with the rest of the world. Kerry, however, isn't. He's not campaigning on a platform of keeping the Democrats' tradition set up by Clinton, but rather, trying to form something not seen since LBJ.
We have to ask if Kerry will actually be a good president. Even though half of the nation wants Bush out, the other half loves him. With Kerry, we may all hate him.

i don't like Kerry one bit, but he's got my vote. anybody but the Chimp, 2004.

i don't like Kerry one bit, but he's got my vote. anybody but the Chimp, 2004.
And if he isn't any bit better, then what? Will you regret your vote? Will you re-elect Kerry?

And if he isn't any bit better, then what? Will you regret your vote? Will you re-elect Kerry?
American is a country of trial and error. Bush has had his trial. It's time to try something new. If Kerry does not satisfy me, I'll vote Nader in 2008, or maybe Republican.

And if he isn't any bit better, then what? Will you regret your vote? Will you re-elect Kerry?

well, because of his politics he CAN'T be as bad as Bush, from my standpoint. i hope beyond hope that the next election will present us with better choices, and i would LOVE to get Kerry out of the White House, but i honestly can't think of any way that 4 years of Bush could possibly be better than Kerry.

of course, you seem to support the conservative side of America, and the majority opinions...i am the opposite, naturally, since i am in the minority in virtually every area of opinion. i don't like Kerry's fiscal policies at all, because i am a fiscal conservative, but Bush is no better in those areas at all. Kerry's social policy is at least marginally more in line with my views, though he's still ludicrously socially conservative in most ways.

American is a country of trial and error. Bush has had his trial. It's time to try something new. If Kerry does not satisfy me, I'll vote Nader in 2008, or maybe Republican.
In this case, however, Kerry doesn't hide his errors. He makes no secret that he will have a disatorous presidency, based on isolation and economic blunders.

I like how the original post says Kerry is against the majority because he is liberal...

well, because of his politics he CAN'T be as bad as Bush, from my standpoint. i hope beyond hope that the next election will present us with better choices, and i would LOVE to get Kerry out of the White House, but i honestly can't think of any way that 4 years of Bush could possibly be better than Kerry.

of course, you seem to support the conservative side of America, and the majority opinions...i am the opposite, naturally, since i am in the minority in virtually every area of opinion. i don't like Kerry's fiscal policies at all, because i am a fiscal conservative, but Bush is no better in those areas at all. Kerry's social policy is at least marginally more in line with my views, though he's still ludicrously socially conservative in most ways.
I don't care about his social policies, however. I care about his economic policies, and they tend to be reaching to every aspect of political thought. In any case, he will fiscally be worse than Bush. He will squander any chance to rebuild a tax base by weakening the economy, and his spending will further put us in the red. Bush will look like a slight misspender compared to Kerry, who will drive the deficit above and beyond anything it is now. Either that, or tax rates will reach 70% again.
BTW, I'm not the majority opinion. I represent a half of the nation. When it comes to politics, we're now 50-50.

3. His healthcare plan is the most monstrous thing I have ever seen. Requiring more funding than anything else except Social Security, it will consume $900 billion/year just to get it started. It'll probably be higher, like all government programs, because of bureaocracy. Kerry also wants to reduce the $400 billion deficit, so how will he pay for it? Take a wild guess.
get rid of bullshit federal programs and political tax breaks?

4. In the years of Clinton, the military became digitalized. With the help of Bush, it was refitted into the 21st century. With the help of Kerry, all of that will be tossed down the drain. He wants a bigger, Cold War style military. He wants at least two more divisions, for example. This is dangerous for two reasons. One, despite the trumpeting, they aren't needed, because the military can operate with far less troops than even ten years ago. With the rapid movement of military technology, Iraq could be defended with around 125,000 troops by year's end. Two, this reflects that his zealotry for defending jobs, even if it means squandering new ones. Why? There is the advancing field of military robotics, and as they are showing, the soldier will be a formality of war in a few decades. Not him. He wants to keep the military large and bloated just so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks, even at the risk of military defeat. He'll destroy the progress made in the military in the past 12 years, by adding troops, and trying to squander new military hardware.
as far as i can tell bush seems to be trying to put more troops everywhere, yet it can operate with less troops? i think some one has a numbers problem
and so you dont like it because hes trying to make sure people have jobs and the military has troops? wasnt everyone bitching at clinton for reducing its size, make up your conservative minds you flip floppers

5. Trial lawyers will celebrate his arrival, especially because of his running mate, a former trial lawyer. In an era of high insurance premiums due to excessive rewards, it will send the wrong message to lawyers. The vice president's election will assure lawyers that Edwards is against tort reform. Whether or not he is is irrelevant, as most lawyers, by nature, are against tort reform, and Edwards hasn't spoken on it much. In any case, lawyers will begin a volley of new suits for more ridicolous reasons, and will drive insurancen premiums through the roof. If it's related to healthcare, however, lawyers will still sue, and either the surplus Kerry promised will disapear, or our taxes will go up even more. Otherwise, buy your home, life, and auto insurance policies now, because the premiums may be unaffordable later. It'll have bad effects from raising the value of a new home to an excessive rate, to making auto sales less attractive, to encouraging more money to be locked in trusts (and less of it to be invested). It'll have far reaching effects further damaging the economy, but hey, do lawyers care? Probably not, and Edwards will assure them that they don't need to care.
the very idea that lawyers will throw new lawsuits around because of a new vice president is almost the epitome of slippery slope, they are lawyers, im more than positive they know how government works and vice presidents dont have shit to do with case decisions. oh and captain obvious if you didnt catch it rates are rising RIGHT NOW, prices for all NECESITIES are going UP.

try throwing around more slippery slope logic and try and make some one that isnt a right winger give a crap

I know this rhetoric isn't just an attempt to win votes. When Clinton campaigned, he adapted the Democrats to be further right. The Democrats are still, whether they admit it or not, fairly right-winged compared with the rest of the world. Kerry, however, isn't. He's not campaigning on a platform of keeping the Democrats' tradition set up by Clinton, but rather, trying to form something not seen since LBJ.
We have to ask if Kerry will actually be a good president. Even though half of the nation wants Bush out, the other half loves him. With Kerry, we may all hate him.
what we HAVE to ask is whether BUSH will be a good president, is he REALLY looking out for our interests, hes already been in 4 years and we know what he has been doing. which is insinuate fear in order to pass unconstitional laws and acts and push presidential power to its extent. he tries to defend the nation but yet is pushing lax rules for immigrants. bush is all talk and either no action or bad political action

I don't care about his social policies, however. I care about his economic policies, and they tend to be reaching to every aspect of political thought. In any case, he will fiscally be worse than Bush. He will squander any chance to rebuild a tax base by weakening the economy, and his spending will further put us in the red. Bush will look like a slight misspender compared to Kerry, who will drive the deficit above and beyond anything it is now. Either that, or tax rates will reach 70% again.
BTW, I'm not the majority opinion. I represent a half of the nation. When it comes to politics, we're now 50-50.
woo woo slippery slope plus a total lack of acceptance of reality

you tell me how kerry is gonan make us poorer than bush, i do believe CUTTING taxes while INCREASING spending creates huge ass deficits really fast

#1) Is good enough reason for me to vote Bush. I don't want Kerry bankrupting this country through economic isolation. And by violating those numerous international agreements on tariffs and trade he will bring about the wrath of the WTO. He will take this economy further into the deep dark chasm that is protectionism with a smile on his face. Support more Clintonian economics vote for G. W. at least he doesen't fear the outsourcing bogeyman.

get rid of bullshit federal programs and political tax breaks?
If you believe Jean Francois Kerry-a Taxachussetts Liberal if there ever was one (rated #1 Liberal in the Senate, making Ted Kennedrunk the Less Liberal Senator from Taxachussetts-will get rid of idiotic federal programs, just to fund a humongous socialized medicine program...if you believe that, I have some land you might be interested in buying...ocean-front property, cheap, in downtown Dallas. C'mon down, and get your ocean-front lot in Dallas.

The only federal "programs" Kerry is interested in cutting, involve the Department of Defense (the only aspect of the federal government that is called for in the Constitution...)

BTW Euclid I know alot of Democrats and the majority of them think Kerry is far too conservative. Three reasons why.
1) He said abortion was a "bad" choice but a choice that women should have.
2) He does not tolerate gay marriage
3) He will not repeal the enormous ill advised Bush tax cuts. He will only repeal the ones he deems for the rich.

If you believe Jean Francois Kerry-a Taxachussetts Liberal if there ever was one (rated #1 Liberal in the Senate, making Ted Kennedrunk the Less Liberal Senator from Taxachussetts-will get rid of idiotic federal programs, just to fund a humongous socialized medicine program...if you believe that, I have some land you might be interested in buying...ocean-front property, cheap, in downtown Dallas. C'mon down, and get your ocean-front lot in Dallas.

The only federal "programs" Kerry is interested in cutting, involve the Department of Defense (the only aspect of the federal government that is called for in the Constitution...)
"Kerry's backers argue he is not the reflexive liberal that Republicans portray. Bush is alluding to a National Journal rating that was calculated on Kerry's 2003 votes on social issues. He was not rated on foreign-policy or economic votes because he was not present for most. In a comparison of lifetime liberal ratings of senators now serving, Kerry ranked 11th."

usatoday

get rid of bullshit federal programs and political tax breaks?
Most unlikely. No matter who's president, those programs will never leave because too many lobbies support them, as has been happening for decades. The best thing to do is create no new sppending programs.

as far as i can tell bush seems to be trying to put more troops everywhere, yet it can operate with less troops? i think some one has a numbers problem
and so you dont like it because hes trying to make sure people have jobs and the military has troops? wasnt everyone bitching at clinton for reducing its size, make up your conservative minds you flip floppers
Military robotics weren't exactly a field then. But I always thought that a small military was best. I'm a bit of a maverick conservative in that sense. But yes, we can operate with less troops, if we develope robotics, and are willing to sacrifice the jobs of some troops. If we need more, either withdraw from Korea (the South Koreans can defend themselve), and hire civiliann contractors for civilian jobs, and take the soldiers in those positions on the field. There are actually quite a few of them.

the very idea that lawyers will throw new lawsuits around because of a new vice president is almost the epitome of slippery slope, they are lawyers, im more than positive they know how government works and vice presidents dont have shit to do with case decisions. oh and captain obvious if you didnt catch it rates are rising RIGHT NOW, prices for all NECESITIES are going UP.
Do you guys know that inflation was far worse at many times? I knew inflation would come from more jobs, so this is a quid pro quo (they did rise in the nineties). This will exasberate the problem. And btw, with so many lawyers out there, trying to get rich, I think many can get away unseasoned. Did you know that more kids want to be lawyers than there are currently lawyers in practice?
try throwing around more slippery slope logic and try and make some one that isnt a right winger give a crap


what we HAVE to ask is whether BUSH will be a good president, is he REALLY looking out for our interests, hes already been in 4 years and we know what he has been doing. which is insinuate fear in order to pass unconstitional laws and acts and push presidential power to its extent. he tries to defend the nation but yet is pushing lax rules for immigrants. bush is all talk and either no action or bad political action
I can argue otherwise, but I won't here. This thread isn't about the qualifications of Bush, but the disqualifications of Kerry, in many ways, the worst Democrat candidate I've seen in a long time.

Whoa, paragraphs...sorry, I couldn't read through all that...

Kerry's economic policy of raising taxes, limiting corporations from outsourcing, cracking down on larger corporations such as Walmart and portraying them as Evil and Hideous, will drive up the cost of products and take away more money from consumers...this will hurt corporations and consumers, who drive the economy...

I think there are better choices than Bush out there, but none of them are running...between Bush or Kerry...well, it's the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

"Kerry's backers argue he is not the reflexive liberal that Republicans portray. And you actually expected Kerry's backers to admit that he is a Liberal??

Bush is alluding to a National Journal rating that was calculated on Kerry's 2003 votes on social issues. He was not rated on foreign-policy or economic votes because he was not present for most. In a comparison of lifetime liberal ratings of senators now serving, Kerry ranked 11th."

usatoday
So he couldn't be bothered to show up for votes...amazing what happens to the old work ethic when he suddenly needs to portray himself as less liberal than he actually is. How can we get any guarantee he will show up for work as president? After all, he's got all the vacation spots to hit (the ski slopes, the bike trails, throwing out baseball games from halfway between the mound and the plate and bouncing the ball off the plate, windsurfing, playing football and catching the ball with eyes closed...)

Whoa, paragraphs...sorry, I couldn't read through all that...

Kerry's economic policy of raising taxes, limiting corporations from outsourcing, cracking down on larger corporations such as Walmart and portraying them as Evil and Hideous, will drive up the cost of products and take away more money from consumers...this will hurt corporations and consumers, who drive the economy...

I think there are better choices than Bush out there, but none of them are running...between Bush or Kerry...well, it's the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

Exactly.. and he thinks he can create jobs in the automobile sector and also protect the enviroment. Not a master in logic of reason in the least. You don't bastardise rising businesses everywhere and claim you will create jobs.

It seems to be case of two extremes?

1. Trade agreements should always be put under review. Things change and sometimes what looked good at one time hurts you down the road.

Business complains when money is affected. Remember GM? They screamed and said everything was going to destroy the company blah blah blah. They gave them a bailout of a few billion(I forget which) and all of it went to the compensation of the highest managment.

What Kerry wants does not mean he will get it. How many Presidents said "I will" get into office and found the system won't let him.

Unregulated Business is a bad thing. The worker safety laws, child labor laws, etc. didn't happen because Businessmen thought they were needed.

2. Its funny to hear the Republicans complain about Environmental laws and yet cling to the corpse of Teddy Roosevelt.

Again the extremes. You have the shrub who used the lumber companies to design his "environmental" laws.

Pollution laws didn't happen because businessmen thought they were needed.

3. I am all for a universal health care. Skiming off corperate wellfare is a good thing.

4. Don't know his military stances too well. However, consider this. Wouldn't it be a great time to start causing some crap with the US as the army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq right now? If something big went down how we going to fight it?


"this reflects that his zealotry for defending jobs, even if it means squandering new ones."

What new jobs? I love that Republican phrase. Robot soldiers seem rather fancifal and it will be more then decades for it to happen as the morality question comes into play. A human soldier can review an objective while a robot? But lets not go on a tangent.....

"so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks"

Oh and that is a bad thing. It's funny how Republicans rally around the flag about military service but when it comes to the vets, cut them!

"new military hardware."

Not always a good thing. Look at the BlackHawks. A great sink hole of tax money was/is a project called Thaad.

5. Excessive rewards? I also love that republican line of reasoning. Sure you have the abuses like the Coffee lady and McDonalds. So we should cap the punishment for say the tabaco companies? What about the Pinto? What about Bhoepal(sp)? Oh yea and Love Canal. Businessmen are soooooo honest!

I have heard the healthcare claims but I also have hear that insurence routinely has net profits of 20-35%

The Shrub changed some of the Drug laws to make more things over the counter. That should have been a rather decent saving for the insurence company and in theory mean lessor costs. Wrong. I ended up paying more for meds and my insurence premiums are still going up a signficant rates.

The Shrub is of the mindset of anything that impact business is wrong and I can't go with that.

---------------------
The Shrub has his faults as well. In the jobs offshoring debates I have heard it will create new jobs. But I can't find anybody to say what these new jobs will be.

I have heard talk about Job retraining. Ok but since he is hellbent of tax reduction. Where is this money going to come from?

Or my new favorite. "Since when where you entitled to that job" Well the repubs haven't said that yet but the groups supporting job exporting have....

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

In the end we have a case of two silver spoons yapping about what is best for the little man! :rolleyes:

BTW Euclid I know alot of Democrats and the majority of them think Kerry is far too conservative. Three reasons why.
1) He said abortion was a "bad" choice but a choice that women should have.
2) He does not tolerate gay marriage
3) He will not repeal the enormous ill advised Bush tax cuts. He will only repeal the ones he deems for the rich.
Yeah, but I'm sure that if more democrats knew about his spending plans, he'd be dumped now, and the delegates would elect someone else to run for president.

And you actually expected Kerry's backers to admit that he is a Liberal??


So he couldn't be bothered to show up for votes...amazing what happens to the old work ethic when he suddenly needs to portray himself as less liberal than he actually is. How can we get any guarantee he will show up for work as president? After all, he's got all the vacation spots to hit (the ski slopes, the bike trails, throwing out baseball games from halfway between the mound and the plate and bouncing the ball off the plate, windsurfing, playing football and catching the ball with eyes closed...)

Please!

How much time has the shrub taken off?

I doubt it, because if any policy needs to work, it also needs to protect the growth of the US economy.

We will all realise soon enough, what the 'protection' of our economies, and as a result - total diregard for the Environment will mean for not just America, but the Entire World.

People learn by mistakes, and usually mistakes are irreversible, but in the case of the environment - there will be no second chance. You can either ignore scientific fact, and the advice of the scientific community and press ahead with yet more and more CO2 and SO2 emmisions - simply in the interests of economic growth, but by doing so, we will all be fucked, mark my words.

Yeah, but I'm sure that if more democrats knew about his spending plans, he'd be dumped now, and the delegates would elect someone else to run for president.
Nah, cause they know he will back up all that spending with tax hikes...for all.

And don't think for a second that "rolling back the cuts only for the wealthiest 1%" won't affect the rest.

A simple lesson in economics shows that higher taxes for the productive sector are always paid for by the consumer sector.

Black Forest, there is more than enough regulation on business today. We aren't living in a vacuum of regulation now. So your argument of two extremes has no value. As far as Kerry not bringing those ideas to the white house I agree there is no way he can win on bankrupt.

As far as enviromental regulation goes I seriously dont believe either party care. And if your talking about reviving Kyoto then you obviously do not know anything about economics. That is an extreme Bush avoided.

And you actually expected Kerry's backers to admit that he is a Liberal??


So he couldn't be bothered to show up for votes...amazing what happens to the old work ethic when he suddenly needs to portray himself as less liberal than he actually is. How can we get any guarantee he will show up for work as president? After all, he's got all the vacation spots to hit (the ski slopes, the bike trails, throwing out baseball games from halfway between the mound and the plate and bouncing the ball off the plate, windsurfing, playing football and catching the ball with eyes closed...)

this is of course why news are reportedly liberal, they report what is known as facts

Black Forest, there is more than enough regulation on business today.

After the repealling of so many environmental regulations on Business, as well as on Consumer Standards - all of course in the interests of big business; how the fuck can you say that?

Black Forest, there is more than enough regulation on business today. We aren't living in a vacuum of regulation now. So your argument of two extremes has no value. As far as Kerry not bringing those ideas to the white house I agree there is no way he can win on bankrupt.

As far as enviromental regulation goes I seriously dont believe either party care. And if your talking about reviving Kyoto then you obviously do not know anything about economics. That is an extreme Bush avoided.

Didn't mean to suggest there is no regulation. Just the fact I have heard him talk about over regulation.....

As to the environment. Wasn't talking about Kyoto. Recently I read he want's to start building "support" roads into many of the National parks and some of the govermental lands. Loggers like good road systems.

this is of course why news are reportedly liberal, they report what is known as facts
National Journal's "liberal" rankings are the authority on who is liberal in Congress and who isn't. USA Today is just another liberal newspaper...like the NY Times, the LA Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS...

C'mon, you didn't think USA Today wasn't going to throw their Frenchie a life boat?

National Journal's "liberal" rankings are the authority on who is liberal in Congress and who isn't. USA Today is just another liberal newspaper...like the NY Times, the LA Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS...

C'mon, you didn't think USA Today wasn't going to throw their Frenchie a life boat?


like i said, this is of course why news is liberal, they report news, stations that dont report news and fill up all hours with radical right wing talk shows pretending to be news, are not news, they are propaganda

It seems to be case of two extremes?

1. Trade agreements should always be put under review. Things change and sometimes what looked good at one time hurts you down the road.

Is it hurting us now? In fact, the world complains because these trade agreements seem to help us too much, at least in their perception.



2. Its funny to hear the Republicans complain about Environmental laws and yet cling to the corpse of Teddy Roosevelt.

Again the extremes. You have the shrub who used the lumber companies to design his "environmental" laws.

Pollution laws didn't happen because businessmen thought they were needed.

Businesses are the polluters, but in many cases, if they cut back on pollution, it may hurt them. It's why businesses and the government need to cooperate on policy. About Bush's policy on loggers, btw, they're one of the few industries where the environment matters. Giving environmental policy to loggers saves a helluva lotta paperwork.


4. Don't know his military stances too well. However, consider this. Wouldn't it be a great time to start causing some crap with the US as the army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq right now? If something big went down how we going to fight it?
Reserves. If they didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have joined. Plain and simple.


What new jobs? I love that Republican phrase. Robot soldiers seem rather fancifal and it will be more then decades for it to happen as the morality question comes into play. A human soldier can review an objective while a robot? But lets not go on a tangent.....
We won't. But I want to say that DARPA thinks they can build robotic tanks in fifteen years, and combat UAVs even sooner.
"so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks"

Oh and that is a bad thing. It's funny how Republicans rally around the flag about military service but when it comes to the vets, cut them!
The WWII vets are dying. I guess it's inevitable for some cuts to be made. But in my town, our local vets' hospital stayed open.


Not always a good thing. Look at the BlackHawks. A great sink hole of tax money was/is a project called Thaad.

They usually are, though. Look at the F/A 22 Raptors.
5. Excessive rewards? I also love that republican line of reasoning. Sure you have the abuses like the Coffee lady and McDonalds. So we should cap the punishment for say the tabaco companies? What about the Pinto? What about Bhoepal(sp)? Oh yea and Love Canal. Businessmen are soooooo honest!


Most of the suing isn't against businesses, though. Most is against either doctors, or drunk truck drivers, or something like that. It seems that lawyers are only accelarating their assualt on anything with a wallet, but with lawyers like Edwards in the White House, tort reform will be impossible. Besides, even if insurance policies make such a profit margin, it'll disappear too quickly for them to catch up. They may need those profits as a cushion against lawsuits, too, and prevent premiums from going up further.

like i said, this is of course why news is liberal, they report news, stations that dont report news and fill up all hours with radical right wing talk shows pretending to be news, are not news, they are propaganda
You actually got it backwards...the media is in total spin control mode over Kerry.
- "Kerry's wife didn't tell a reporter to 'shove it', she was simply reacting forcefully at an insistent reporter..."
- "The real scandal isn't Sandy Berger stealing classified documents and stuffing them in his socks and pants, it's that the White House revealed it right before the Dim convention..."
- "John Kerry was cheered when he took the mound at Fenway on Sunday for the first pitch...only a few people were booing..."
- "Kerry threw a perfect strike during that first pitch, it didn't bounce off the ground before it got to the ceremonial catcher..."

Want a few more ways the media reports "news"?? Of course not...it doesn't fit with the Kool-Aid you've been drinking.

We will all realise soon enough, what the 'protection' of our economies, and as a result - total diregard for the Environment will mean for not just America, but the Entire World.

People learn by mistakes, and usually mistakes are irreversible, but in the case of the environment - there will be no second chance. You can either ignore scientific fact, and the advice of the scientific community and press ahead with yet more and more CO2 and SO2 emmisions - simply in the interests of economic growth, but by doing so, we will all be fucked, mark my words.
In the seventies, environmental policy was tried for the first time, and the economy was flat. Any new policies would need to be coordinated. Most importantly, a strong economy will be needed to distribute and develope environmental technologies. Kerry can make a pledge for zero CO2 emissions by 2010 for all I care, but he needs to do it in close conjunction with all sorts of businesses.

1. Having spent 24 years in the military, and the last three years working for the Navy cleaning up the mess we created on the island of Vieques, let me make a couple of points.

Every citizen who lived in the U.S. from 1945-1995 had a hand in creating this mess we are in environmentally. We now have an agency who is genuinely trying to control this in the EPA. Kerry is NO better than Bush or any other politician on this subject.

I worked with a gentlemen who lost his 23 years old daughter in the World Trade Center. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BURY ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN. Bush will see us through this. We will leave Iraq, but we must keep what we have started going strong.

Vote your conscience, not your heart. The only time I ever let my heart control who I voted for it was for Jimmy Carter, who put me into poverty while I was in the military.

Is it hurting us now? In fact, the world complains because these trade agreements seem to help us too much, at least in their perception.

Well that is a tough one that I can't answer. But what do you do? Do we significantly lower our standards of living to help other countries out?

I have no answer on that one.


Businesses are the polluters, but in many cases, if they cut back on pollution, it may hurt them. It's why businesses and the government need to cooperate on policy.

True. I think there was a case in Germany? where a river was severly polluted. They asked the businesses to cleanup. Of course the business men screamed about lost income and jobs blah blah blah. So the goverment came up with a charge system. You can dump what ever you want but you will pay for that ability. The nastier the stuff the more you paid. One company in one years time went from a 60 million fee down to like 7 million.

About Bush's policy on loggers, btw, they're one of the few industries where the environment matters. Giving environmental policy to loggers saves a helluva lotta paperwork.

Not always. Pacific Lumber used to be a truely green company. Now they clear cut. That wasn't the Shrubs fault BTW. I really raise the leary eye on policies that were made only with logging companies.


Reserves. If they didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have joined. Plain and simple.

Sounds simple but how many reservists do we have. Also, if they have to hurt their families on extended leaves, many won't re-up. What do you do then? Especially with this effort to cut benes....

We won't. But I want to say that DARPA thinks they can build robotic tanks in fifteen years, and combat UAVs even sooner.

Oh oh. Guess they never played Ogre! ;) Interesting....

The WWII vets are dying. I guess it's inevitable for some cuts to be made. But in my town, our local vets' hospital stayed open.

How are the hospitals? We had a couple that were pretty crappy....


Most of the suing isn't against businesses, though. Most is against either doctors, or drunk truck drivers, or something like that. It seems that lawyers are only accelarating their assualt on anything with a wallet, but with lawyers like Edwards in the White House, tort reform will be impossible. Besides, even if insurance policies make such a profit margin, it'll disappear too quickly for them to catch up. They may need those profits as a cushion against lawsuits, too, and prevent premiums from going up further.

Ahh but Insurence plays into that as well. Why not have a system that penalises the bad doctors and rewards the good doctors? Even in business, you get an exec that constantly looses money for the company, they get tossed. When was the last time you heard of a bad doctor loosing his license?

1. Having spent 24 years in the military, and the last three years working for the Navy cleaning up the mess we created on the island of Vieques, let me make a couple of points.

Every citizen who lived in the U.S. from 1945-1995 had a hand in creating this mess we are in environmentally. We now have an agency who is genuinely trying to control this in the EPA. Kerry is NO better than Bush or any other politician on this subject.

I worked with a gentlemen who lost his 23 years old daughter in the World Trade Center. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BURY ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN. Bush will see us through this. We will leave Iraq, but we must keep what we have started going strong.

Vote your conscience, not your heart. The only time I ever let my heart control who I voted for it was for Jimmy Carter, who put me into poverty while I was in the military.

1) the epa is full of SHIT

2) bush couldnt see his way through a paper bag without some one leading him by a hand, all he is doing is increasing more hatred andtension and more reason to attack us and help the enemy recruit, YOU DONT PROTECT PEOPLE BY LAXING IMMIGRATION CONTROLS AND PISSING OFF THE ENEMY

Ummm, How can reworking the free trade agreements hurt us, considering that we're running a trade deficit in every direction?

What's moral about circumventing American trade laws by outsourcing work to countries that have neither the civil liberties or the job safety measure that we enjoy here? It's okay to do things to foreigners that Americans would find abusive, just because it saves us money?

As more and more jobs are outsourced, the United States operates at a greater and greater trade deficit. More unemployment here means that fewer people can afford the cheaper consumer items that cheap labor was supposed to make affordable. Also, many of the "new jobs" being created are a lot lower paying than the jobs they replaced. What does it matter how cheap something is if your income is $0?

Anyone who thinks cheap labor and corporate handouts help the average person only needs to look at the erosion of the middle class. A vigorous middle class is needed for a functioning democracy.

If Bush's economic theories are so good, why are we still foundering in a horrible economy? Most of the supposed "growth" has been in the top 1% of people.

Look at the facts around you, see cause and effect rather than believing black and white party-line logic.

I direct you to this website: http://mcsweeneys.net/links/bush

You actually got it backwards...the media is in total spin control mode over Kerry.
- "Kerry's wife didn't tell a reporter to 'shove it', she was simply reacting forcefully at an insistent reporter..."
- "The real scandal isn't Sandy Berger stealing classified documents and stuffing them in his socks and pants, it's that the White House revealed it right before the Dim convention..."
- "John Kerry was cheered when he took the mound at Fenway on Sunday for the first pitch...only a few people were booing..."
- "Kerry threw a perfect strike during that first pitch, it didn't bounce off the ground before it got to the ceremonial catcher..."

Want a few more ways the media reports "news"?? Of course not...it doesn't fit with the Kool-Aid you've been drinking.
you want to cite the sources for those thigns you are trying to pass off as quotes?

And I direct you to this one

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3576476/detail.html

This is what you want for First Lady?

Okay, so I can't vote at all. But I can make believe. Kerry is an interesting candidate. Boring, indecisive, but rather interesting. He is the first in a long time to go against the grain of popular American feeling, mainly by the fact he is liberal. Even the more conservative Democrats don't seem to notice this, giving Kerry a freebie because he isn't Bush.
I know a lot of republicans that are giving Kerry a 'freebie' because he isn't Bush. If you haven't noticed, the "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" split in the USA is mostly even...it isn't "against the grain" to be liberal, as Gore proved by winning the Popular vote. In fact, it might be said that the largest American political party is the "apathy" party, since the current voter turn outs are about 50% of the eligible voting population...it isn't that that group is one way or the other (we simply can't know unless they speak up) but rather that they are silent and do not seem to recognize the power of politics enough to try to make a difference...which leaves us with people like you.

However, the Democrats can't just choose a candidate just because he isn't Bush. They also need to pick the Democrat they feel is best for America, and a couple of guys at the primaries did have those plans.
Kerry has plans too...and he's being picked because he has been found to be an adequate representation of the American Liberal perspective in the Primaries...which are focused on doing just that!

1. All trade agreements, including the WTO and NAFTA, will be put under review. Judging by what he has said in the past concerning how these pose a concieved threat to America, Kerry will end up pulling out of these agreements. Buisnesses here won't like the fact that Kerry has basically isolated our national economy, and restricted foreign markets. Overseas investors will be unhappy that they can't invest in the most lucrative market on earth. It may even effect jobs. This will undoubtedly make many businesses angry, and that's bad, because what I'll describe next needs their cooperation.
It has acutally long been argued that NAFTA and the WTO are not necessarily positive economic forces within the US...taking away many manufacturing jobs that have been taken to Mexico, while simultaneously reducing the quality of life in Mexico. Businesses won't like that Kerry is telling them to put their jobs and money where their feet are...even if that means having a smaller profit margin (although this will not have an effect on the overall economy since there will be a much larger benefit from the new, american jobs). Furthermore, that such treaties are put under review does not mean that they will be overturned and un-signed...it takes somebody really "brilliant" to do such a thing as unilaterally withdrawing from long-standing international treaties...oh, like Bush did with the International Ballistic Missile controls treaties and numerous economic and environmental agreements. No, a review of the treaties means that the American committment will be reevaluated and the impact of those treaties will be reassessed based on what we've seen the real effects to be over the last number of years.

Furthermore, considering the economic state we've been put in under the current administration, a review of economic policies might just be what we need.

2. Environmental policy. His rich wife, Teresa Heinz, is a classic liberal with money: she cares primarily about the environment when it comes to politics. It'll make Kerry a shining star in environmental policy too, right? No...that would be Kerry's number 1 ranking in voting to support and protect the environment that would make him a shining star in enviro policy.

I doubt it, because if any policy needs to work, it also needs to protect the growth of the US economy. Funny, Bush hasn't done that...and Kerry promises to. None of this has to do with the environment so much as it has to do with Bush's financial contributors...

Kerry however, will loose business support, even if he is elected and does nothing beforehand. In the end, he'll have to go from an environmental policy that works with businesses, to one that relies on legal fiat to carry its will out.Why? Bush already did that and has managed to both bring down the economy and reduce environmental protections. Environmental policy is not always liked or enjoyed by certain companies, but they have a legal obligation to follow the rules...or, if they try to dodge the rules by, say, registering in a foreign country, they should be punished for that (instead of being given the largest homeland security contracts, almost without competative bidding...as Bush has done)

Again, the economy will be mired because of Kerry's anti-growth policies, because I suspect that it'll focus most on the business that pollutes the most, but also needs to cooperate the most: the coal industry.
A lot of people said similar things about Clinton...but let's look at the facts.

Reagan: Economic policies provide a temporary boost but form a massive deficit.
Bush I: Continues previous policies, leading to a serious recession and an expanding national debt.
Clinton: Virtually eliminates national debt and balances the budget, in spite of opposition to his policies by Republican legislators.
Bush II: Eliminates the Clinton surplus and renews the debt, but as has never been seen before.

Now, which party seems better equipped to provide a strong economy? As it is, it's hard to tell where you say the coal industry is the most important...if they're regulated they'll have to follow the regulations...simple as that. They may not like it, but I'd prefer cleaner air and a good job to the personal comfort of a very small elite ("Is it a 1million or a 2million dollar holiday bonus I give myself this year?").

In any case, it's a surefire way to loose the Rust Belt vote.
Bush's causing massive unemployment, taking away and endangering or killing children, and recalling those with jobs to work in underpaid positions as national guard forces improperly deployed to a foreign country will probably do a bit more to convince these people that maybe Kerry can be given a chance.

3. His healthcare plan is the most monstrous thing I have ever seen. Requiring more funding than anything else except Social Security, it will consume $900 billion/year just to get it started. It'll probably be higher, like all government programs, because of bureaocracy. Kerry also wants to reduce the $400 billion deficit, so how will he pay for it? Take a wild guess.
Yep, make sure the companies pay their taxes and reinstate the taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the nation while reducing corrupt kickbacks paid to farming corporations and energy producers. And furthermore, I think that people might be happy to pay 400$ more in taxes instead of $1,200 more to HMOs and other health insurance agencies. Clinton seems to have been able to reverse the debts of his Republican predecessors...but with the hole that Bush and Bush alone has dug us into, it might just take 3 Democratic terms to reverse the damage...but just imagine what the effect might be if we get twice as worse as we are now? Yea, and with even less care for what voters think during his second term, Bush might not limit himself in favoring his friends while ruining the rest of the nation.

4. In the years of Clinton, the military became digitalized. With the help of Bush, it was refitted into the 21st century.
Actually, all of the "refits" placed by Bush were planned for far before he came into office...and he has underfunded those efforts while recently cutting benefits and pay to veterans and soldiers while the country is engaged in two military conflicts!

With the help of Kerry, all of that will be tossed down the drain. He wants a bigger, Cold War style military. He wants at least two more divisions, for example. This is dangerous for two reasons. One, despite the trumpeting, they aren't needed, because the military can operate with far less troops than even ten years ago. With the rapid movement of military technology, Iraq could be defended with around 125,000 troops by year's end.
Providing the military with the resources that it needs on the troopside (rather than in Pentagon pet projects that burn billions without a tangible benefit to our troops). If Iraq has proved anything, it's that we need a change in our forces...and not as the Republicans have been calling for with the ICBs. Either more soldiers or the same soldiers with better personal equipment...the current situation shows that we /cannot/ handle a modern two-front war when it comes to installing a new and improved government. Afghanistan needs at least twice as many soldiers as it currently has but is not scheduled to receive any under Bush...and Iraq has soldiers who are not properly equipped and lead for their objectives.

Two, this reflects that his zealotry for defending jobs, even if it means squandering new ones. Why? There is the advancing field of military robotics, and as they are showing, the soldier will be a formality of war in a few decades.
Try reading at least one report on modern military doctrine and robotics...the current views hold that a force that has more robotic units will require an even larger human back-up force and that, furthermore, robotic units can only effectively perform their duties in direct support of human units. Neither the UCAV nor the "robot LAVs" can operate on their own and usually require more personnel to fly them than a normal combat jet, while holding a smaller and less diverse weapons payload and with a limited ability to operate without human-piloted aircraft in support or carrying on the main combat duties. Try getting an education in the field before you speak as though you were an expert next time.

Not him. He wants to keep the military large and bloated just so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks, even at the risk of military defeat. He'll destroy the progress made in the military in the past 12 years, by adding troops, and trying to squander new military hardware.
If anything, Kerry is more likely to ensure that veterans and current soldiers recieve better pay that accurately reflects the danger that they face in combat...while also providing them with the brand-new gear that the Republican-directed Pentagon seems to be always introducing but never quite implementing and distributing to all of the troops that need them.

Wasn't it Bush that spoke in 2000 about the reduction in the size and prestige of the US military under Clinton? A reduction that, it turned out, was necessary for the understood political situations that the US faced? A reduction that was, in part, made in order to foster the growth of improved and modernized combat systems for troops? You have to choose something, but right now it seems more like whatever Democrats choose to do is just wrong in your eyes.

5. Trial lawyers will celebrate his arrival, especially because of his running mate, a former trial lawyer. In an era of high insurance premiums due to excessive rewards, it will send the wrong message to lawyers. The vice president's election will assure lawyers that Edwards is against tort reform. How exactly will this be assured? With a Republican-held Senate and House?

Whether or not he is is irrelevant, as most lawyers, by nature, are against tort reform
Not true at all. Many lawyers would much prefer to see it in place as it will make their lives easier...not all lawyers are involved in malpractice suits.

and Edwards hasn't spoken on it much.
Maybe because you just made it up and it isn't a real policy of his?

In any case, lawyers will begin a volley of new suits for more ridicolous reasons, and will drive insurancen premiums through the roof.
If you haven't noticed, they're already there...thanks to friends of the current Administration.

If it's related to healthcare, however, lawyers will still sue, and either the surplus Kerry promised will disapear, or our taxes will go up even more.
How will the surplus disappear in relation to lawsuits?

Otherwise, buy your home, life, and auto insurance policies now, because the premiums may be unaffordable later.
Thanks to the current administration, interest rates are as low as possible to stabilize the economy...

It'll have bad effects from raising the value of a new home to an excessive rate, to making auto sales less attractive, to encouraging more money to be locked in trusts (and less of it to be invested).
No, that's what the Bush economy mismanagement has bought us...I think you're confusing the different candidates again...

It'll have far reaching effects further damaging the economy, but hey, do lawyers care? Probably not, and Edwards will assure them that they don't need to care.
Bush did that for Enron...again, this is what psychologists call "projection" where you apply your own behavior and practices to what your perception is of your opponents.

I know this rhetoric isn't just an attempt to win votes. When Clinton campaigned, he adapted the Democrats to be further right. The Democrats are still, whether they admit it or not, fairly right-winged compared with the rest of the world.
That's very true...and the Republicans are farther right wing than almost any in a democratic government elsewhere in the world. The Democrats under Clinton did not become more rightwing...they sought national healthcare, economic policies based on liberal beliefs, environmental and social security protections. No, it was the Republicans that prevented a real liberalization of America...not the Liberals adapting to or adopting Conservative understandings and beliefs.

We have to ask if Kerry will actually be a good president. Even though half of the nation wants Bush out, the other half loves him. With Kerry, we may all hate him.

I'm afraid not.

you want to cite the sources for those thigns you are trying to pass off as quotes?
So sad, that you only read one newspaper. If you bothered to read more than just USA Today, you would find versions of all these generalized quotes.

And I direct you to this one

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3576476/detail.html

This is what you want for First Lady?

is this what you want for a vice president?

In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Cheney said he was "forcefully" expressing his unhappiness with the conduct of the Democratic senator from Vermont -- who Cheney said had publicly questioned his integrity, and then wanted to be friendly when he saw him in person.

Sources who related the incident to CNN said the vice president had told Leahy either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

Cheney would not confirm using the word.

"That's not the kind of language I usually use," the vice president said in the interview during a campaign stop in Michigan.

When asked if he had cursed at Leahy, Cheney answered, "Probably."

"Do you have any regrets?," Neil Cavuto asked.

"No. I said it," the vice president responded.

Sources told CNN the encounter Tuesday was brought on by Leahy's recent criticism of the vice president over Halliburton Co. Cheney is the former chief executive officer of the oil field services company, and Democrats have suggested he has helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm while serving in the Bush administration.

"It was partly that, it was partly also ... it had to do with -- he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come act as though he's your best friend, and I expressed in no uncertain terms my views of his conduct and walked away," Cheney said.

"Part of the problem here is that instead of having a substantive debate over important substantive policy issues, he had challenged my integrity, and I didn't like that. But most of all I didn't like the fact that after he'd done so, then he wanted to act like everything was peaches and cream."

Leahy confirmed to CNN on Thursday that Cheney had used profanity in the exchange.

"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy said, "and I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the [Senate] floor."

David Carle, a spokesman for Leahy, said Friday "It appears the vice president's previous calls for civility are now inoperative."

When asked what the reaction was from senators who overheard the conversation, Cheney said he thought several of his colleagues "felt that what I'd said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."

1. Having spent 24 years in the military, and the last three years working for the Navy cleaning up the mess we created on the island of Vieques, let me make a couple of points.

Every citizen who lived in the U.S. from 1945-1995 had a hand in creating this mess we are in environmentally. We now have an agency who is genuinely trying to control this in the EPA. Kerry is NO better than Bush or any other politician on this subject.

I worked with a gentlemen who lost his 23 years old daughter in the World Trade Center. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BURY ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN. Bush will see us through this. We will leave Iraq, but we must keep what we have started going strong.

Vote your conscience, not your heart. The only time I ever let my heart control who I voted for it was for Jimmy Carter, who put me into poverty while I was in the military.

I salute your service...but it is a shame to see that Bush has cut your pension, your health benefits, and any wages that you will see after this fiscal year. It's a shame that he's decided that the best reward for your service is a reduction of benefits.

So sad, that you only read one newspaper. If you bothered to read more than just USA Today, you would find versions of all these generalized quotes.
so you dont have sources for the bullshit you are trying to pass off as quotes, what i thought

you want me to go get you some conservative quotes, i can quote directly without playing spin them

[quote]Sounds simple but how many reservists do we have. Also, if they have to hurt their families on extended leaves, many won't re-up. What do you do then? Especially with this effort to cut benes....
They joined. They should've never joined if they didn't expect to see combat. If that makes reservists leave, be that as it may. As it is, though, there are plenty of reserves still left.


How are the hospitals? We had a couple that were pretty crappy....
They're always crappy. But at least they provide veterans with basic healthcare.


Ahh but Insurence plays into that as well. Why not have a system that penalises the bad doctors and rewards the good doctors? Even in business, you get an exec that constantly looses money for the company, they get tossed. When was the last time you heard of a bad doctor loosing his license?
I have, actually. One obstitrician in New York wrote his initials with a scapal on some woman's abdomen. He lost his liscense to practice.
As for the reward system you suggested, one sort of exists. The riskier the field of medicine, like neurosurgery, the higher the premium. It can be changed, but every state regulates this in its own way. The insurance companies feel paralyzed, too, because so many regulations tangle their interstate business. It's very complex, and it will take lots of sorting out by lots of people. But Kerry won't help the problem at all. If anything, he'll turn higher healthcare costs into higher taxes.

so you dont have sources for the bullshit you are trying to pass off as quotes, what i thought

you want me to go get you some conservative quotes, i can quote directly without playing spin them
You really want to do this, uh? Ok, here we go...

- Tay-ray-za didn't tell a reporter to "shove it"...
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3576476/detail.html

- The "timing of the Sandy Berger story is the real scandal"
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Jul/20040724News017.asp

- The Kerry "perfect strike"...he "took it easy on the soldier"
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040726-023652-7782r.htm

- John Kerry was cheered, with a few boos
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9242232.htm?1c
Sorry, I was watching the game...you could barely hear the cheers with all the booing...

There, that was easy

I know a lot of republicans that are giving Kerry a 'freebie' because he isn't Bush. If you haven't noticed, the "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" split in the USA is mostly even...it isn't "against the grain" to be liberal, as Gore proved by winning the Popular vote. In fact, it might be said that the largest American political party is the "apathy" party, since the current voter turn outs are about 50% of the eligible voting population...it isn't that that group is one way or the other (we simply can't know unless they speak up) but rather that they are silent and do not seem to recognize the power of politics enough to try to make a difference...which leaves us with people like you.


Kerry has plans too...and he's being picked because he has been found to be an adequate representation of the American Liberal perspective in the Primaries...which are focused on doing just that!


It has acutally long been argued that NAFTA and the WTO are not necessarily positive economic forces within the US...taking away many manufacturing jobs that have been taken to Mexico, while simultaneously reducing the quality of life in Mexico. Businesses won't like that Kerry is telling them to put their jobs and money where their feet are...even if that means having a smaller profit margin (although this will not have an effect on the overall economy since there will be a much larger benefit from the new, american jobs). Furthermore, that such treaties are put under review does not mean that they will be overturned and un-signed...it takes somebody really "brilliant" to do such a thing as unilaterally withdrawing from long-standing international treaties...oh, like Bush did with the International Ballistic Missile controls treaties and numerous economic and environmental agreements. No, a review of the treaties means that the American committment will be reevaluated and the impact of those treaties will be reassessed based on what we've seen the real effects to be over the last number of years.

Furthermore, considering the economic state we've been put in under the current administration, a review of economic policies might just be what we need.

No...that would be Kerry's number 1 ranking in voting to support and protect the environment that would make him a shining star in enviro policy.

Funny, Bush hasn't done that...and Kerry promises to. None of this has to do with the environment so much as it has to do with Bush's financial contributors...

Why? Bush already did that and has managed to both bring down the economy and reduce environmental protections. Environmental policy is not always liked or enjoyed by certain companies, but they have a legal obligation to follow the rules...or, if they try to dodge the rules by, say, registering in a foreign country, they should be punished for that (instead of being given the largest homeland security contracts, almost without competative bidding...as Bush has done)


A lot of people said similar things about Clinton...but let's look at the facts.

Reagan: Economic policies provide a temporary boost but form a massive deficit.
Bush I: Continues previous policies, leading to a serious recession and an expanding national debt.
Clinton: Virtually eliminates national debt and balances the budget, in spite of opposition to his policies by Republican legislators.
Bush II: Eliminates the Clinton surplus and renews the debt, but as has never been seen before.

Now, which party seems better equipped to provide a strong economy? As it is, it's hard to tell where you say the coal industry is the most important...if they're regulated they'll have to follow the regulations...simple as that. They may not like it, but I'd prefer cleaner air and a good job to the personal comfort of a very small elite ("Is it a 1million or a 2million dollar holiday bonus I give myself this year?").


Bush's causing massive unemployment, taking away and endangering or killing children, and recalling those with jobs to work in underpaid positions as national guard forces improperly deployed to a foreign country will probably do a bit more to convince these people that maybe Kerry can be given a chance.


Yep, make sure the companies pay their taxes and reinstate the taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the nation while reducing corrupt kickbacks paid to farming corporations and energy producers. And furthermore, I think that people might be happy to pay 400$ more in taxes instead of $1,200 more to HMOs and other health insurance agencies. Clinton seems to have been able to reverse the debts of his Republican predecessors...but with the hole that Bush and Bush alone has dug us into, it might just take 3 Democratic terms to reverse the damage...but just imagine what the effect might be if we get twice as worse as we are now? Yea, and with even less care for what voters think during his second term, Bush might not limit himself in favoring his friends while ruining the rest of the nation.


Actually, all of the "refits" placed by Bush were planned for far before he came into office...and he has underfunded those efforts while recently cutting benefits and pay to veterans and soldiers while the country is engaged in two military conflicts!


Providing the military with the resources that it needs on the troopside (rather than in Pentagon pet projects that burn billions without a tangible benefit to our troops). If Iraq has proved anything, it's that we need a change in our forces...and not as the Republicans have been calling for with the ICBs. Either more soldiers or the same soldiers with better personal equipment...the current situation shows that we /cannot/ handle a modern two-front war when it comes to installing a new and improved government. Afghanistan needs at least twice as many soldiers as it currently has but is not scheduled to receive any under Bush...and Iraq has soldiers who are not properly equipped and lead for their objectives.


Try reading at least one report on modern military doctrine and robotics...the current views hold that a force that has more robotic units will require an even larger human back-up force and that, furthermore, robotic units can only effectively perform their duties in direct support of human units. Neither the UCAV nor the "robot LAVs" can operate on their own and usually require more personnel to fly them than a normal combat jet, while holding a smaller and less diverse weapons payload and with a limited ability to operate without human-piloted aircraft in support or carrying on the main combat duties. Try getting an education in the field before you speak as though you were an expert next time.


If anything, Kerry is more likely to ensure that veterans and current soldiers recieve better pay that accurately reflects the danger that they face in combat...while also providing them with the brand-new gear that the Republican-directed Pentagon seems to be always introducing but never quite implementing and distributing to all of the troops that need them.

Wasn't it Bush that spoke in 2000 about the reduction in the size and prestige of the US military under Clinton? A reduction that, it turned out, was necessary for the understood political situations that the US faced? A reduction that was, in part, made in order to foster the growth of improved and modernized combat systems for troops? You have to choose something, but right now it seems more like whatever Democrats choose to do is just wrong in your eyes.

How exactly will this be assured? With a Republican-held Senate and House?


Not true at all. Many lawyers would much prefer to see it in place as it will make their lives easier...not all lawyers are involved in malpractice suits.


Maybe because you just made it up and it isn't a real policy of his?


If you haven't noticed, they're already there...thanks to friends of the current Administration.


How will the surplus disappear in relation to lawsuits?


Thanks to the current administration, interest rates are as low as possible to stabilize the economy...


No, that's what the Bush economy mismanagement has bought us...I think you're confusing the different candidates again...


Bush did that for Enron...again, this is what psychologists call "projection" where you apply your own behavior and practices to what your perception is of your opponents.


That's very true...and the Republicans are farther right wing than almost any in a democratic government elsewhere in the world. The Democrats under Clinton did not become more rightwing...they sought national healthcare, economic policies based on liberal beliefs, environmental and social security protections. No, it was the Republicans that prevented a real liberalization of America...not the Liberals adapting to or adopting Conservative understandings and beliefs.



I'm afraid not.
It's impossible for me to respond to everything, but from what you're saying, you're a revisionist historian. Kerry wasn't supposed to win. Dean was. And what happened? Voters chickened out due to a few anger spasms. I really believe he'd have beaten Bush better than Kerry. I really do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040726-us-bases.htm
This change in American forward deployment represents how radical of a change is happening all throughout our military structure. Overseas bases that were like small towns will be replaced by nimble, mobile installations of no larger than a couple thousand troops. However, judging by Kerry's military voting record, and his zealotry to ensure a bloated military, I wonder if these actions will be reversed. After all, as he can argue, the arc of instability isn't worker friendly, now is it?

Purly, if you actually believe the crap you wrote in your original post, then you've swallowed the Republican talking points hook line and sinker and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You used to be one of the more intellectually rigorous conservatives on this board. What happened? You've gotten sloppy in the last few months. It's disappointing.

It's impossible for me to respond to everything, but from what you're saying, you're a revisionist historian. Kerry wasn't supposed to win. Dean was. And what happened? Voters chickened out due to a few anger spasms. I really believe he'd have beaten Bush better than Kerry. I really do.

I never even talked about Dean. Personally, I was going to vote for the General in the California primaries...but I don't see how "a few voters" (most states in the primaries) are really what's at issue here. I was talking about Bush and his ilk. If I took the time to respond to your rants then the least courtesy you could provide would be a blanket refusal to acknowledge the accuracy of my claims...rather than making a straw-man out of them that had absolutely nothing to do with my point.

And now I remember why I usually avoid the General Forum...

Purly, if you actually believe the crap you wrote in your original post, then you've swallowed the Republican talking points hook line and sinker and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You used to be one of the more intellectually rigorous conservatives on this board. What happened? You've gotten sloppy in the last few months. It's disappointing.
It is. But hey, at least it's gotten to be exciting. In any case, however, I'd bet that you would be rallying behind me if I said something like "Bush kills children around the world". Think of me as projecting, maybe even warning. I believe that Kerry won't be good for America, and I'm showing why through the campaign promises I've deciphered from his speeches.
BTW, does anyone agree with you? I've notice that you've moved further left, too. Is it possible that you're moving left, and I'm standing still?

It is. But hey, at least it's gotten to be exciting. In any case, however, I'd bet that you would be rallying behind me if I said something like "Bush kills children around the world". Think of me as projecting, maybe even warning. I believe that Kerry won't be good for America, and I'm showing why through the campaign promises I've deciphered from his speeches.
BTW, does anyone agree with you? I've notice that you've moved further left, too. Is it possible that you're moving left, and I'm standing still?Actually, if someone made the claim that Bush kills children around the world, I'd ask them for proof, just as I'd ask for proof for any claim made about any political leader. I have no problem with your belief that Kerry won't be good for the US as president, but there shouldn't be any need to distort his statements to make your argument, or to make wild extrapolations in order to try to make a case. That's what you did in that first post.

Bush Sr.'s war is still killing Iraqi children.

Actually, if someone made the claim that Bush kills children around the world, I'd ask them for proof, just as I'd ask for proof for any claim made about any political leader.
Bullshit. In this industry, proof isn't needed. Words are. Why do you think any of us are interested in politics in the first place?
I have no problem with your belief that Kerry won't be good for the US as president, but there shouldn't be any need to distort his statements to make your argument, or to make wild extrapolations in order to try to make a case. That's what you did in that first post.
Sacrifices have to be made. The stakes are far too high to throw Kerry a bone. We are on the verge of making America great again, and you want to throw out that progress? You are even worse than I thought.

It is. But hey, at least it's gotten to be exciting. In any case, however, I'd bet that you would be rallying behind me if I said something like "Bush kills children around the world". Think of me as projecting, maybe even warning. I believe that Kerry won't be good for America, and I'm showing why through the campaign promises I've deciphered from his speeches.
BTW, does anyone agree with you? I've notice that you've moved further left, too. Is it possible that you're moving left, and I'm standing still?Actually, if someone made the claim that Bush kills children around the world, I'd ask them for proof, just as I'd ask for proof for any claim made about any political leader. I have no problem with your belief that Kerry won't be good for the US as president, but there shouldn't be any need to distort his statements to make your argument, or to make wild extrapolations in order to try to make a case. That's what you did in that first post.

For example, you suggest that Kerry would pull us out of the WTO and NAFTA--based on what? A suggestion that we should revisit the labor ad environmental sections of those documents? Kerry's been a long-time supporter of both agreements, and there's no logical reason to assume that he'll change on that stance.

What you're doing here is typical of right-wing radio types, Purly--you never engaged in that kind of farcical logic in the past. It's not that either of us has moved in our political stances--it's that you're not using reason and logic the way you used to. You're parroting talking points now, and the above example is just one of a recent string.

Actually, if someone made the claim that Bush kills children around the world, I'd ask them for proof, just as I'd ask for proof for any claim made about any political leader. I have no problem with your belief that Kerry won't be good for the US as president, but there shouldn't be any need to distort his statements to make your argument, or to make wild extrapolations in order to try to make a case. That's what you did in that first post.

For example, you suggest that Kerry would pull us out of the WTO and NAFTA--based on what? A suggestion that we should revisit the labor ad environmental sections of those documents? Kerry's been a long-time supporter of both agreements, and there's no logical reason to assume that he'll change on that stance.

What you're doing here is typical of right-wing radio types, Purly--you never engaged in that kind of farcical logic in the past. It's not that either of us has moved in our political stances--it's that you're not using reason and logic the way you used to. You're parroting talking points now, and the above example is just one of a recent string.
Well, I never said Kerry was a flip-flopper, now did I? I believe he's done some flippity-flop things, but the scary thing is that this is consistent. He's a vial of toxin going on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And btw, when I was this logical figure you describe, I liked Rush Limbaugh. Now I don't. He's too wacky for my tastes, and he really isn't even a conservative. Just a windbad that says he's a conservative.

Sacrifices have to be made. The stakes are far too high to throw Kerry a bone. We are on the verge of making America great again, and you want to throw out that progress? You are even worse than I thought.Making America great again? Progress? By what standard? Give me the biggest break. All Bush has done is weaken us abroad, weaken us at home, widen the gap between the rich and poor and strip out safety nets for the disadvantaged. If you call that progress, I'd hate to see what you consider slipping backwards. What would it take--a return to serfdom? An open theocracy? A complete dissolution of the Republic? Because that's where we're heading bub, if this clown stays in office.

Sacrifices have to be made. The stakes are far too high to throw Kerry a bone. We are on the verge of making America great again, and you want to throw out that progress? You are even worse than I thought.

What are you smoking? How is the US becoming great again? If anything, the nation is in faltering shape. I've not seen any progressino in the US. Let's see, shaky if mildly recovering economy, record defecit, pissed off msot other foreign nations, embedded in two other nations (one unnecessarily so)- this list could go on. you've got to be blind to believe this is how the nation should be.

Making America great again? Progress? By what standard? Give me the biggest break. All Bush has done is weaken us abroad, weaken us at home, widen the gap between the rich and poor and strip out safety nets for the disadvantaged. If you call that progress, I'd hate to see what you consider slipping backwards. What would it take--a return to serfdom? An open theocracy? A complete dissolution of the Republic? Because that's where we're heading bub, if this clown stays in office.
No, goddammit! I see it as a return of American preeminence, a return to America the income grabber, a return to the days of America pre-WWI. It was truely great then. Society was in order, prosperity was starting to be liberally dispensed, and we overtook Britain as the world's banker. I want a return to that, and Bush is thrashing the way there. If he gets a second term, progress will be made, and it's a sure bet that he can cut all of those useless, wasteful government programs like Social Security and cotton subsidies without political consequences. That's what I envision. A strong America, able to be preeminent in the world, and stand on its own two feet without the world bullying us. That's what I want, and the Bush administration (especially Rice and Cheney) will lead the way!

What are you smoking? How is the US becoming great again? If anything, the nation is in faltering shape. I've not seen any progressino in the US. Let's see, shaky if mildly recovering economy, record defecit, pissed off msot other foreign nations, embedded in two other nations (one unnecessarily so)- this list could go on. you've got to be blind to believe this is how the nation should be.
No, I have a laundry list of what yet needs to be completed. But this is the closest I've ever seen it completed.

That's what I envision. A strong America, able to be preeminent in the world, and stand on its own two feet without the world bullying us. That's what I want, and the Bush administration (especially Rice and Cheney) will lead the way!

This sort of attitude will lead oyu to political isolation if anything. You are advocating becoming a rogue state. In the modern world there is no room for rogue states. You willl only end up harming the country more with this sort of a path.

And what is this shit of "the world bullying us"? The game works both ways you know, and the US does more than its own share of bullying. This is calledi nternational politics. The only way to avoid it is isolation, and the US as it stands cannot support itself. The country cannot afford to be isolated. Thus what you are advocating for would be disastrous for the nation.

Edit: I remember you being a lot more politically sensible than this.

No, goddammit! I see it as a return of American preeminence, a return to America the income grabber, a return to the days of America pre-WWI. It was truely great then. Society was in order, prosperity was starting to be liberally dispensed, and we overtook Britain as the world's banker. I want a return to that, and Bush is thrashing the way there. If he gets a second term, progress will be made, and it's a sure bet that he can cut all of those useless, wasteful government programs like Social Security and cotton subsidies without political consequences. That's what I envision. A strong America, able to be preeminent in the world, and stand on its own two feet without the world bullying us. That's what I want, and the Bush administration (especially Rice and Cheney) will lead the way!
You need to read some history then, son, if you think the US was preeminent in the world pre-WWI. We were a pissant little power--Britain ruled the waves, and with it, the world, at the end of the Victorian era. That was the age of the robber barons, the Gilded Age, one of the worst periods of history if you weren't one of the elite. It was the days of the company store, of sharecropping, of working conditions that were more often deadly than not, of dirty water and unsafe food. You want a return to that? Go find a third world country run by gangsters that claims to be a democracy. That's what you're describing.

This sort of attitude will lead oyu to political isolation if anything. You are advocating becoming a rogue state. In the modern world there is no room for rogue states. You willl only end up harming the country more with this sort of a path.

And what is this shit of "the world bullying us"? The game works both ways you know, and the US does more than its own share of bullying. This is calledi nternational politics. The only way to avoid it is isolation, and the US as it stands cannot support itself. The country cannot afford to be isolated. Thus what you are advocating for would be disastrous for the nation.

Edit: I remember you being a lot more politically sensible than this.
I'm not advocating for America to be a rogue state. I'm advocating that regain our leadership position that we lost under Bush Sr. Perhaps Bush Jr. can't go as far as I want him to, but he'd certainly be better at achieving this goal than Kerry. Kerry would run us into the ground, for crying out loud.

You need to read some history then, son, if you think the US was preeminent in the world pre-WWI. We were a pissant little power--Britain ruled the waves, and with it, the world, at the end of the Victorian era. That was the age of the robber barons, the Gilded Age, one of the worst periods of history if you weren't one of the elite. It was the days of the company store, of sharecropping, of working conditions that were more often deadly than not, of dirty water and unsafe food. You want a return to that? Go find a third world country run by gangsters that claims to be a democracy. That's what you're describing.
Andrew Carnegie and John Rockerfeller were the most generous philantropists, and pioneered the way for new ones. Economically, the US was the world's only industrial and agricultural power. Every nation was one or the other, but not both. We defied that rule. And even though we didn't maintain a strong military, give us a few months, and we'd be in control of the world. Besides, if we weren't a great country then, why was it that immigrants flooded here?

Ain't 'philanthropists' them dudes that have sex with lil kids?

Andrew Carnegie and John Rockerfeller were the most generous philantropists, and pioneered the way for new ones. Economically, the US was the world's only industrial and agricultural power. Every nation was one or the other, but not both. We defied that rule. And even though we didn't maintain a strong military, give us a few months, and we'd be in control of the world. Besides, if we weren't a great country then, why was it that immigrants flooded here?
Immigrants flooded here for our freedoms not our fighters, and if Bush had any more power, those freedoms may very well be gone...

Ain't 'philanthropists' them dudes that have sex with lil kids?
If they do, then that's Bill and Melinda Gates. Are you thinking of pedophiles?

Immigrants flooded here for our freedoms not our fighters, and if Bush had any more power, those freedoms may very well be gone...
I've never necessarily believed that. I'm not gonna be outlandish and say Kerry will curtail civil liberties, but I doubt Bush has. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled parts of the Patriot act unconstitutional, such as the part where it is illegal to supply terrorists with information.

I've never necessarily believed that. I'm not gonna be outlandish and say Kerry will curtail civil liberties, but I doubt Bush has. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled parts of the Patriot act unconstitutional, such as the part where it is illegal to supply terrorists with information.
Why does everyone assume that I am referring to the Patriot Act when I make a comment about Bush and liberty? Unless...it really does limit liberties....

Why does everyone assume that I am referring to the Patriot Act when I make a comment about Bush and liberty? Unless...it really does limit liberties....
It's what detractors point to first. Personally, however, I haven't noticed how he has eroded civil liberties. I'd love it if you could show me.

If they do, then that's Bill and Melinda Gates. Are you thinking of pedophiles?

Pedophiles, my bad! I got 'em confused, bro. By the way, I think Kerry is such a pinko jerko dorkwad buttbleed asswipe dickhole f***head, but George W. Bush rocks, dude! Seriously.

It's what detractors point to first. Personally, however, I haven't noticed how he has eroded civil liberties. I'd love it if you could show me.
Read that post again. I said if he had much more power he'd definitely start taking them away.

Once, in response to a website that criticized him, he said "There ought to be limits to freedom" and called the webmaster a garbage man. There was a soundbyte, but I haven't been able to find it recently.

A gay marriage ammendment absolutely does not expand civil rights and absolutely does not belong in the constitution. Make it a law if you want, just don't stain my constitution with it.

Pedophiles, my bad! I got 'em confused, bro. By the way, I think Kerry is such a pinko jerko dorkwad buttbleed asswipe dickhole f***head, but George W. Bush rocks, dude! Seriously.
You might want to go take a bath so you can extinguish those flames man.

i don't like Kerry one bit, but he's got my vote. anybody but the Chimp, 2004.

The Chimp! That's exactly how I feel about him. Every time I see him on TV, I just wanna give him a banana. Dunno why...

(by the way, I know this is late, but I just saw this thread)

You might want to go take a bath so you can extinguish those flames man.

Don't gimme that, bro. I done took a bath Thursday. I ain't filthie. :rolleyes:

Don't gimme that, bro. I done took a bath Thursday. I ain't filthie. :rolleyes:
No, but your on fire.

No, but your on fire.

No I ain't lil bro. Hwo old are you anyway? ten?

Read that post again. I said if he had much more power he'd definitely start taking them away.

Once, in response to a website that criticized him, he said "There ought to be limits to freedom" and called the webmaster a garbage man. There was a soundbyte, but I haven't been able to find it recently.

A gay marriage ammendment absolutely does not expand civil rights and absolutely does not belong in the constitution. Make it a law if you want, just don't stain my constitution with it.
I agree about the Gay Marraige amendment. But I feel that it was mostly a stunt that wasn't supposed to be passed. In fact, it was supposed to fail, because it would then galvanize many Christians to vote for Bush. However, I hope that he can rebuild ties with gay voters now that the amendment has failed the Senate.

http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

Pedophiles, my bad! I got 'em confused, bro. By the way, I think Kerry is such a pinko jerko dorkwad buttbleed asswipe dickhole f***head, but George W. Bush rocks, dude! Seriously.
Someone please explain how this is something more than flame.

I agree about the Gay Marraige amendment. But I feel that it was mostly a stunt that wasn't supposed to be passed. In fact, it was supposed to fail, because it would then galvanize many Christians to vote for Bush. However, I hope that he can rebuild ties with gay voters now that the amendment has failed the Senate.
I don't like that he toys around with liberties in an effort to win over votes. That's worse than supposed "flip-flopping."

I don't like that he toys around with liberties in an effort to win over votes. That's worse than supposed "flip-flopping."
I know. But hey, it's politics, and this is election year. One of the dangers of democracies is that, come election year, politicians follow only legal restraints to gain votes. I admit that I'm a victim of it myself, and that's why I acted psycho earlier (although Incertonia always thought I was a bit nuts, so I want to feed him raw meet). It's sad, but you'd agree with me that a republic is the best form of government yet, right? Well, this is its biggest danger.

I know. But hey, it's politics, and this is election year. One of the dangers of democracies is that, come election year, politicians follow only legal restraints to gain votes. I admit that I'm a victim of it myself, and that's why I acted psycho earlier (although Incertonia always thought I was a bit nuts, so I want to feed him raw meet). It's sad, but you'd agree with me that a republic is the best form of government yet, right? Well, this is its biggest danger.
Why is it okay for Bush to mess around with the seriousness of the constitution in order to gain votes, but Kerry has to vote everytime how his party would vote instead of how the people he represents want him to vote...?

Andrew Carnegie and John Rockerfeller were the most generous philantropists, and pioneered the way for new ones. Economically, the US was the world's only industrial and agricultural power. Every nation was one or the other, but not both. We defied that rule. And even though we didn't maintain a strong military, give us a few months, and we'd be in control of the world. Besides, if we weren't a great country then, why was it that immigrants flooded here?A little philanthropy hardly makes up for the tremendous suffering their greed caused. It doesn't even come close, especially when you consider the amount of damage and death dealt not just by those two, but by the robber barons in general. Flagler, Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Hearst--you make the list--the blood on their hands swamps away any pathetic little good their philanthropies did.

And as to why immigrants wanted to come here, it had nothing to do with our greatness and everything to do with the availability of land. We had room, something that hadn't existed in Europe for a millenium. We only took our place as a world power during WW II because we were untouched while Europe was decimated by near continual war and economic destruction from 1914 onward.

So the short answer is no--I do not want a return to the Gilded Age, and I will go so far as to say that anyone who wants a retun to that is a monster.

Why is it okay for Bush to mess around with the seriousness of the constitution in order to gain votes, but Kerry has to vote everytime how his party would vote instead of how the people he represents want him to vote...?
Because it's politics. I don't like it myself, and I have suggested some reforms (like taking some economic controls to a commissioner appointed for a long period of time, like the Federal Reserve). Of course, when I suggest this, I become a fascist to many people.

A little philanthropy hardly makes up for the tremendous suffering their greed caused. It doesn't even come close, especially when you consider the amount of damage and death dealt not just by those two, but by the robber barons in general. Flagler, Mellon, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Hearst--you make the list--the blood on their hands swamps away any pathetic little good their philanthropies did.

And as to why immigrants wanted to come here, it had nothing to do with our greatness and everything to do with the availability of land. We had room, something that hadn't existed in Europe for a millenium. We only took our place as a world power during WW II because we were untouched while Europe was decimated by near continual war and economic destruction from 1914 onward.

So the short answer is no--I do not want a return to the Gilded Age, and I will go so far as to say that anyone who wants a retun to that is a monster.
I don't want to return to the technological aspect of it, nor do I want to return to the international one. I want to return to the days when charities were free from the government. I want a return to our empire. I want a return to the days when America looked beautiful. I don't want bad working conditions, though, because I favor no significant human presence in factories (robots do the job). Instead, we're all in either service, or R&D. It'd really fulfill Huey Long's statement of "Every man a king".

I don't want to return to the technological aspect of it, nor do I want to return to the international one. I want to return to the days when charities were free from the government. I want a return to our empire. I want a return to the days when America looked beautiful. I don't want bad working conditions, though, because I favor no significant human presence in factories (robots do the job). Instead, we're all in either service, or R&D. It'd really fulfill Huey Long's statement of "Every man a king".
No wait, I have a grander vision. The thing that sets the Gilded Age apart from all other areas of US history is its ability to dream. America is a land of empty dreams since the sixties, but a hundred years earlier, they were big. I see a world like envisioned then, perhaps a utopia of sorts. I want the US to unify the whole planet. I want it on all five oceans and all seven continents, uniting all races, religions, ages, sexes, ethnicities, creeds, and nationalities. In a thousand years, when an alien civilization comes to take us over, they'll never defeat us. Why? Because we'll be spread across the galaxy, united under Old Glory. Let us take the flag, unite the world, and fulfill an eternal dream of world order, peace, and prosperity.

Okay, so I can't vote at all. But I can make believe. Kerry is an interesting candidate. Boring, indecisive, but rather interesting. He is the first in a long time to go against the grain of popular American feeling, mainly by the fact he is liberal. Even the more conservative Democrats don't seem to notice this, giving Kerry a freebie because he isn't Bush. However, the Democrats can't just choose a candidate just because he isn't Bush. They also need to pick the Democrat they feel is best for America, and a couple of guys at the primaries did have those plans. Democrats must now ask themselves this: even though I hate Bush, will Kerry be any better? Let's look at some of his campaign promises, and let's see if anyone is happy with them.
1. All trade agreements, including the WTO and NAFTA, will be put under review. Judging by what he has said in the past concerning how these pose a concieved threat to America, Kerry will end up pulling out of these agreements. Buisnesses here won't like the fact that Kerry has basically isolated our national economy, and restricted foreign markets. Overseas investors will be unhappy that they can't invest in the most lucrative market on earth. It may even effect jobs. This will undoubtedly make many businesses angry, and that's bad, because what I'll describe next needs their cooperation.
2. Environmental policy. His rich wife, Teresa Heinz, is a classic liberal with money: she cares primarily about the environment when it comes to politics. It'll make Kerry a shining star in environmental policy too, right? I doubt it, because if any policy needs to work, it also needs to protect the growth of the US economy. Kerry, however, will loose business support, even if he is elected and does nothing beforehand. In the end, he'll have to go from an environmental policy that works with businesses, to one that relies on legal fiat to carry its will out. Again, the economy will be mired because of Kerry's anti-growth policies, because I suspect that it'll focus most on the business that pollutes the most, but also needs to cooperate the most: the coal industry. In any case, it's a surefire way to loose the Rust Belt vote.
3. His healthcare plan is the most monstrous thing I have ever seen. Requiring more funding than anything else except Social Security, it will consume $900 billion/year just to get it started. It'll probably be higher, like all government programs, because of bureaocracy. Kerry also wants to reduce the $400 billion deficit, so how will he pay for it? Take a wild guess.
4. In the years of Clinton, the military became digitalized. With the help of Bush, it was refitted into the 21st century. With the help of Kerry, all of that will be tossed down the drain. He wants a bigger, Cold War style military. He wants at least two more divisions, for example. This is dangerous for two reasons. One, despite the trumpeting, they aren't needed, because the military can operate with far less troops than even ten years ago. With the rapid movement of military technology, Iraq could be defended with around 125,000 troops by year's end. Two, this reflects that his zealotry for defending jobs, even if it means squandering new ones. Why? There is the advancing field of military robotics, and as they are showing, the soldier will be a formality of war in a few decades. Not him. He wants to keep the military large and bloated just so that a few thousand more troops can recieve pension checks, even at the risk of military defeat. He'll destroy the progress made in the military in the past 12 years, by adding troops, and trying to squander new military hardware.
5. Trial lawyers will celebrate his arrival, especially because of his running mate, a former trial lawyer. In an era of high insurance premiums due to excessive rewards, it will send the wrong message to lawyers. The vice president's election will assure lawyers that Edwards is against tort reform. Whether or not he is is irrelevant, as most lawyers, by nature, are against tort reform, and Edwards hasn't spoken on it much. In any case, lawyers will begin a volley of new suits for more ridicolous reasons, and will drive insurancen premiums through the roof. If it's related to healthcare, however, lawyers will still sue, and either the surplus Kerry promised will disapear, or our taxes will go up even more. Otherwise, buy your home, life, and auto insurance policies now, because the premiums may be unaffordable later. It'll have bad effects from raising the value of a new home to an excessive rate, to making auto sales less attractive, to encouraging more money to be locked in trusts (and less of it to be invested). It'll have far reaching effects further damaging the economy, but hey, do lawyers care? Probably not, and Edwards will assure them that they don't need to care.
I know this rhetoric isn't just an attempt to win votes. When Clinton campaigned, he adapted the Democrats to be further right. The Democrats are still, whether they admit it or not, fairly right-winged compared with the rest of the world. Kerry, however, isn't. He's not campaigning on a platform of keeping the Democrats' tradition set up by Clinton, but rather, trying to form something not seen since LBJ.
We have to ask if Kerry will actually be a good president. Even though half of the nation wants Bush out, the other half loves him. With Kerry, we may all hate him.


Best reasons NOT to vote for Kerry I have heard yet! BUSH IN '04!

I can't believe you people are arguing over which silver spoon is worse. Are you people really gullible enough to fall for the claim of both the Democrats and Republicans that a vote for third party is a wasted vote?

I can't believe you people are arguing over which silver spoon is worse. Are you people really gullible enough to fall for the claim of both the Democrats and Republicans that a vote for third party is a wasted vote?


It is wasted right now, It would make any difference and most 3rd parties suck anyway.

I don't want to return to the technological aspect of it, nor do I want to return to the international one. I want to return to the days when charities were free from the government. I want a return to our empire. I want a return to the days when America looked beautiful. I don't want bad working conditions, though, because I favor no significant human presence in factories (robots do the job). Instead, we're all in either service, or R&D. It'd really fulfill Huey Long's statement of "Every man a king".


No wait, I have a grander vision. The thing that sets the Gilded Age apart from all other areas of US history is its ability to dream. America is a land of empty dreams since the sixties, but a hundred years earlier, they were big. I see a world like envisioned then, perhaps a utopia of sorts. I want the US to unify the whole planet. I want it on all five oceans and all seven continents, uniting all races, religions, ages, sexes, ethnicities, creeds, and nationalities. In a thousand years, when an alien civilization comes to take us over, they'll never defeat us. Why? Because we'll be spread across the galaxy, united under Old Glory. Let us take the flag, unite the world, and fulfill an eternal dream of world order, peace, and prosperity.

man, Purly, you have a seriously fucked up view of what the US was like during the Gilded Age, and an even more fucked up view of Huey Long. You're talking about people who were essentially laws unto themselves. They didn't care about anything except their own self-enrichment and mowed down anyone in their way. What you are advocating is scary, Purly, and why you don't realize it is beyond me, unless you just don't have an understanding of that period in US history.

I can't believe you people are arguing over which silver spoon is worse. Are you people really gullible enough to fall for the claim of both the Democrats and Republicans that a vote for third party is a wasted vote?


I dont think a 3rd party vote is wasted ... problem being that I wont be shoved into voting for someone just because he/she is not republican or democrat

man, Purly, you have a seriously fucked up view of what the US was like during the Gilded Age, and an even more fucked up view of Huey Long. You're talking about people who were essentially laws unto themselves. They didn't care about anything except their own self-enrichment and mowed down anyone in their way. What you are advocating is scary, Purly, and why you don't realize it is beyond me, unless you just don't have an understanding of that period in US history.
Perhaps I don't have an understanding at all. But that doesn't mean you can deprive me of my liscense to dream.

I dont think a 3rd party vote is wasted ... problem being that I wont be shoved into voting for someone just because he/she is not republican or democrat
I'm as partisan a Democrat as you'll find around here, and I agree with you completely. No vote is ever wasted except the one not cast.

Purly Euclid. Vote for a candidate that appeals to your values, not only Bush and Kerry are running. You should vote for a small party candidate if they represent your interests even if they have no chance of victory whatsoever.
Stand by your principles.

However, if you can find no candidate who you can back with a clean conscience then you should refuse to vote or even better; try and start you own campaign in politics..... (might not work though)

Perhaps I don't have an understanding at all. But that doesn't mean you can deprive me of my liscense to dream.I'm not trying to deprive you of anything--I'm just letting you know that what you're describing as a good period in US history is inaccurate from any perspective except that of one of the robber barons themselves. If you're going to dream about a return to a different time, you ought to at least have an accurate estimation of what that time was like.

man, Purly, you have a seriously fucked up view of what the US was like during the Gilded Age, and an even more fucked up view of Huey Long. You're talking about people who were essentially laws unto themselves. They didn't care about anything except their own self-enrichment and mowed down anyone in their way. What you are advocating is scary, Purly, and why you don't realize it is beyond me, unless you just don't have an understanding of that period in US history.
Perhaps I don't have an understanding at all. But that doesn't mean you can deprive me of my liscense to dream.

And you actually expected Kerry's backers to admit that he is a Liberal??

So he couldn't be bothered to show up for votes...amazing what happens to the old work ethic when he suddenly needs to portray himself as less liberal than he actually is. How can we get any guarantee he will show up for work as president? After all, he's got all the vacation spots to hit (the ski slopes, the bike trails, throwing out baseball games from halfway between the mound and the plate and bouncing the ball off the plate, windsurfing, playing football and catching the ball with eyes closed...)
There's nothing wrong with being liberal. Not everyone can be conservative, and most aren't anyway.

OK so here we have a Bush fan complaining about taking too much time off on vacation. Guess which president has taken more time off than any other?

Jesus H Christ, the amount of hypocrisy on the American conservative right is unbelievable! Where does the fucking buck stop?

What's next? "Kerry is pro-terrorist"? "Kerry likes paedophiles"?

There's nothing wrong with being liberal. Not everyone can be conservative, and most aren't anyway.

OK so here we have a Bush fan complaining about taking too much time off on vacation. Guess which president has taken more time off than any other?

Jesus H Christ, the amount of hypocrisy on the American conservative right is unbelievable! Where does the fucking buck stop?

What's next? "Kerry is pro-terrorist"? "Kerry likes paedophiles"?Don't give them any ideas.

Don't give them any ideas.
they already think kerry is pro-terrorist, all we need now is to convince him he is a pedophile

I'm not trying to deprive you of anything--I'm just letting you know that what you're describing as a good period in US history is inaccurate from any perspective except that of one of the robber barons themselves. If you're going to dream about a return to a different time, you ought to at least have an accurate estimation of what that time was like.
It's just that I want America to be great. That was the last time we were. Besides, robber barons can't come back. People are too rich and educated for them, nowadays. We can bring back the good parts of the Gilded Age, the Revolution, Roaring 20s, hell, even the fifties, and leave the bad out. We can do it with Bush!

It's just that I want America to be great. That was the last time we were. Besides, robber barons can't come back. People are too rich and educated for them, nowadays. We can bring back the good parts of the Gilded Age, the Revolution, Roaring 20s, hell, even the fifties, and leave the bad out. We can do it with Bush!I've come to the very painful realization that we have vastly different ideas of what it means for America to be great--and that you have little idea of how the world works. We still have robber barons, Purly. Bill Gates may be a touch more benevolent these days, but he's as much a robber baron as Carnegie ever was. And don't even get me started about Rupert Murdoch.

And I'll give you this much--if you truly want a return to the Gilded Age, complete with all the horrible shit that went down during that period, stick with Bush. That's where he's leading us. But God help you if you're not among the elite. You may want to actually read up on what you'll be getting, however.

I've come to the very painful realization that we have vastly different ideas of what it means for America to be great--and that you have little idea of how the world works. We still have robber barons, Purly. Bill Gates may be a touch more benevolent these days, but he's as much a robber baron as Carnegie ever was. And don't even get me started about Rupert Murdoch.

And I'll give you this much--if you truly want a return to the Gilded Age, complete with all the horrible shit that went down during that period, stick with Bush. That's where he's leading us. But God help you if you're not among the elite. You may want to actually read up on what you'll be getting, however.
I'll take that as a compliment. BTW, does Bill Gates kill people? How about Warren Buffet? The Walton heirs?

I'll take that as a compliment. BTW, does Bill Gates kill people? How about Warren Buffet? The Walton heirs?

There are other ways to make life hell for a large swathe of people besides killing them.

There are other ways to make life hell for a large swathe of people besides killing them.
True, very true.