NationStates Jolt Archive

Should senator Kerry be elected, what do you think he would accomplish by the 100th day? What one would be your highest priority?

Please be specific, intelligent and detailed.

If you do not plan to vote for Senator Kerry please just type;

"I plan to vote for (candidate name) and am intelligent enough to follow directions" Then add no more. This is about Kerry.

"I plan to vote for (candidate name) and am intelligent enough to follow directions" Then add no more. This is about Kerry.

Pfft...like that will happen.


Anyway....
I'd like to see the Kyoto treaty signed and some legislation passed to help fund research for alternative fuel sources.

USA PATRIOT Act repealed?

Pfft...like that will happen.


Anyway....
I'd like to see the Kyoto treaty signed and some legislation passed to help fund research for alternative fuel sources.

It is worth noting that the Koyoto treat was signed in the Clinton administration. I think you meant participation.

As far as alt fuels, didn't Bush announce a considerable budget for hydrogen fuel cells in his last address? How much and for what fuels would you like to see?

Personally, I would like to see a significant modification of the USA Patriot Act, and a strong, decisive, detailed plan of action for Iraq and Afghanistan that does NOT involve the deployment of more international troops, but rather the gradual withdrawl of Coalition troops from both countries.

USA PATRIOT Act repealed?
Do you really think he'd repeal legislation he voted for?

Don't you think it more likely he would have it ammended? If so, please share what you would hope to see him change. If not please share how you think he would justify the change in position.

If I could vote I would vote for George W. Bush and I am intelligent enough to follow directions!

Personally, I would like to see a significant modification of the USA Patriot Act, and a strong, decisive, detailed plan of action for Iraq and Afghanistan that does NOT involve the deployment of more international troops, but rather the gradual withdrawl of Coalition troops from both countries.

What about the act would you want modified?

If I understand you correct then you seem to think that NATO or Arab support troops should not be used? It sounds awfully close to the current plan - which is to provide security forces until the Iraq army/police are able to do it themselves. With the fluid nature of the resistance a specific time-table would be difficult for even the most intuitive to determine. How would you suggest Kerry address the unpredictable using only US troops?

It is worth noting that the Koyoto treat was signed in the Clinton administration. I think you meant participation.

As far as alt fuels, didn't Bush announce a considerable budget for hydrogen fuel cells in his last address? How much and for what fuels would you like to see?
Well, I'm interested in making solar power a reasonable fuel source (for like electricity), but really, anything that is renewable. Although...does anyone know the principle behind wind power? Turbines turned by a fan which is turned by wind, etc...turn in the magnet and create electricity...it wouldn't be that impossible to add some wind turbines on a car...the faster you go, the better it generates.

Well, I'm interested in making solar power a reasonable fuel source (for like electricity), but really, anything that is renewable. Although...does anyone know the principle behind wind power? Turbines turned by a fan which is turned by wind, etc...turn in the magnet and create electricity...it wouldn't be that impossible to add some wind turbines on a car...the faster you go, the better it generates.

hehe. Thanks for the laugh. I don't think any amount of federal spending could create a perpetual motion dynamo - wind powered or otherwise. I would encourage you to study some of the current models including solar, fuel cell, rechargeable electric and even kinetic energy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which are not for this particular thread to discuss (though if you haven't guessed it is an interest of mine)

stem cell research given the go ahead fully!

stem cell research given the go ahead fully!

Ok on this I can agree with though If I was eligible to vote, I would be voting for GWB and am intelligent enough to follow directions!

Do you really think he'd repeal legislation he voted for?

Don't you think it more likely he would have it ammended? If so, please share what you would hope to see him change. If not please share how you think he would justify the change in position.
Well, he voted for the Iraq war and now hes against it. So he might, considering his previoushttp://www.daslippa.com/cov/slippas.gif, if you get my drift.

Oh and, I am voting (well, more like could vote if I was old enough) for Bush and I am intelligent enough to follow directions.

What about the act would you want modified?


Most likely the parts that undermine or directly contradict the 1st and 4th amendments, among others.

I am intelligent enough to follow directions.
You clearly aren't...

hehe. Thanks for the laugh. I don't think any amount of federal spending could create a perpetual motion dynamo - wind powered or otherwise. I would encourage you to study some of the current models including solar, fuel cell, rechargeable electric and even kinetic energy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which are not for this particular thread to discuss (though if you haven't guessed it is an interest of mine)
I think he means more like a hybrid, gas and wind, that you start going with gas and then the wind power helps the car move and cuts down on gas usage. Sounds like a good Idea to me, and I wish I could vote for Bush and am intelligent enough to follow directions.

You clearly aren't...
Almost, I just had to get a couple stabs in there :D I guess I cant restrain myself and I wish I could vote for bush and am intelligent enough to follow directions.

I think he means more like a hybrid, gas and wind, that you start going with gas and then the wind power helps the car move and cuts down on gas usage. Sounds like a good Idea to me, and I wish I could vote for Bush and am intelligent enough to follow directions.
Yea...I honestly didn't think the turbines would just start catching wind and turning on their own...however...uh, nvm, new thread?

Flip Flopper or a change in thought due to more information...in other words thinking and decision based on new data...

Get real....Evolved thought process require being able to change your opinions based on the entry of new data or signifcant rethinking.

Standing hard and fast is okay and can be admirable but not evolving your opinoion with new data means stubborn and foolish.

Flip Flopper or a change in thought due to more information...in other words thinking and decision based on new data...

Get real....Evolved thought process require being able to change your opinions based on the entry of new data or signifcant rethinking.

Standing hard and fast is okay and can be admirable but not evolving your opinoion with new data means stubborn and foolish.
EVOLUTION ISN'T REAL!!!1!!one!!1[/conservativism]

Most likely the parts that undermine or directly contradict the 1st and 4th amendments, among others.

If there is a contradiction with constitutional rights, it is now a matter for the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

What, specifically, are the parts (or recent actions) you feel conflict with the constitution?

Should senator Kerry be elected, what do you think he would accomplish by the 100th day? What one would be your highest priority?

Well I am very much looking foward to either a significant change of the Patriot Act, or getting rid of it all together. I am looking foward to sending more troops over in Iraq while the regime change is taking place to police it better and help the transition go more smoothly and faster. Then pull out of Iraq after that has been acomplished. I am also looking foward to destroying the actual enemies of the United States (Al Qaeda), insted of attacking sovereign nations that did not pose threts to the United States. I also look foward in an increase in taxes to heal the massive deficet that the Bush administration has made. I look foward to a President that respects our constitution and does not enact any laws contridicting it. I would like to see a President that keeps our jobs in our own country, insted of sending them over seas. I am looking foward to an administration that will help the small businesses grow so they can create jobs (in our own country).

But I doubt that this will be acomplished by the 100th day. I think the major priority when/if he firsts gets in office, is cleaning up the mess in Iraq, focusing our armed forces on the elimiation of Al Qaeda and the imprisonment of it's leader, Osama Bin Laden. By the 100th day I would very much like to look foward to changes in the USA Patriot Act, or the termination of it.

But I doubt that this will be acomplished by the 100th day. I think the major priority when/if he firsts gets in office, is cleaning up the mess in Iraq, focusing our armed forces on the elimiation of Al Qaeda and the imprisonment of it's leader, Osama Bin Laden. By the 100th day I would very much like to look foward to changes in the USA Patriot Act, or the termination of it.

I will say this about Iraq! If Kerry wins and takes over, Iraq would've had their elections by then. 2/3 of al Qaeda's leaders are dead or captured. That is all I'm going to say.

I will say this about Iraq! If Kerry wins and takes over, Iraq would've had their elections by then. 2/3 of al Qaeda's leaders are dead or captured. That is all I'm going to say.
At least he didn't claim to be capable of following instructions.

I will say this about Iraq! If Kerry wins and takes over, Iraq would've had their elections by then. 2/3 of al Qaeda's leaders are dead or captured. That is all I'm going to say.

The Al Qaeda has grown since the invasion of Iraq. The only thing that the invasion of Iraq did, was take a dictator out of office, and give the Al Qaeda new recruits. Thus, making the United States less safe.

At least he didn't claim to be capable of following instructions.

Nah that's only for those that say "I'm voting for <candidate name> and am capable of following instructions. LOL

I think he'll push for a change in the budget process so he and future presidents can do a line-item veto. If it works, he'll be able to veto the pork barrel spending from spending bills without also vetoing the important stuff. That can reduce the deficit more than all of his other deficit reduction plans combined, including the plan to restore Clinton era tax rates to the brackets above $200,000 per year

Well I am very much looking foward to either a significant change of the Patriot Act, or getting rid of it all together. I am looking foward to sending more troops over in Iraq while the regime change is taking place to police it better and help the transition go more smoothly and faster. Then pull out of Iraq after that has been acomplished. I am also looking foward to destroying the actual enemies of the United States (Al Qaeda), insted of attacking sovereign nations that did not pose threts to the United States. I also look foward in an increase in taxes to heal the massive deficet that the Bush administration has made. I look foward to a President that respects our constitution and does not enact any laws contridicting it. I would like to see a President that keeps our jobs in our own country, insted of sending them over seas. I am looking foward to an administration that will help the small businesses grow so they can create jobs (in our own country).

But I doubt that this will be acomplished by the 100th day. I think the major priority when/if he firsts gets in office, is cleaning up the mess in Iraq, focusing our armed forces on the elimiation of Al Qaeda and the imprisonment of it's leader, Osama Bin Laden. By the 100th day I would very much like to look foward to changes in the USA Patriot Act, or the termination of it.

Again, what about the Patriot Act would you see changed?

You want MORE US troops in Iraq? Make it a BIGGER war? Isn't US manpower already stretched? Where will they come from? Would you support a draft for your war?

Overseas jobs - How do you think Kerry will address his conflict of interest considering his relationship with Heinz? (Heinz has 57 of almost 73 factories overseas)

Small Business - what acts would you like to see Kerry do do help small business grow? What do you consider a small business? (#of employees, revenues? geography? Sales volume?)

I will say this about Iraq! If Kerry wins and takes over, Iraq would've had their elections by then. 2/3 of al Qaeda's leaders are dead or captured. That is all I'm going to say.
Please read the telegram I sent you and kindly refrain from further posts.

Please read the telegram I sent you and kindly refrain from further posts.

I apologize!

I think he'll push for a change in the budget process so he and future presidents can do a line-item veto. If it works, he'll be able to veto the pork barrel spending from spending bills without also vetoing the important stuff. That can reduce the deficit more than all of his other deficit reduction plans combined, including the plan to restore Clinton era tax rates to the brackets above $200,000 per year
Good point - I was wondering what ever happened to line-item veto. I thought it was signed into action during the Clinton administration.

Trouble is, you line-item too many Senators, and even your own party will abandon you.

Hmmm, Kerry by the hundredth day....

I'm gonna predict an expansion of the war in Iraq, no repealing of the PATRIOT act, rumblings about a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage (oh, but allow "civil unions"), and lots and lots of safety (hey, it's the next best thing to freedom, right?)

I won't be voting for the Bush/Kerry ticket, and it's apparently because I am not intelligent enough to follow every simple direction I am given.

Overseas jobs - How do you think Kerry will address his conflict of interest considering his relationship with Heinz? (Heinz has 57 of almost 73 factories overseas)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

If Kerry were to deliver the 40,000 extra troops to Iraq that he has recommended, I doubt he would use a draft (he hates drafts). The US Army has 3 million soldiers right? Surely those guys hanging around in Germany and Britain don't all need to be there!

Well, what would I like to see? No more patriot act would be nice, perhaps some tax cuts repealed. Some action with the UN to try and restore our credibility, though that shouldn't be too hard a job cause I'm sure the world will be more than happy to work with him since they know that bush is a bullheaded idiot. Maybe some new legislation drafted (as in planned and not yet submitted), and perhaps a bit of re-organization with the war in Iraq. In any case, no matter what he does, he'll be a busy boy.

[Edit] :o removing troops from germany might make the french a little nervous.

Hmmm, Kerry by the hundredth day....

I'm gonna predict an expansion of the war in Iraq, no repealing of the PATRIOT act, rumblings about a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage (oh, but allow "civil unions"), and lots and lots of safety (hey, it's the next best thing to freedom, right?)

I won't be voting for the Bush/Kerry ticket, and it's apparently because I am not intelligent enough to follow every simple direction I am given.
Please check your telegrams and kindly refrain from further posts here.


Unless, that is, you want to expand more on the Bush/Kerry ticket. Which one would be VP?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
Kerry's holdings in Heinz are greater than Cheney's connection to Halliburton. Look at the trouble that caused Cheney.

Heinz is not the only US company servicing overseas clients. Coke, Microsoft, GM and GE all have substantial overseas sales. Does that mean they should be exempt from employing more people overseas than in the US?

I would hope he'd bring a little bit of honesty and participation back to government. Hope is on the way!

Kerry's holdings in Heinz are greater than Cheney's connection to Halliburton. Look at the trouble that caused Cheney.

Heinz is not the only US company servicing overseas clients. Coke, Microsoft, GM and GE all have substantial overseas sales. Does that mean they should be exempt from employing more people overseas than in the US?

I think the difference is that Kerry won't go in and attack a country because of what it could do for the Ketchup industry. If you're gonna look at it try looking a little bit more objectively.

Kerry's holdings in Heinz are greater than Cheney's connection to Halliburton. Look at the trouble that caused Cheney.

Heinz is not the only US company servicing overseas clients. Coke, Microsoft, GM and GE all have substantial overseas sales. Does that mean they should be exempt from employing more people overseas than in the US?


There is also a difference between the 300 people it takes to run a ketchup plant and the 3000 people who it takes to run an automotive plant. And we're talking about millions of dollars in ketchup vs. billions of dollars in automobiles. As for microsoft well, you can just look at my nick to see my opinion of them.

Kerry's holdings in Heinz are greater than Cheney's connection to Halliburton. Look at the trouble that caused Cheney.

Heinz is not the only US company servicing overseas clients. Coke, Microsoft, GM and GE all have substantial overseas sales. Does that mean they should be exempt from employing more people overseas than in the US?


That's simply not true.. read the link that was provided. Kerry owns nothing in Heinz and his wife only has 4% of Heinz stock, which is far less then is owned by Chenney in Halliburton, further, I don't think people who make Ketchup are going to get any government contracts to rebuild Iraq.. the official ketchup of Iraq? Haha, spare me!

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.

I think the difference is that Kerry won't go in and attack a country because of what it could do for the Ketchup industry. If you're gonna look at it try looking a little bit more objectively.
Hmm...but if he did, what country would he take? What country has massive tomato farms?

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.

Maybe, but at least we can spell both Democrat and Republican

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.
The same can be said about Bush...anyway, did you read the first post?

If Kerry were to deliver the 40,000 extra troops to Iraq that he has recommended, I doubt he would use a draft (he hates drafts). The US Army has 3 million soldiers right? Surely those guys hanging around in Germany and Britain don't all need to be there!

Iraq has an area of 171,599 square miles with a population estimated at 25,374,691 people. Coalition troops number 160,000 presently.

That is a ration of .932 troops per square mile and 159.59 Iraqis per soldier.

Adding 40,000 troops brings that ratio to 1.16 troops per square mile and 126.87 Iraqis per soldier.

Do you really think that sending 40,000 more US boys to war will make that much of a difference?

And troops are already being taken from other places. Here is the data as of March if you are curious:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/M05/hst0403.pdf

Keep in mind that though there are three million PEOPLE in the service they are not all soldiers. As I recall for every one soldier it requires ten support personnel. (administrative, medical, cooks, supplies, training, etc)

Last, but not least, would YOU go to Iraq if Kerry asked you to? If so, then why not now?

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.

Wow, what a compelling argument.. :rolleyes:

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.

My question is this: What has Bush done in four years that has left our country in a better position than it was four years ago. Is the economy better? Are less people dying in Iraq? Are we really safe from terrorists? Are we even optimistic about our government anymore?

Last, but not least, would YOU go to Iraq if Kerry asked you to? If so, then why not now?

Cause the second Bush leaves office it stops being a vendetta war and becomes a problem our country has to face and clean-up?

My question is this: What has Bush done in four years that has left our country in a better position than it was four years ago. Is the economy better? Are less people dying in Iraq? Are we really safe from terrorists? Are we even optimistic about our government anymore?

What has Kerry promised? I've seen what he promises and I like to know how he is going to pay for it!

What has Kerry promised? I've seen what he promises and I like to know how he is going to pay for it!

Same way bush will pay for everything in his second term, put it on the governments unlimited AmEx card :D , that and he'll raise taxes.

[QUOTE=Formal Dances]What has Kerry promised? I've seen what he promises and I like to know how he is going to pay for it![/QUOTE

Well, a good place to start is the rollback on the tax cuts that Bush has had in effect for three years. They have done nothing for our economy. I think that your argument is kind of weak seeing how the Bush administration is paying for the war by running the largest deficit in American History to date. So, if we're getting into semantics, we're actually not paying for anything at the moment, we're borrowing it.

Well, what would I like to see? No more patriot act would be nice, perhaps some tax cuts repealed. Some action with the UN to try and restore our credibility, though that shouldn't be too hard a job cause I'm sure the world will be more than happy to work with him since they know that bush is a bullheaded idiot. Maybe some new legislation drafted (as in planned and not yet submitted), and perhaps a bit of re-organization with the war in Iraq. In any case, no matter what he does, he'll be a busy boy.

[Edit] :o removing troops from germany might make the french a little nervous.

What specific type of action with the UN do you think he would do to restore credibility? (And what about UN credibility re: Foor for oil, etc?)

What tax cuts do you want repealed? All, some? which ones?

What type of legistation would you want?

How would you want the war reorganized?

I think the difference is that Kerry won't go in and attack a country because of what it could do for the Ketchup industry. If you're gonna look at it try looking a little bit more objectively.
This is very true. Ketchup, generally speaking, is not the purview of major foreign policy or international relations.

What specific type of action with the UN do you think he would do to restore credibility? (And what about UN credibility re: Foor for oil, etc?)

What tax cuts do you want repealed? All, some? which ones?

What type of legistation would you want?

How would you want the war reorganized?

Tax Cuts: I think the tax cuts that give large corporate entities tax breaks don't provide any stimulus for the economy, and I will admit that with economic theroy I am whole heartedly Democrat. I think give middle class people the break, and they will spend it, because most of us have to in order to survive.

Legislation: I'd like to see gay couples granted full marriage and federal survivorship benefits. I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans try to work together more (like the 911 commission), and not take stands on issues just to draw lines in the sand.

Iraq: I'd like to bring other Nations back into this ordeal. I think that now that the world sees that Iraq is in a desperate situation they'd be more willing to help out with someone that's open and receptive to them. I think the problem is that Bush kinda burned a lot of bridges when it came to Iraq and no one wants to help us out because of that. I think Kerry's openness about wanting to bring actual "willing" countries back into would be a monumental gain for the War on Iraq.

Kerry is a moron. Whoever votes for him wither votes because Kerry is a democrate or because they are just plain stupid.


I think that it is advisable to have a passing familiarity with the English language before you describe someone as a moron, unless, of course, English is not your first language.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it is my observation that people who actually do some digging, who read articles from several different sources, who are able to understand the difference between flip-flopping and changing one's views based on new and better information, and know that voting on a piece of legislation is much more complicated than a simply yea or nay are generally the people who are going to vote for Kerry.

To use the $87 billion dollar military spending package as an example, Kerry did indeed vote for the package when it came complete with limits on spending and details on how the money would be spent. When the legislation was re-introduced, it took the form of a blank check, basically. Kerry had already learned the danger of giving this president a blank check, so he dutifully voted nay. The Republicans try to make it look like waffling. I call it doing his job.

While I like the idea of a line-item veto in theory, I balk at the idea of giving the President any more power than he already has. I would prefer legislation and investigations that limited and punished pork, and limitations on amending bills that are going through Congress.

Tax Cuts: I think the tax cuts that give large corporate entities tax breaks don't provide any stimulus for the economy, and I will admit that with economic theroy I am whole heartedly Democrat. I think give middle class people the break, and they will spend it, because most of us have to in order to survive.

Legislation: I'd like to see gay couples granted full marriage and federal survivorship benefits. I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans try to work together more (like the 911 commission), and not take stands on issues just to draw lines in the sand.

Iraq: I'd like to bring other Nations back into this ordeal. I think that now that the world sees that Iraq is in a desperate situation they'd be more willing to help out with someone that's open and receptive to them. I think the problem is that Bush kinda burned a lot of bridges when it came to Iraq and no one wants to help us out because of that. I think Kerry's openness about wanting to bring actual "willing" countries back into would be a monumental gain for the War on Iraq.

P.S. I based my views on the economy and on Iraq very very objectively, so don't judge my message based on my position on social issues.

I think the difference is that Kerry won't go in and attack a country because of what it could do for the Ketchup industry. If you're gonna look at it try looking a little bit more objectively.


You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.

What has Kerry promised? I've seen what he promises and I like to know how he is going to pay for it!

It's quite simple Formal.. every one who runs for office lays out a platform of what they would like to do. Every one, Kerry and Bush, both realize they won't be able to get all they want done, most informed voters are aware of this. The try to get as much done as they can according to their agenda. All politicians do this. More then any thing a platform is more to let people see what they believe in and what direction they wish to take the country. No one who gets elected is ever able to implement all of their promises. So, what will Kerry do? He will work with what he has. Where will he get the money? Well for starters he will rollback the tax cuts for the richest people in America, will that pay for it all? Nope, of course not. On health care he will cut out the bureaucratic nonsense that goes on with HMO's and Insurance companies and medicare. By cutting out the middle man, that alone will save billions upon billions of dollars.

Lets face it, no matter what he does it won't be as bad as what Bush has done, which is given the USA record deficits for 3 years in a row. The reason you can't enforce your trade agreements is because you're borrowing money from China to buy products which is why you have also record trade deficits.
No matter what Kerry does, it won't be as bad as what Bush has done! It's probably not even possible!

What specific type of action with the UN do you think he would do to restore credibility? (And what about UN credibility re: Foor for oil, etc?)

What tax cuts do you want repealed? All, some? which ones?

What type of legistation would you want?

How would you want the war reorganized?

1) well, basically just an across the board apology for the actions of the previous administration, and a statement that things will change back to the way they were pre-bush. As far as *Food for Oil, to me that one is all on Kofi Annan, it was his son that he put in charge of it, not the decision of the UN as a whole, so that one is up to the world to decide.

2) Well, yeah, all of them would do. It would probably be better to just start over with new legislation that adapt the current legislation to what he wants.

3) Basically stuff reorganizing the intelligence community based on the 9-11 report if it hasn't already been done, and done well by that time. Um, a preliminary draft of his health care plan. New tax legislation if he repeals all of it, hopefully containing his proposed middle class on down tax cut.

4) Hard question to answer. That would more come from if he gets other nations to agree to help out there, a re-organization of the forces there so that foreign troops could be put to good use, perhaps some circulation of troops back home. Maybe the withdrawl of most national guard personell that were sent over there that aren't doing anything of the utmost importance.

You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.

Which would be an issue if Kerry or his wife had any thing to do with the operation of Heinz, but they don't! Thus it's not an issue. They have no say!

Which would be an issue if Kerry or his wife had any thing to do with the operation of Heinz, but they don't! Thus it's not an issue. They have no say!

Neither does Cheney so your arguement is gone too!

Which would be an issue if Kerry or his wife had any thing to do with the operation of Heinz, but they don't! Thus it's not an issue. They have no say!
Also true, they only have a 5% stake in the company if I remember correctly.

Neither does Cheney so your arguement is gone too!

But he does give them no bid contracts, and that you can take to the bank.

Neither does Cheney so your arguement is gone too!

Well not so fast.. Teresa has never ran the Heinz business, never. Chenney was the CEO of Halliburton and only stepped down to be VP. So Chenney did have the final say in day to day operations of Halliburton. Also, Chenney owns far more stock in Halliburton then Kerry's wife does in Heinz (4%) and further, Heinz doesn't run the risk of getting contracts from the government let alone unprecedented no bid contracts such as Halliburton has. You can't compare Heinz to Halliburton, they aren't even in the same ball-park.

That's simply not true.. read the link that was provided. Kerry owns nothing in Heinz and his wife only has 4% of Heinz stock, which is far less then is owned by Chenney in Halliburton, further, I don't think people who make Ketchup are going to get any government contracts to rebuild Iraq.. the official ketchup of Iraq? Haha, spare me!
Cheney sold his HAL before taking office. He, nor anyone in his family own any.

I don't think we'll be invading Ecuador for their tomato fields, however we may be sending jobs to them. And I would suggest you not disparage factory workers because of the product they make. It is hard labor, and most US factory workers make good income - particularly union labor, regardless of the product.

Kerry could easily be seenby any union worker as having a conflict of interest.

Neither does Cheney so your arguement is gone too!

I think the attempt to draw a parallel between Cheney-Halliburton and Kerry-Heinz is a little bit desperate. The fact remains that Cheney and Halliburton are profiting from the loss of innocent lives and the future of middle eastern oil. As far as Heinz, yeah, I think that they don't deserve the tax breaks anyway, they are a multi-billion dollar company and they deserve to pay up too. But the difference between the two is clear!

Personally, I would like to see a significant modification of the USA Patriot Act, and a strong, decisive, detailed plan of action for Iraq and Afghanistan that does NOT involve the deployment of more international troops, but rather the gradual withdrawl of Coalition troops from both countries.

See, I would have to disagree with you here, although overall, this is what I wanted to see as well as these seem to be the most pressing issues. I'm fairly sure that, should there be a complete withdrawal, Iraq will degrade to where Afghanistan is now (as a result of reassigning top-priority status to Iraq), and Afghanistan will finally implode completely. I think we need to bring more international troops there and decrease the numbers of our troops, forming a real coalition so that the people don't think that it's just a matter of one arrogant superpower occupying them. Let's face it, the biggest problem they have is that it's the US and those we dragged along over there, not that someone is over there at all. Those nations do still need help in rebuilding and keeping order.

I think the attempt to draw a parallel between Cheney-Halliburton and Kerry-Heinz is a little bit desperate. The fact remains that Cheney and Halliburton are profiting from the loss of innocent lives and the future of middle eastern oil. As far as Heinz, yeah, I think that they don't deserve the tax breaks anyway, they are a multi-billion dollar company and they deserve to pay up too. But the difference between the two is clear!

Cheney isn't profiting at all! He has no SHARE in the company. He sold it all so he doesn't get squat at all. Heinz may have 4% however that is 4% more than what Cheney has so the arguement is invalid.

You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.

Let...me...go...slow...so...you...can...understand. Kerry...does...not...own...or...influence...any...part...of...the...Heinz...corporation. Theresa...Heinz...Kerry...only...owns...4%...of...Heinz...stock...and...is...not...involved,...and.. .never...was,...in...the...running...of...said...Corporation.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, he still receives direct payments from them, and he has significant stock. The Iraq fiasco has directly impacted Halliburton's business, and said business was contracted with the US government by way of a no-bid contract.

Can you see the significant differences there???

Also, food companies are obliged to have locations around the world because of the nature of their business. It's not really the same as exporting jobs that started out here in the US and could be done equally as well here, if not better, as elsewhere.

Let...me...go...slow...so...you...can...understand. Kerry...does...not...own...or...influence...any...part...of...the...Heinz...corporation. Theresa...Heinz...Kerry...only...owns...4%...of...Heinz...stock...and...is...not...involved,...and.. .never...was,...in...the...running...of...said...Corporation.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, he still receives direct payments from them, and he has significant stock. The Iraq fiasco has directly impacted Halliburton's business, and said business was contracted with the US government by way of a no-bid contract.

Can you see the significant differences there???

Also, food companies are obliged to have locations around the world because of the nature of their business. It's not really the same as exporting jobs that started out here in the US and could be done equally as well here, if not better, as elsewhere.

He has no stock in haliburton.

You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.

First off, it is Kerry's wife who is exposed, not Kerry given their prenup. And second, if he does follow through and makes the changes that he has indicated that he wants - then that actually speaks well of his character in that he would be putting his country before personal gain. Not something we neccessarily are sure of regarding Cheney...


Incidentally - I gather that we are assuming that Kerry will also have gained control of the Congress and Senate in order to be able to get the things done that he wants? After all, electing the President is one thing, but if he is also handcuffed by not having control of the houses of government then he isn;t likely to get much done no matter what his intentions might be.

I think the attempt to draw a parallel between Cheney-Halliburton and Kerry-Heinz is a little bit desperate. The fact remains that Cheney and Halliburton are profiting from the loss of innocent lives and the future of middle eastern oil. As far as Heinz, yeah, I think that they don't deserve the tax breaks anyway, they are a multi-billion dollar company and they deserve to pay up too. But the difference between the two is clear!
You are getting away from the original issue, being does Kerry have a conflict of interest with overseas jobs as they relate to Heinz. The answer is unarguable. No comparison of the two is warranted, a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. If it is YOUR job going overseas you may weigh that conflict differently than someone who's SON is going overseas.

Cheney isn't profiting at all! He has no SHARE in the company. He sold it all so he doesn't get squat at all. Heinz may have 4% however that is 4% more than what Cheney has so the arguement is invalid.

Call it invalid all you'd like, I still think your argument is desperate. Are you defending Cheney and Halliburton because you truly don't think they're doing anything wrong or because you don't like Kerry and want to try to make him look bad?

First off, it is Kerry's wife who is exposed, not Kerry given their prenup. And second, if he does follow through and makes the changes that he has indicated that he wants - then that actually speaks well of his character in that he would be putting his country before personal gain. Not something we neccessarily are sure of regarding Cheney...


Incidentally - I gather that we are assuming that Kerry will also have gained control of the Congress and Senate in order to be able to get the things done that he wants? After all, electing the President is one thing, but if he is also handcuffed by not having control of the houses of government then he isn;t likely to get much done no matter what his intentions might be.

Your right on the last part Zep and yea I did agree with you. The House will remain Republican! The Senate, however, is another story. Its to close to call on who will win the US Senate this election.

Kerry is trying to close the tax loopholes and give tax breaks to companies that keep work in the US. He isn't making outsourcing illegal...I don't think that'd fly...

Cheney sold his HAL before taking office. He, nor anyone in his family own any.

I don't think we'll be invading Ecuador for their tomato fields, however we may be sending jobs to them. And I would suggest you not disparage factory workers because of the product they make. It is hard labor, and most US factory workers make good income - particularly union labor, regardless of the product.

Kerry could easily be seenby any union worker as having a conflict of interest.

I'm sorry, you have been given incorrect information. Chenney most certainly does own a large amount of stock options in Halliburton. He stepped down as CEO and can't consult with them while he holds office (Instead he just gives them no bid contracts) There is zero conflict with Kerry as he doesn't have any thing to do with Heinz, in fact, in case you didn't know, he and his wife have a pre-nup. Kerry gets nothing from Heinz and has zero invested interest. As for his wife, all she does is head up one of the USA's largest charities for Heinz and all that money, stays in the USA. But nice try. Get your facts straight!

Pfft...like that will happen.


Anyway....
I'd like to see the Kyoto treaty signed and some legislation passed to help fund research for alternative fuel sources.
Kyoto is so good for the US economy that the US Senate voted 95-0 against it with 5 abstentions or absentees. Even Kerry voted no.

Call it invalid all you'd like, I still think your argument is desperate. Are you defending Cheney and Halliburton because you truly don't think they're doing anything wrong or because you don't like Kerry and want to try to make him look bad?

I'm defending no one. Just stating facts! As for Kerry, I never said I didn't like him. I don't think he's worthy of being President IMHO.

Cheney has absolutely no stake in Haliburton.

Cheney isn't profiting at all! He has no SHARE in the company. He sold it all so he doesn't get squat at all. Heinz may have 4% however that is 4% more than what Cheney has so the arguement is invalid.

Cheney still has 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton and is drawing 6-figure deferred salary from them as well.

You are getting away from the original issue, being does Kerry have a conflict of interest with overseas jobs as they relate to Heinz. The answer is unarguable. No comparison of the two is warranted, a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. If it is YOUR job going overseas you may weigh that conflict differently than someone who's SON is going overseas.

Well then my answer is no, Kerry does not have a conflict of interest. I personally cannot predict what he'd do if he did have any control of Heinz, and no one will because he doesn't. If he does roll back the tax cuts for the overseas companies than Heinz will not receive the tax breaks that they are enjoying under the Bush administration. I'm just not understanding the conflict of interest, he's stated his position on the matter.

Kyoto is so good for the US economy that the US Senate voted 95-0 against it with 5 abstentions or absentees. Even Kerry voted no.

WOA, Kerry voted no to Kyoto? My word, what is the world coming too when a liberal kills a good environment treaty?

Cheney isn't profiting at all! He has no SHARE in the company. He sold it all so he doesn't get squat at all. Heinz may have 4% however that is 4% more than what Cheney has so the arguement is invalid.

You are misinformed. Cheney still holds stock options for 433,333 shares of Halliburton stock and is paid several hundred thousand dollars by Halliburton every year.

Here's a thought, do a google search on "Cheney, Halliburton, stock" or even better, "Cheney lies."

I hope the Kool Aide is yummy

Kyoto is so good for the US economy that the US Senate voted 95-0 against it with 5 abstentions or absentees. Even Kerry voted no.
(sarcasm noted)...that must explain why our economy is so shitty, eh?

While I like the idea of a line-item veto in theory, I balk at the idea of giving the President any more power than he already has. I would prefer legislation and investigations that limited and punished pork, and limitations on amending bills that are going through Congress.
The line item veto doesn't let a president merely edit the laws to suit them, they still need congressional approval. It would also let him tag out bits of the bill that have blatently been there to put him off signing it, and thus avoid further accusations of flip-flopping (same bill comes twice, once with a bad amendment and gets voted down, once without it and gets passed. This appears, to the untrained observer or Republican spinmeiser, to be a flip-flop. Line item veto shows clearly where he stands)

Cheney still has 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.

But he's not collecting it and I don't think he will either. I do believe though that it was part of his retirement package anyway.

You can't change the subject. Haliburton benefited from the war, and Heinz benefits from overseas labor. If the subject is overseas labor Kerry is exposed and must reconcile the conflict.
Right. But Teresa Heinz still doesn't own Heinz. So really, there is no conflict.

But he's not collecting it and I don't think he will either. I do believe though that it was part of his retirement package anyway.

So, taking your pure speculation aside.. he most certainly does have a stake in Halliburton, end of story!

Tax Cuts: I think the tax cuts that give large corporate entities tax breaks don't provide any stimulus for the economy, and I will admit that with economic theroy I am whole heartedly Democrat. I think give middle class people the break, and they will spend it, because most of us have to in order to survive.

I'm not sure I follow, what corporate taxes have been cut? AFIK all tax cuts were to individuals, with most dollars to the top earners. What corporate taxcuts are you referring to?

I think Kerry's openness about wanting to bring actual "willing" countries back into would be a monumental gain for the War on Iraq.
Considering the Spain fiasco I have my doubts, but we could all hope.

So, taking your pure speculation aside.. he most certainly does have a stake in Halliburton, end of story!

Sorry Steph, but I will disagree with you, as usual! :D :p

(sarcasm noted)...that must explain why our economy is so shitty, eh?
Our economy is growing at 4-8.1% a quarter (largest growth since the Reagan years) and is ranked the best in the world today. Our economy is not shitty and you need to get facts instead of liberal dribble.

Kyoto would cause unemployment to go to double digits since many companies would be closed as a result of the lost profits. Kyoto would lead to a depression on a global scale

First off, it is Kerry's wife who is exposed, not Kerry given their prenup. And second, if he does follow through and makes the changes that he has indicated that he wants - then that actually speaks well of his character in that he would be putting his country before personal gain. Not something we neccessarily are sure of regarding Cheney...


Incidentally - I gather that we are assuming that Kerry will also have gained control of the Congress and Senate in order to be able to get the things done that he wants? After all, electing the President is one thing, but if he is also handcuffed by not having control of the houses of government then he isn;t likely to get much done no matter what his intentions might be.
Make whatever assumptions you want, but I doubt he will get any more control over congress than Bush has.

But he's not collecting it and I don't think he will either. I do believe though that it was part of his retirement package anyway.

But his margins at time of sale sure improve as the price goes up don't they? So he does have a vested interest in maintaining the stock price or improving it.

He has no stock in haliburton.

Well, if you want to nitpick, he has stock options

Is CBS a good enough source for you? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

Deny it now! Just try!

the delibration on american politics huh? interesting............. nah. you all suck. thats about as intelligent awnser you can get :p

But he's not collecting it and I don't think he will either. I do believe though that it was part of his retirement package anyway.
You're supposed to put your stocks in a blind trust when you're elected anyway. I'm pretty sure (but don't quote me on this) that there was an issue with Cheney waiting six months after being elected VP before putting his stocks in a trust, and selling off a large proportion of them in that time.

Our economy is growing at 4-8.1% a quarter (largest growth since the Reagan years) and is ranked the best in the world today. Our economy is not shitty and you need to get facts instead of liberal dribble.

Kyoto would cause unemployment to go to double digits since many companies would be closed as a result of the lost profits. Kyoto would lead to a depression on a global scale

I gather you didn;t read the most recent report that had the economy slowing to 3%, well below the 3.8% expected.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20040801/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the spring to an annual growth rate of 3 percent, as consumers, worried about higher gasoline prices, cut back their spending to the weakest pace in three years, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.

The April-June advance in the gross domestic product, the country's output of goods and services, was below the 3.8 percent increase many economists had expected and was significantly down from a revised 4.5 percent growth rate in the first three months of the year.

I'm not sure I follow, what corporate taxes have been cut? AFIK all tax cuts were to individuals, with most dollars to the top earners. What corporate taxcuts are you referring to?

I'm sorry, you are right. I meant tax breaks for the companies that are taking their jobs to countries like China and India. The tax cuts I was talkin about were to the top earning citizens. I don't think that the economy benefits from their tax cuts as much as they would if the middle class were to receive a larger tax incentive.

Considering the Spain fiasco I have my doubts, but we could all hope.

I think that what happened in Spain is actually an indication to the rest of the world that this isn't just an American problem. I think everyone understands that they all have a stake in this too, I just think that we've been so unwilling to have them make suggestions that they have lost interest in being a part of the rebuilding. If you were France would you come to Bush's side after he pretty much invalidated you at the UN?

I hope the Kool Aide is yummy
Kool Aide is a referance I've heard before, but I don't know what it means. Anyone?

The bottom line is you can not lead the world if no one is following. Bush has proved that he can not lead the world. When the CEO of a company can't preform and get the job done, you change the CEO. This is what must happen to start the process of earning back some of America's tainted credibility and respect in the world. That alone is a good enough reason to get rid of Bush. He has zero diplomatic skills. He's proven that. Even his father knew how to be a team player. You can't possibly catch and or kill all the terrorists by yourselves and don't talk to me about "we have lots of countries support" yeah, how many men? How much money? I don't call a bunch of poor and in some cases 3rd world countries "support" Besides the UK, you pretty much have no allies.. when has that ever happened? Why did it happen? Because Bush told the world we were irrelevant. The world will not work with Bush.. simple as that. It's time to change the CEO!

[QUOTE=Bozzy]I'm not sure I follow, what corporate taxes have been cut? AFIK all tax cuts were to individuals, with most dollars to the top earners. What corporate taxcuts are you referring to.{\QUOTE]

I'm sorry, you are right. I meant tax breaks for the companies that are taking their jobs to countries like China and India. The tax cuts I was talkin about were to the top earning citizens. I don't think that the economy benefits from their tax cuts as much as they would if the middle class were to receive a larger tax incentive.

Kool Aide is a referance I've heard before, but I don't know what it means. Anyone?
wow.

I think that what happened in Spain is actually an indication to the rest of the world that this isn't just an American problem. I think everyone understands that they all have a stake in this too, I just think that we've been so unwilling to have them make suggestions that they have lost interest in being a part of the rebuilding. If you were France would you come to Bush's side after he pretty much invalidated you at the UN?

You missed the point Allied Kingdoms. Spain fled like cowards after the terror attack on the train that killed a hundred people. They fled. You don't flee militarily in the face of danger. Not to mention, it influenced the Spanish elections. By fleeing and influencing the elections, they gave a victory to the terrorists and to try to do the same to other nations that have an election coming up.

The bottom line is you can not lead the world if no one is following. Bush has proved that he can not lead the world. When the CEO of a company can't preform and get the job done, you change the CEO. This is what must happen to start the process of earning back some of America's tainted credibility and respect in the world. That alone is a good enough reason to get rid of Bush. He has zero diplomatic skills. He's proven that. Even his father knew how to be a team player. You can't possibly catch and or kill all the terrorists by yourselves and don't talk to me about "we have lots of countries support" yeah, how many men? How much money? I don't call a bunch of poor and in some cases 3rd world countries "support" Besides the UK, you pretty much have no allies.. when has that ever happened? Why did it happen? Because Bush told the world we were irrelevant. The world will not work with Bush.. simple as that. It's time to change the CEO!

HOPE IS ON THE WAY!

I gather you didn;t read the most recent report that had the economy slowing to 3%, well below the 3.8% expected.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&ncid=749&e=6&u=/ap/20040801/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

It appears your article is saying it is due to high gas prices, something you would see much more of under Kyoto. THat article actually backfires since the prices would rise if Kyoto passed, next time analyze the article before posting your own lack of knowledge

HOPE IS ON THE WAY!

I hope so but I don't think it'll be in the form of Kerry even after his first 100 days.

You missed the point Allied Kingdoms. Spain fled like cowards after the terror attack on the train that killed a hundred people. They fled. You don't flee militarily in the face of danger. Not to mention, it influenced the Spanish elections. By fleeing and influencing the elections, they gave a victory to the terrorists and to try to do the same to other nations that have an election coming up.

Yeah, but imagine how you would've voted if you had to vote on September 12th. What role was Spain to play in Iraq when the United States has "Gone it Alone" and told the UN that with or without them we're doing it our way.

Hope is on the way!

Hope Is On The Way!

I hope so but I don't think it'll be in the form of Kerry even after his first 100 days.

I don't expect Kerry to save the world in 100 days. I expect Kerry to work with us to help turn around some of the mistakes we have made in the past four years, and get us going in the right direction. And in that I do find hope. I find no hope with George W. Bush.

Kool Aide is a referance I've heard before, but I don't know what it means. Anyone?


I beieve is a reference to the cult that all drank poisoned Kool Aide in a mass suicide (or possibly murder.)

The phrase basically means the blind following and unquestioning digestion of rhetoric from/by your chosen idealology/leaders, no matter what the deadly consequences.

Yeah, but imagine how you would've voted if you had to vote on September 12th. What role was Spain to play in Iraq when the United States has "Gone it Alone" and told the UN that with or without them we're doing it our way.

I'd've kept the guy in office is what I would've done. I wouldn't flee either. I would send a few more troops to Iraq to spite the terrorists. That is what Spain should've done but alas, I'm not spain or her countries and I really have no right to criticize their elections. I can criticize the person in office though!

You missed the point Allied Kingdoms. Spain fled like cowards after the terror attack on the train that killed a hundred people. They fled. You don't flee militarily in the face of danger. Not to mention, it influenced the Spanish elections. By fleeing and influencing the elections, they gave a victory to the terrorists and to try to do the same to other nations that have an election coming up.You call a country in mourning over the killing of their citizens cowards? Steph will mind me for my language here, but that is one major league asshole thing to say.

The Spanish government lying about who they believed caused the attacks in a cynical vote-grabbing exercise didn't help much either y-know.

I beieve is a reference to the cult that all drank poisoned Kool Aide in a mass suicide (or possibly murder.)

Yeah, Jim Jones.

Well, if you want to nitpick, he has stock options

Is CBS a good enough source for you? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

Deny it now! Just try!
He has pledged them to charity, but it is unknown if it is a formal pledge. I suspect that they are qualified options, and/or restricted options, meaning he cannot sell or excercise them until a specific time has elapsed.

If it is not a formal pledge then it is revokable, and therefore problematic.

I beieve is a reference to the cult that all drank poisoned Kool Aide in a mass suicide (or possibly murder.)

The phrase basically means the blind following and unquestioning digestion of rhetoric from/by your chosen idealology/leaders, no matter what the deadly consequences.
That was pretty close to my guess actually. Thanks.

I'd've kept the guy in office is what I would've done. I wouldn't flee either. I would send a few more troops to Iraq to spite the terrorists. That is what Spain should've done but alas, I'm not spain or her countries and I really have no right to criticize their elections. I can criticize the person in office though!

Well you're right I think it is really unfortunate what happened with the elections in Spain. I think they may have made a big mistake because they were desperate for answers to something they couldn't understand. But I don't think that invading is the answer either, after all look what happened with the United States thinking we could just invade anyone. I think that Spain, just like every other country should come together and try to make sure that it doesn't happen there, here, or anywhere.

Hope Is On The Way!
I love that song btw.

You call a country in mourning over the killing of their citizens cowards? Steph will mind me for my language here, but that is one major league asshole thing to say.

The Spanish government lying about who they believed caused the attacks in a cynical vote-grabbing exercise didn't help much either y-know.

Nah, no problem Spoffin, not only was her comment an asshole thing to say, it's bullshit. Just like they try to take credit for Lybia.. haha, those talks and plans had been in the works for years! Lybia wanted back on the world stage. Had nothing to do with Bush.

You call a country in mourning over the killing of their citizens cowards? Steph will mind me for my language here, but that is one major league asshole thing to say.

The Spanish government lying about who they believed caused the attacks in a cynical vote-grabbing exercise didn't help much either y-know.

That is not what i said you shmuck! What I said was the Socialist Government are cowards for fleeing Iraq.

And as for a vote-grabbing exercise, I like to see proof of that statement.

He has pledged them to charity, but it is unknown if it is a formal pledge. I suspect that they are qualified options, and/or restricted options, meaning he cannot sell or excercise them until a specific time has elapsed.

If it is not a formal pledge then it is revokable, and therefore problematic.

Hahaha, yeah and well all know how honest these people running the white house are at the moment..lol that is freaking funny.

Nah, no problem Spoffin, not only was her comment an asshole thing to say, it's bullshit. Just like they try to take credit for Lybia.. haha, those talks and plans had been in the works for years! Lybia wanted back on the world stage. Had nothing to do with Bush.

Steph, I'm surprised that your Poli Sci degree didn't tell you that whoever is President takes credit or hammered on things that happened under his watch.

Nah, no problem Spoffin, not only was her comment an asshole thing to say, it's bullshit. Just like they try to take credit for Lybia.. haha, those talks and plans had been in the works for years! Lybia wanted back on the world stage. Had nothing to do with Bush.

Well, I don't think anyone credits Bush for having anything to do with Lybia, even the Republicans, as great as it is to have those weapons out of Lybia's hands.

The bottom line is you can not lead the world if no one is following. Bush has proved that he can not lead the world. When the CEO of a company can't preform and get the job done, you change the CEO. This is what must happen to start the process of earning back some of America's tainted credibility and respect in the world. That alone is a good enough reason to get rid of Bush. He has zero diplomatic skills. He's proven that. Even his father knew how to be a team player. You can't possibly catch and or kill all the terrorists by yourselves and don't talk to me about "we have lots of countries support" yeah, how many men? How much money? I don't call a bunch of poor and in some cases 3rd world countries "support" Besides the UK, you pretty much have no allies.. when has that ever happened? Why did it happen? Because Bush told the world we were irrelevant. The world will not work with Bush.. simple as that. It's time to change the CEO!
Is the role of Prseident to lead the nation, or the world? If you are looking for a world leader then eith Kerry or Bush will need a substantially larger army.

Hahaha, yeah and well all know how honest these people running the white house are at the moment..lol that is freaking funny.

Your the one that is funny Steph! You immediately wrote off what he said. Frankly, I do believe he'll do what he said.

That is not what i said you shmuck! What I said was the Socialist Government are cowards for fleeing Iraq.

And as for a vote-grabbing exercise, I like to see proof of that statement.

Excuse me! No, not cowards, they were doing what a democracy should, respecting the will of their people. Some thing their previous leader ignored. In case you haven't noticed. Not many people supported or support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Well, I don't think anyone credits Bush for having anything to do with Lybia, even the Republicans, as great as it is to have those weapons out of Lybia's hands.

Who knows but he'll get the credit because it happened under his watch. That is how things go.

That is not what i said you shmuck! What I said was the Socialist Government are cowards for fleeing Iraq.

And as for a vote-grabbing exercise, I like to see proof of that statement.
They tried to lay the blame on a spanish sepratist movement at first, didn't they? Before the truck full of Al Qadia paraphanalia was found.

Is the role of Prseident to lead the nation, or the world? If you are looking for a world leader then eith Kerry or Bush will need a substantially larger army.

But again the difference between the two is still perfectly clear. Bush doesn't want to lead the world, he wants to go it alone. I think Kerry will try to bring the world together, as much as he can at least. Isn't that what we try to do when we lead?

Is the role of Prseident to lead the nation, or the world? If you are looking for a world leader then eith Kerry or Bush will need a substantially larger army.

Well, if the role is to lead the nation and not the world.. stop stepping outside of your borders where you are not wanted to invade countries that pose NO threat to you!

It appears your article is saying it is due to high gas prices, something you would see much more of under Kyoto. THat article actually backfires since the prices would rise if Kyoto passed, next time analyze the article before posting your own lack of knowledge


Ah yes - of course - the slowdown is entirely due to higher gas prices. Gosh, reporters never simplify things for public dissemination do they...

:rolleyes:

What will be another indicator of whether the recovery is indeed stumbling comes this Friday when the July job numbers come out.


The reason I posted the link was that you stated unequivocably that the US was still having growth of 4-8%. Excuse the hell out of me for pointing out that your numbers were wrong in describing the current situation -whatever the reason.

-Z-

-EDIT--

Actually, speaking of lack of knowledge, you stated that the economy was growing at 4-8% a quarter - which it never has in bush's tenure as the numbers are always figured out prorated to an anual rate.

Is the role of Prseident to lead the nation, or the world? If you are looking for a world leader then eith Kerry or Bush will need a substantially larger army.

I think the argument is that you shouldn't try to lead the world with an army in the first place.

Excuse me! No, not cowards, they were doing what a democracy should, respecting the will of their people. Some thing their previous leader ignored. In case you haven't noticed. Not many people supported or support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

HELLO!!!! A terror attack forces a change in election thus causing troop withdraw! You cannot tell me that the terrorists werent happy to see that they got a double victory. They won a battle against Spain there and now they will probably try to do it again. Either against US, Britian, or another nation.

Terrorist won in Spain because the Government pulled them out. No one is denying that. Their previous leader had the right idea and believe it or not, Steph, before that attack, the Conservatives where scheduled to WIN that election.

Who knows but he'll get the credit because it happened under his watch. That is how things go.

The Americans weren't even in on the talks, it was the UK that did it..the US jumped in at the last minute to try and grab some glory that they didn't earn. :rolleyes:

It is worth noting that the Koyoto treat was signed in the Clinton administration. I think you meant participation.

As far as alt fuels, didn't Bush announce a considerable budget for hydrogen fuel cells in his last address? How much and for what fuels would you like to see?

Yes Bush did call for expanded research into fuel cells. The problem is that Bush's plan relies on tradional energy sources such as coal, nuclear and oil to create the hydrogen used by fuel cells. Bush's plan would increase the consumption of these fuels and would not result in a decrease in pollution output.

HELLO!!!! A terror attack forces a change in election thus causing troop withdraw! You cannot tell me that the terrorists werent happy to see that they got a double victory. They won a battle against Spain there and now they will probably try to do it again. Either against US, Britian, or another nation.

Terrorist won in Spain because the Government pulled them out. No one is denying that. Their previous leader had the right idea and believe it or not, Steph, before that attack, the Conservatives where scheduled to WIN that election.

I agree with Steph. And even if it was a reaction by the Spanish public motivated by fear, can you really blame them? If your families and your friends families were lying dead or mourning in the streets, who wouldn't want to make sure it didn't happen again? Spain as a whole were given a choice, and while I don't think its good to trade principles for security, especially when the people you're trading with are terrorists, I can certainly understand why they did and would NEVER call them cowards for doing so.

Who knows but he'll get the credit because it happened under his watch. That is how things go.

Ah, so Libya happened on his watch, so he gets cedit, but 9/11 and the economic downturn were Clinton's fault?

I'm not saying this is what you were saying, just pointing out that this seems to be how a lot of Faux News pundits think.

Nah, no problem Spoffin, not only was her comment an asshole thing to say, it's bullshit. Just like they try to take credit for Lybia.. haha, those talks and plans had been in the works for years! Lybia wanted back on the world stage. Had nothing to do with Bush.


Hans Blix said he suspected that "Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw happen in Iraq."

I don't recall any American ambassador's visiting Libya or Libyan ambassadors meeting with American's until Jan 04.

HELLO!!!! A terror attack forces a change in election thus causing troop withdraw! You cannot tell me that the terrorists werent happy to see that they got a double victory. They won a battle against Spain there and now they will probably try to do it again. Either against US, Britian, or another nation..

Wrong again. They got pissed at him for lying! First they didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place, then when it was so clear it was Al Qaeda who had struck them, he lied and tried to pin it on the ETA for political gain.. make up all the BS you want. It doesn't sell with me. I actually know what happened. Perhaps if you had read what the voters in Spain had said at the time, you too would know this.

Ah, so Libya happened on his watch, so he gets cedit, but 9/11 and the economic downturn were Clinton's fault?

I'm not saying this is what you were saying, just pointing out that this seems to be how a lot of Faux News pundits think.

The downturn did really start under clinton. Wasn't much but the signs were there. As for 9/11, I never blamed Clinton nor did I blame Bush so that line of arguement on me is worthless. Even that was reported on Fox News too.

Hans Blix said he suspected that "Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw happen in Iraq."

I don't recall any American ambassador's visiting Libya or Libyan ambassadors meeting with American's until Jan 04.

I just think that Libya was a good example of how diplomacy can work whereas invasion and occupation might not be the best way to go. I don't know why people haven't made that conclusion, but I think it's a great thing that diplomacy was successful.

Ah, so Libya happened on his watch, so he gets cedit, but 9/11 and the economic downturn were Clinton's fault?

I'm not saying this is what you were saying, just pointing out that this seems to be how a lot of Faux News pundits think.


To blame 9/11 on anyone but Arab Muslim Extreemists is just sick.

To blame an economic downturn on a president is ignorant. (google 'cyclic economy' to enlighten yourself)

Faux News - now THAT's funny. Better than Clinton News Network!

I'm done arguing with people who don't even do their homework..

VOTE KERRY 04

Well, if the role is to lead the nation and not the world.. stop stepping outside of your borders where you are not wanted to invade countries that pose NO threat to you!
I don't personally believe that every country should stay within their borders, I have no problem with America putting a hand on the tiller of the world. But only when its steered in a selfless direction. And only when people, all people, are told the true nature of what is going on and the real reason why it is being done.

I'm done arguing with people who don't even do their homework..

VOTE KERRY 04

VOTE BUSH 04

Vote Kerry 2004!

I just think that Libya was a good example of how diplomacy can work whereas invasion and occupation might not be the best way to go. I don't know why people haven't made that conclusion, but I think it's a great thing that diplomacy was successful.
Without the demonstration of military willingness, do you really think Libyan Diplomacy had a chance?

Vote Kerry 2004!

VOTE BUSH 2004

To blame 9/11 on anyone but Arab Muslim Extreemists is just sick.

To blame an economic downturn on a president is ignorant. (google 'cyclic economy' to enlighten yourself)

Faux News - now THAT's funny. Better than Clinton News Network!


Cyclic economy is true, we were on a way down when the technology bubble burst. But you cannot increase government spending and run the deficits we've been running for 3 years and not expect that to get substantially worse. So while I do credit some of the economic downtown to cyclical economic activity, I think that irresponsible spending had a major role in it.

The downturn did really start under clinton. Wasn't much but the signs were there. As for 9/11, I never blamed Clinton nor did I blame Bush so that line of arguement on me is worthless. Even that was reported on Fox News too.

Does no one read anymore? I said in my post I wasn't criticizing YOU.

VOTE BUSH 2004

Hey, just Vote on November 2nd, 2004. At least that way you're not just drinkin the Kool Aid

Does no one read anymore? I said in my post I wasn't criticizing YOU.

Sorry must've missed it! I apologize.

Hey, just Vote on November 2nd, 2004. At least that way you're not just drinkin the Kool Aid

She can't vote and neither can I! LOL

She's Canadian and I'm under 18! That is why we can't vote.

Vote Kerry 2004!

Hope Is On The Way

Should senator Kerry be elected, what do you think he would accomplish by the 100th day? What one would be your highest priority?

Please be specific, intelligent and detailed.

If you do not plan to vote for Senator Kerry please just type;

"I plan to vote for (candidate name) and am intelligent enough to follow directions" Then add no more. This is about Kerry.
Well Kerry has some lavish spending programs in mind, all of which may be delayed by Congressional debate. However, Kerry will certainly use his executive powers in the first 100 days. Among them, he'll resign Kyoto and maybe the Rome treaty. He also plans to order a 120-day review on US trade agreements, including NAFTA and the WTO. Given his past campaign rhetoric, he may withdraw the US from those agreements, and make them useless to the world economy. But I'm sure that if Congress finishes their debates by then, he'll repeal some of the tax cuts, and institute his healthcare program.

Yes Bush did call for expanded research into fuel cells. The problem is that Bush's plan relies on tradional energy sources such as coal, nuclear and oil to create the hydrogen used by fuel cells. Bush's plan would increase the consumption of these fuels and would not result in a decrease in pollution output.

Surely you must know that the whole POINT of the research, right? There presently is no economical way to get hydrogen. Storing it and utilizing it are the easy part.

Hope Is On The Way

That has to be one of the most stupidest campaign slogans I've ever heard. If anyone truely believes that then they need their heads examined.

Well, I don't think anyone credits Bush for having anything to do with Lybia, even the Republicans, as great as it is to have those weapons out of Lybia's hands.

Actually, Bush himself took half the credit in the 2004 State of the Union Address.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off and far more secure without weapons of mass murder. (Applause.)

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America. (Applause.)

To blame 9/11 on anyone but Arab Muslim Extreemists is just sick. Agreed. But to say that people in the know could have prevented it by doing things as simple as reading breifings and implementing the reccomendations is neither sick nor innacurate

To blame an economic downturn on a president is ignorant. (google 'cyclic economy' to enlighten yourself)
Again, true. But think about this.

The economy appeared to be going well, and so, President Bush decided that it was a good time to pay back some of the surplus money, and give the people a tax cut. That's fine. But then the economy takes a nosedive, and President Bush again decides that the best way to improve things is.... to give the people a tax cut.

A tax cut for all seasons? Please don't tell me that you believe that a tax cut is, as the Republican administration seems to think it is, a panacea for all economic pains. Surely, somewhere, sometime, there must be a situation when a tax cut is not a good idea.

That has to be one of the most stupidest campaign slogans I've ever heard. If anyone truely believes that then they need their heads examined.

Ah yes, resort to insults.. how very Republican of you.. LMAO :D

Well Kerry has some lavish spending programs in mind, all of which may be delayed by Congressional debate. However, Kerry will certainly use his executive powers in the first 100 days. Among them, he'll resign Kyoto and maybe the Rome treaty. He also plans to order a 120-day review on US trade agreements, including NAFTA and the WTO. Given his past campaign rhetoric, he may withdraw the US from those agreements, and make them useless to the world economy. But I'm sure that if Congress finishes their debates by then, he'll repeal some of the tax cuts, and institute his healthcare program.

Well NAFTA he voted for! WTO we need to get out of! As for repealing Tax Cuts, has to go through Congress as does healthcare program

Without the demonstration of military willingness, do you really think Libyan Diplomacy had a chance?

Sure, I think that rouge countries need to understand that if they choose to arm themselves and threaten others that they might face the consequences, but I don't think that putting a gun in someone's face and telling them to do it your way is the best way to do it. Isn't that what dictators like Sadam and Fidel Castro do.

That has to be one of the most stupidest campaign slogans I've ever heard. If anyone truely believes that then they need their heads examined.
As opposed to the great gems, the pearls of rhetoric wisdom that are Bush's campaign, right?

I honestly don't know why anyone supports Bush. I simply can not name one thing that has been positive under his administration. Not one thing. I'm saddened and disgusted that anyone thinks he's on the right track. I have yet to hear a single rational argument as to why anyone should vote for Bush.

Ah yes, resort to insults.. how very Republican of you.. LMAO :D

wasn't an insult actually. I've said worse on some of the republican ones around here. When I turn 18, i'm registering Independent.

That has to be one of the most stupidest campaign slogans I've ever heard. If anyone truely believes that then they need their heads examined.

That's a bit pessimistic don't you think?

wasn't an insult actually. I've said worse on some of the republican ones around here. When I turn 18, i'm registering Independent.

It's a start.. ;)

Cyclic economy is true, we were on a way down when the technology bubble burst. But you cannot increase government spending and run the deficits we've been running for 3 years and not expect that to get substantially worse. So while I do credit some of the economic downtown to cyclical economic activity, I think that irresponsible spending had a major role in it.
Again, you need to be cautions, the recesion ended officially in march 02 and has been recovering since at a reasonable clip. That flies in the face of your theory of debt causing the slow-down - since the recovery coincides with the increase in debt.

You cannot credit a president with an economic cycle. Good or bad. Greenspan has much more to do with it.

Agreed. But to say that people in the know could have prevented it by doing things as simple as reading breifings and implementing the reccomendations is neither sick nor innacurate


Again, true. But think about this.

The economy appeared to be going well, and so, President Bush decided that it was a good time to pay back some of the surplus money, and give the people a tax cut. That's fine. But then the economy takes a nosedive, and President Bush again decides that the best way to improve things is.... to give the people a tax cut.

A tax cut for all seasons? Please don't tell me that you believe that a tax cut is, as the Republican administration seems to think it is, a panacea for all economic pains. Surely, somewhere, sometime, there must be a situation when a tax cut is not a good idea.


Actually, Bush promised that his tax cuts would not return the government to deficit spending - even if the economy weakened.


Now of course, he promises that they will cut the deficit in half ... the deficit that wasn't there before the tax cuts.

Go figure.

That's a bit pessimistic don't you think?

When someone says hope is on the way, I run the other direction because that almost always never happens.

Again, you need to be cautions, the recesion ended officially in march 02 and has been recovering since at a reasonable clip. That flies in the face of your theory of debt causing the slow-down - since the recovery coincides with the increase in debt.

You cannot credit a president with an economic cycle. Good or bad. Greenspan has much more to do with it.

But you can sure credit the president who produces a record deficit.

Again, you need to be cautions, the recesion ended officially in march 02 and has been recovering since at a reasonable clip. That flies in the face of your theory of debt causing the slow-down - since the recovery coincides with the increase in debt.

You cannot credit a president with an economic cycle. Good or bad. Greenspan has much more to do with it.
Then how come they try to blame Clinton for the current recession, and credit Reagan (and not Carter) on the strong economy of the 80s?

Well NAFTA he voted for! WTO we need to get out of! As for repealing Tax Cuts, has to go through Congress as does healthcare program

So... as long as your Republican's control the Congress I guess you don't have to worry about anything according to you.

:D

I honestly don't know why anyone supports Bush. I simply can not name one thing that has been positive under his administration. Not one thing. I'm saddened and disgusted that anyone thinks he's on the right track. I have yet to hear a single rational argument as to why anyone should vote for Bush.
I know! I can't see his TV ads, (though I know about the negative ones), but I honestly can't imagine what he's campaigning on.

So... as long as your Republican's control the Congress I guess you don't have to worry about anything according to you.

:D

^5's Zep, nailed her again. In fairness, you're old enough to be her father, she'll learn.. maybe ;)

It's a start.. ;)

Steph, I do listen to both sides and make the best decision I can. Right now, I trust Bush more then I trust Kerry. Kerry concerns me but I'm waiting for the debates. And as I've said, if he's elected, I'll support him because I support the President of the USA. Not blindly but cautiously. I won't moan about it. I'll accept him and move on with my life.

Ah yes, resort to insults.. how very Republican of you.. LMAO :D
You are kidding, right.

The entire argument against Bush around here is based on "He is an idiot" or " He is Satan", and every leftist on this site has some pet name for him, like chimp or some other unwity name. resorting to insults is a very leftist ploy to attack someone.

"The Republican Party, their message and their policies of exclusion and the tilted playing field appeals to the dumb and the mean. There is no shortage of dumb and mean people in this culture. So, therefore, their message, the dumb and the mean find a nice home in the GOP." - Air America hostess, talent Black Hole, and Liberal spokeswoman, Janeane Garofalo.

Again, you need to be cautions, the recesion ended officially in march 02 and has been recovering since at a reasonable clip. That flies in the face of your theory of debt causing the slow-down - since the recovery coincides with the increase in debt.

You cannot credit a president with an economic cycle. Good or bad. Greenspan has much more to do with it.

Reasonable by who's standards. American jobs are now going overseas and the jobs we're gaining back pay over $9000 less than the ones we lost. Inflation is back on the rise and the President plans on continuing to run record deficits. I don't blame the President for the cyclical economic activity, I blame him for the deficits and lack of fiscal responsibility. Tell me that running the kind of economy he is trying to run is healthy and I will call you crazy.

Actually, Bush promised that his tax cuts would not return the government to deficit spending - even if the economy weakened.


Now of course, he promises that they will cut the deficit in half ... the deficit that wasn't there before the tax cuts.

Go figure.
In all fairness, there was a clause he added to that promise about a balenced budget unless there was a recession, a war or a threat to national security. I'd be a perfect excuse for broken promises, save for that fact that he never said it and Al Gore did.

So... as long as your Republican's control the Congress I guess you don't have to worry about anything according to you.

:D

ACtually, knowing the House? You'll never know what those people will vote for. The Senate though, it'll have to depend on who wins the Senate but even if it remains in Control of the Republicans, they could still vote for it. That is the way of politics.

Reasonable by who's standards. American jobs are now going overseas and the jobs we're gaining back pay over $9000 less than the ones we lost. Inflation is back on the rise and the President plans on continuing to run record deficits. I don't blame the President for the cyclical economic activity, I blame him for the deficits and lack of fiscal responsibility. Tell me that running the kind of economy he is trying to run is healthy and I will call you crazy.American Jobs are going overseas because Democrats, eager to get the minority vote, raise the minimum wage everytime they needs some poll numbers. They also tax the hell out of companies that do business on America soil. This forces companies to "outsource" to make a profit.

Well, I'm leaving this debate (if you can call it that) You all behave now :)

You are kidding, right.

The entire argument against Bush around here is based on "He is an idiot" or " He is Satan", and every leftist on this site has some pet name for him, like chimp or some other unwity name. resorting to insults is a very leftist ploy to attack someone.
I liked "Shrub". I think the chimp is funnier though.

HAIL TO THE CHIMP!

Etc.


"The Republican Party, their message and their policies of exclusion and the tilted playing field appeals to the dumb and the mean. There is no shortage of dumb and mean people in this culture. So, therefore, their message, the dumb and the mean find a nice home in the GOP." - Air America hostess, talent Black Hole, and Liberal spokeswoman, Janeane Garofalo.A truly clear and penetrating insight.

When someone says hope is on the way, I run the other direction because that almost always never happens.

You're not 18 yet. Your sample size is small. You can't believe bad things will continue to happen if you want good things to happen. Hope and progress start as dreams and are made into reality with hard work and a good amount of luck. To run from hope is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and a philosophy I will nbever subscribe to.

Damn, you're 18, why be so pessimistic? Even if your life has been bad, you have 3/4 of your life yet to experience good things (and believe me, there are a lot of good things to see and experience out there.)

Take a trip abroad as soon as you can. See and walk amonst people and places that are completely foreign to you. Force your mind to broaden, even if it hurts.

My question is this: What has Bush done in four years that has left our country in a better position than it was four years ago. Is the economy better? Are less people dying in Iraq? Are we really safe from terrorists? Are we even optimistic about our government anymore?


re: Less people dying in Iraq:

Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades.

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

The answer to your question would have to be 'yes'. 12 years of negotiating was far more than Saddam deserved. It likely cost 174,000 lives, or 14,500 lives per year. I am not sure if this includes the kurds who were gassed and other killings. But even if it does not it is staggering.

It is sad to know that there are people out there delusioned into thinking Iraqis were better off under Saddam....

You are kidding, right.

The entire argument against Bush around here is based on "He is an idiot" or " He is Satan", and every leftist on this site has some pet name for him, like chimp or some other unwity name. resorting to insults is a very leftist ploy to attack someone.

"The Republican Party, their message and their policies of exclusion and the tilted playing field appeals to the dumb and the mean. There is no shortage of dumb and mean people in this culture. So, therefore, their message, the dumb and the mean find a nice home in the GOP." - Air America hostess, talent Black Hole, and Liberal spokeswoman, Janeane Garofalo.

Well I won't go as far as call them dumb and mean. The reason I don't identify with the Republican party is because they marginalize everyone. If you're not christian, white, and believe everything they believe that you're wrong to them. I think that democrats are much more open to everyone who's more moderate, or even a little bit liberal on some of the social or economic issues.

Do you really think he'd repeal legislation he voted for?

Don't you think it more likely he would have it ammended? If so, please share what you would hope to see him change. If not please share how you think he would justify the change in position.
Yes, I really do think he'd repeal legislation he voted for. I'm not to sure he can make it to Nov. without decideing he doesn't want to run for president. According to NPR, he would push gay marriage in his first 100 days.

American Jobs are going overseas because Democrats, eager to get the minority vote, raise the minimum wage everytime they needs some poll numbers. They also tax the hell out of companies that do business on America soil. This forces companies to "outsource" to make a profit.
WRONG!!

The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down a quarter. In real terms, the minimum wage is going down. Companies employing minimum wage workers should be earning more money than they were before.

Yes, I really do think he'd repeal legislation he voted for. I'm not to sure he can make it to Nov. without decideing he doesn't want to run for president. According to NPR, he would push gay marriage in his first 100 days.

Kerry has already stated that he will not push gay marriage. He's not even for gay marriage, he's up for the states deciding. That's what Congress and President Clinton had signed into law in the 90s. Gay Marriage will come through the Judicial System eventually.

re: Less people dying in Iraq:

Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades.

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

The answer to your question would have to be 'yes'.
Stalin? That many years, 10 million people... wouldn't that be more than 290,000 in two decades?

You're not 18 yet. Your sample size is small. You can't believe bad things will continue to happen if you want good things to happen. Hope and progress start as dreams and are made into reality with hard work and a good amount of luck. To run from hope is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and a philosophy I will nbever subscribe to.

Never said I believe that bad things will continue to happen did I? However when someone says Hope is on the way over and over again, nine times out of ten, the exact opposite will happen. Look at Nazi Germany. Nazi government gave hope then started WWII. Not saying this will happen but its just ONE example in history. Though they never promised Hope is on the way, they did almost everything that Kerry is promising. I never run from Hope. That'll be foolish but when a politician says it, I get concerned.

Damn, you're 18, why be so pessimistic? Even if your life has been bad, you have 3/4 of your life yet to experience good things (and believe me, there are a lot of good things to see and experience out there.)

I still have 2 years to go. I'll be 16 this year and hoping to get a car 2 years after that. I never had a badlife, just the opposite actually.

Take a trip abroad as soon as you can. See and walk amonst people and places that are completely foreign to you. Force your mind to broaden, even if it hurts.

I've lived in Germany when I was 3 and left at 5 and visited when I was 10. I also visited Canada (niagra falls) as well as Panama (13)

WRONG!!

The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down a quarter. In real terms, the minimum wage is going down. Companies employing minimum wage workers should be earning more money than they were before.

Companies outsource because they can pay a woker in India a third of what they pay them here. Minimum wage has to rise because inflation is on the rise. If you worked for minimum wage how would you feel if you couldn't buy the food you bought with the same amount of money last year? That is why the minimum wage has to rise.

Okay, back to our regulaly scheduled thread? Although I can't vote for Kerry, I would in a heartbeat. Having said that, I hope that Kerry will call for a meeting of all US allies in his first 100 days, and lay out some fence building procedures, and address future terrorist co-ordinating strategies.

Hopefully during his first 100 days, he will lay the groundwork for his proposed healthcare enhancements and repeal the tax cut on the wealthiest 2% of the population.

Other pressing concerns he should look at in the first 100 days is the dismal US economy and the rising number of impoverished US citizens.

That should keep him busy for awhile?

Yes, I really do think he'd repeal legislation he voted for. I'm not to sure he can make it to Nov. without decideing he doesn't want to run for president. According to NPR, he would push gay marriage in his first 100 days.

So much for him saying that it was a State's rights issue! That is what he stated when he opposed the FMA!

Companies outsource because they can pay a woker in India a third of what they pay them here. Minimum wage has to rise because inflation is on the rise. If you worked for minimum wage how would you feel if you couldn't buy the food you bought with the same amount of money last year? That is why the minimum wage has to rise.
Exactly what I'm saying. The minimum wage hike isn't to blame for outsourcing or the downturn in the economy.

re: Less people dying in Iraq:

Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades.

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

The answer to your question would have to be 'yes'.
I agree. The bias mainstream media portrays the Iraqi conflict as if the streets were overflowing in US blood. What the media has failed to do is to compare this was with others. Look at vietnam where more US soldiers died in one day than the entire conflict in Iraq.

So much for him saying that it was a State's rights issue! That is what he stated when he opposed the FMA!

He has said it's a State's issue and stands by that. Of course NPR is going to say that he's gonna push it, they appeal to the most right winged Republicans out there. Kerry's position is that the state's should decide on the issue of gay marriage, what he opposes is a Constitutional Amendment

Iraq has an area of 171,599 square miles with a population estimated at 25,374,691 people. Coalition troops number 160,000 presently.

That is a ration of .932 troops per square mile and 159.59 Iraqis per soldier.

Adding 40,000 troops brings that ratio to 1.16 troops per square mile and 126.87 Iraqis per soldier.

Do you really think that sending 40,000 more US boys to war will make that much of a difference?



Do you really think that every single Iraqi is anti-american? They only need to be over there to help keep the country under control from the militia, not the whole population. sending 40,000 more US soldiers would make all the difference.

Wierd how for the liberals, Kerry owning 5% of Heinz doesn't matter but Cheney not owning any of Halliburton does...also, on a side note. Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts from the US government since 1995. Who was President then?


Regardless. I think in the first 100 days nothing is going to happen. The Congress is still Republican, they won't repeal the Patriot Act (why should they?), They won't raise taxes, they won't actually do anything he wants to do. All Kerry can do is suck the French's peckers...which I hope he doesn't.

He has said it's a State's issue and stands by that. Of course NPR is going to say that he's gonna push it, they appeal to the most right winged Republicans out there. Kerry's position is that the state's should decide on the issue of gay marriage, what he opposes is a Constitutional Amendment

NPR doesn't push a righ-wing audience. At least not where I'm at anyway unless its different where your at.

Wierd how for the liberals, Kerry owning 5% of Heinz doesn't matter but Cheney not owning any of Halliburton does...also, on a side note. Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts from the US government since 1995. Who was President then?

Bill Clinton

Well, I'm interested in making solar power a reasonable fuel source (for like electricity), but really, anything that is renewable. Although...does anyone know the principle behind wind power? Turbines turned by a fan which is turned by wind, etc...turn in the magnet and create electricity...it wouldn't be that impossible to add some wind turbines on a car...the faster you go, the better it generates.

hehe. Thanks for the laugh. I don't think any amount of federal spending could create a perpetual motion dynamo - wind powered or otherwise. I would encourage you to study some of the current models including solar, fuel cell, rechargeable electric and even kinetic energy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which are not for this particular thread to discuss (though if you haven't guessed it is an interest of mine)

I don't think that Opal Isle was refering to perpetual motion, but simply modern windmills. Wind farms are perfectly clean, using a fan turned by the wind to crank a generator, just as a gasoline engine does in the what is commonly refered to as a "generator". It is costly, first of all for the equipment itself and the batteries and secondly becasue they must be built where there are strong winds, such as high elevations or costal areas, which means running cable to those remote areas. The two main problems i have heard of with these is that the parts tend to wear out rather quickly and require a lot of costly maintenence, and that they kill large numbers of birds, especially when put in costal areas.
Putting them on a car would just increase the drag and reduce feul efficieny, and if you meant an electric car, the laws of thermodynamics say that they could not produce enough energy to make up for what they cost in drag.

Dave

WRONG!!

The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down a quarter. In real terms, the minimum wage is going down. Companies employing minimum wage workers should be earning more money than they were before.EXCEEDINGLY WRONG!!!

The combination of a rising minimum wage coupled with the raised corporate taxes and corporate laws makes it extremely difficult for companies to pay workers in the US.

Do you really think that every single Iraqi is anti-american? They only need to be over there to help keep the country under control from the militia, not the whole population. sending 40,000 more US soldiers would make all the difference.


To support you a bit, Uzb3kistan. 99% of Iraqi's support US forces. Most of the insurgents are coming from outside Iraqi. Hense the word, insurgent.

Wierd how for the liberals, Kerry owning 5% of Heinz doesn't matter but Cheney not owning any of Halliburton does...also, on a side note. Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts from the US government since 1995. Who was President then?


Regardless. I think in the first 100 days nothing is going to happen. The Congress is still Republican, they won't repeal the Patriot Act (why should they?), They won't raise taxes, they won't actually do anything he wants to do. All Kerry can do is suck the French's peckers...which I hope he doesn't.

You know, I think it's a true testament to a Republican who's hope is that the US government is ties up in partisanship so that absolutely nothing gets done. While you might not agree, I think it's tragic to hope for the failure of the United State government.

My apoligies Formal Dancer, I should not have made assumptions. When you're 21, I'll buy you a drink.

WRONG!!

The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down a quarter. In real terms, the minimum wage is going down. Companies employing minimum wage workers should be earning more money than they were before.


Actually, most companies ARE earning more, and wages are increasing on average.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/percapin.htm

You know, I think it's a true testament to a Republican who's hope is that the US government is ties up in partisanship so that absolutely nothing gets done. While you might not agree, I think it's tragic to hope for the failure of the United State government.

Actually, I'm hoping Kerry doesn't do anything foolish. Thank god the founders put in checks and balances.

Wierd how for the liberals, Kerry owning 5% of Heinz doesn't matter but Cheney not owning any of Halliburton does...also, on a side note. Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts from the US government since 1995. Who was President then?


Regardless. I think in the first 100 days nothing is going to happen. The Congress is still Republican, they won't repeal the Patriot Act (why should they?), They won't raise taxes, they won't actually do anything he wants to do. All Kerry can do is suck the French's peckers...which I hope he doesn't.
1) Kerry doesn't own any of Heinz, his wife does. And its 4%. If you think it doesn't make a difference, then look at how he had to raise campaign funds, there was a fairly limiting cap on what he could receive from his wife, something in the region of £2000.

2) Cheney still has stock options and receives deffered salary from Halliburton.

3)The PATRIOT act automaticly times itself out, and even if it didn't, a lot has changed since it was passed without anyone in Congress reading it, they're not all going to vote the same way a second time around.

4) I don't think that international diplomacy is conducted by means of blowjob, despite what Republicans have tried to make us believe about Clinton.

My apoligies Formal Dancer, I should not have made assumptions. When you're 21, I'll buy you a drink.

You can buy me a forum drink since you and I will probably never meet! :D

Actually, most companies ARE earning more, and wages are increasing on average.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/percapin.htm
There you go. The minimum wage hike isn't such a disaster after all. So how is outsourcing justified now?

Do you really think that every single Iraqi is anti-american? They only need to be over there to help keep the country under control from the militia, not the whole population. sending 40,000 more US soldiers would make all the difference.
I just find it odd to see a liberal advocating for MORE military action in Iraq.

3)The PATRIOT act automaticly times itself out, and even if it didn't, a lot has changed since it was passed without anyone in Congress reading it, they're not all going to vote the same way a second time around.

Actually Spoffin, the US House voted to UPHOLD all of the provisions in the Patriot Act. Unknown if the Senate will.

1) Kerry doesn't own any of Heinz, his wife does. And its 4%. If you think it doesn't make a difference, then look at how he had to raise campaign funds, there was a fairly limiting cap on what he could receive from his wife, something in the region of £2000.

2) Cheney still has stock options and receives deffered salary from Halliburton.

3)The PATRIOT act automaticly times itself out, and even if it didn't, a lot has changed since it was passed without anyone in Congress reading it, they're not all going to vote the same way a second time around.

4) I don't think that international diplomacy is conducted by means of blowjob, despite what Republicans have tried to make us believe about Clinton.

1) What exactly is the difference?

2) Cheney doesn't have shit. Look it up instead of just stating what your liberal friends tell you to. Either way, Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995...what do you say to that?

3) True, but it'll be re-instated with minor changes, because it is the same rules we go after drug dealers with.

4) If you didn't understand what I was getting at, I understand why you spout the party line and don't use any original thoughts...

BTW, How is Blair doing? lol

There you go. The minimum wage hike isn't such a disaster after all. So how is outsourcing justified now?
so if earnings are increasing, why is government intervention required?

Actually, I'm hoping Kerry doesn't do anything foolish. Thank god the founders put in checks and balances.
Well that's what we thought too, but given the groundwork Bush has laid for circumventing the constitution, we should have an easy run at it.

Actually, I'm hoping Kerry doesn't do anything foolish. Thank god the founders put in checks and balances.

My view is a more optimistic one. I hope that Kerry will be able to come to a table with a more open mind for bipartisanship. Even in the convention Kerry has tried to appeal to both moderates and republicans. My hope is that the government can actually start working again and not get so tied up in party gridlock. It's disheartening to hear people say that they hope that nothing happens because they don't agree with some of the policies. No one candidate is every going to take your stand on your issues, but you can always hope that they will leave the country in a better position than when you took it. I think that Kerry will do a better job at the than Bush could.

I can understand that Republicans will vote for Bush because he's the Republican candidate and they are Republican, but that doesn't make him a good leader. I think this election will be decided by the moderates, and I think they will find greater hope in Kerry than they have under Bush.

Well that's what we thought too, but given the groundwork Bush has laid for circumventing the constitution, we should have an easy run at it.

Nice turning a Kerry comment to a bush-bashing post! Impressive. I don't think Bush was mentioned by Neusia.

Well that's what we thought too, but given the groundwork Bush has laid for circumventing the constitution, we should have an easy run at it.


Instead of just spouting the party line. Tell us what exactly has Bush done to circumvent the constitution.

Instead of just spouting the party line. Tell us what exactly has Bush done to circumvent the constitution.

That is what I want to know and 3-1 he mentions the patriot act!

Instead of just spouting the party line. Tell us what exactly has Bush done to circumvent the constitution.

Well for one he's trying to use the constitution of the united states to deny people their human rights to marry whomever they choose.

1) Kerry doesn't own any of Heinz, his wife does.


LOL. So he just fucks a major shareholder of Heinz on a regular basis. Aw hell, he barely has a relationship with Heinz at all! What fool would consider THAT a relationship.

I'm voting for Kerry, and this explains why http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

um, I really hope that he legalizes Gay Marriage. I'm not gay, but I think its absolutely rediculous that people feel that its acceptable to be so bigoted against a group of people who "aren't like them"... didn't we get over this during the Civil Rights Movement??

1) What exactly is the difference?
Rather than going on the hypothetical conflict, lets examine and see if anything that Kerry has said or done, or will say or do makes it appear as if he is supporting Heinz, yeah?

2) Cheney doesn't have shit. Look it up instead of just stating what your liberal friends tell you to. Either way, Halliburton has been getting no bid contracts since 1995...what do you say to that?
I said nothing about no-bid contracts before, I have no position on them as I don't know in enough detail what they entail

3) True, but it'll be re-instated with minor changes, because it is the same rules we go after drug dealers with.
Ok. We'll see

4) If you didn't understand what I was getting at, I understand why you spout the party line and don't use any original thoughts...
I think you were trying to say something about relations with countries we've alienated. However the innapropriate sexual referance kinda put me off having a reasonable debate about that point.

BTW, How is Blair doing? lol
He sucks, what's your point?

Well for one he's trying to use the constitution of the united states to deny people their human rights to marry whomever they choose.

Since when has marriage become a Human Right! Last time I checked the US Constitution, no right was given to marriage. It is a privilage not a right.

That is what I want to know and 3-1 he mentions the patriot act!
Well I would, but I don't need to. How about even pre-patriot act rounding up arab citizens with no link to 9/11 and questioning them without allowing them to see a lawyer? How about Guantanamo bay? How about Free Speech Zones?

LOL. So he just fucks a major shareholder of Heinz on a regular basis. Aw hell, he barely has a relationship with Heinz at all! What fool would consider THAT a relationship.
Jesus, it's like you people are sex obsessed or something. Could we at least try to keep this clean? And quite frankly, I don't think that the Kerry's sex life is (if you'll pardon the pun) any of your fucking business.

Well I would, but I don't need to. How about even pre-patriot act rounding up arab citizens with no link to 9/11 and questioning them without allowing them to see a lawyer? How about Guantanamo bay? How about Free Speech Zones?

Gitmo was used during Afghanistan. They will get their day in court with military lawayers and if they're innocent they're free. Free Speech Zones? Not sure what these are.

Since when has marriage become a Human Right! Last time I checked the US Constitution, no right was given to marriage. It is a privilage not a right.

I think it's ignorant to believe that the government of any nation can grant anyone the right to chose who they spend their lives with or marry. I think it's a very unenlightened person who believes that it is a privelage for some and should be used as a weapon against others.

Well I would, but I don't need to. How about even pre-patriot act rounding up arab citizens with no link to 9/11 and questioning them without allowing them to see a lawyer? How about Guantanamo bay? How about Free Speech Zones?

Guantanamo bay...outside of the US. Questioning...only non-US citizens. What else? You've failed so far. Come on, don't stop trying...what else did your liberal friends tell you to say?

Um..pardon me, but seeing several comments on sending 40,000 new troops to Iraq...in his nomination acceptance speech, Kerry specifically said those troops would not be going to Iraq.

Since when has marriage become a Human Right! Last time I checked the US Constitution, no right was given to marriage. It is a privilage not a right.
See, you seize upon the tiny misnomer ("right") and you make it seem as if the whole statement is wrong. People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, and I think that a strict interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause (the 14th amendment) would suggest that homophobia cannot be made into a law.

I think it's ignorant to believe that the government of any nation can grant anyone the right to chose who they spend their lives with or marry. I think it's a very unenlightened person who believes that it is a privelage for some and should be used as a weapon against others.

Besides, it should be a states issue and not a federal issue. 38 states either have laws or state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Well I would, but I don't need to. How about even pre-patriot act rounding up arab citizens with no link to 9/11 and questioning them without allowing them to see a lawyer? How about Guantanamo bay? How about Free Speech Zones?
Like the free speech phone booth that the protestors were put in during the DNC Convention. All of these examples are week.

Since when has marriage become a Human Right! Last time I checked the US Constitution, no right was given to marriage. It is a privilage not a right.

If marriage is a privelage what have straight people done that gay people haven't to deserve the right to marriage?

Guantanamo bay...outside of the US. Questioning...only non-US citizens. What else? You've failed so far. Come on, don't stop trying...what else did your liberal friends tell you to say?
Right, so torture and repressing peoples rights is ok, so long as it exists in a legal vaccum. And the questioning was of many people who were of US citizenship, but of Middle Eastern descent. Also, as for "failing", you didn't deny Free Speech Zones, a clear infringement on the First Amendment.

Besides, it should be a states issue and not a federal issue. 38 states either have laws or state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

During Reconstruction most southern states has Jim Crow laws that mandated segragation and denied people of their rights. Are you saying that these laws are right because they were in force? American History is full of laws that were aimed at denying people their rights. Why do you believe that gay people shouldn't be married?

*pulls out the red card* Sorry, but for things like this gay marriage BS we have this little thing called a separation of church and state. The 14th ammendment grants equal protection under the law, and that is being violated by denying gay people the right to marry. Denying it is discriminatory, bottom line.

Like the free speech phone booth that the protestors were put in during the DNC Convention. All of these examples are weak.
Well gee, I guess I only need mild constitutional restrictions to feel outraged, but there we go, I suppose that just proves I'm a godless liberal.

The 14th ammendment promises all us citizens equal protection under the law, ie equal rights. Regardless of their sexual preference, it is in violation of the 14th ammendment to prevent homosexual marriage.

Ohh and the Bush admin has been holding lots of US nationalized citizens and perm. residents in INS "detention centers" since 9-11 on "suspected connection to terrorist activities" without EVER bringing them to trial or even bringing them up on charges in DIRECT violation of the Writ of Habeus Corpus. This is 1 thing that Kerry must stop in his first week let alone his first hundred days, either bring people up on charges and give them their trial by a jury of their peers or release them, to do anything else is in complete violation of the constitution, basic human rights, and the concept of justice

Besides, it should be a states issue and not a federal issue. 38 states either have laws or state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
Right. So why do we need an amendment to the constitution that prohibits something clearly assigned to states, that the states are doing fine with dealing by themselves?

See, you seize upon the tiny misnomer ("right") and you make it seem as if the whole statement is wrong. People should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, and I think that a strict interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause (the 14th amendment) would suggest that homophobia cannot be made into a law.

14th Amendment IS NOT the equal Rights amendment.

Here is Section 1!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Unless your talking about the 2nd part but then we are right back to square one between what is a privilage and what is a right!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This second part you can make a case for Gay Marriage. However, we are back to square 1 of the debate regarding gay marriage. I myself believe in giving them SOME benefits. I don't think they should marry but giving them Some benefits.

During Reconstruction most southern states has Jim Crow laws that mandated segragation and denied people of their rights. Are you saying that these laws are right because they were in force? American History is full of laws that were aimed at denying people their rights. Why do you believe that gay people shouldn't be married?

I wont deny this Allied Kingdom but the USSC ruled that those where unconstitutional so they changed them to something else but were essentially the same. Sounds like what the USSC did with the University of Michigan Case.

14th Amendment IS NOT the equal Rights amendment.

Here is Section 1!



Unless your talking about the 2nd part but then we are right back to square one between what is a privilage and what is a right!



This second part you can make a case for Gay Marriage. However, we are back to square 1 of the debate regarding gay marriage. I myself believe in giving them SOME benefits. I don't think they should marry but giving them Some benefits.

See, the problem with "SOME" benefits is that as people we are entitled to all benefits, it's the premise that this country is founded on. The pursuit of happiness? Equal protection under the law? This is what is at the heart of this debate, not whether you think it is moral or immoral.

OK, no comment on the 40,000 troops.

Question? Does anyone recall seeing a site about a DC think tank active before Bush took office and which William Kristal, Donald Rumsfeld, and several high ranking admin members were the founding members. If so, do you know the address of the site?

Right. So why do we need an amendment to the constitution that prohibits something clearly assigned to states, that the states are doing fine with dealing by themselves?

Spoffin, even I was opposed to the FMA! Don't assume to much!

Do you really think he'd repeal legislation he voted for?



The situation was very different when he voted for the Patriot Act. A lot less was known. We were being governed far more by fear.

This second part you can make a case for Gay Marriage. However, we are back to square 1 of the debate regarding gay marriage. I myself believe in giving them SOME benefits. I don't think they should marry but giving them Some benefits.
You think that the law can change simply because of whether someone is male or female?

How the hell is going into a lawful contract of marriage a privledge? I gues I'm not seeing that, I'm not seeing how that is different than them saying that interracial couples can't marry either. So there is a question for you. Do you have a problem with interracial marriage aswell, or are you only biggoted by sexual preference?

I wont deny this Allied Kingdom but the USSC ruled that those where unconstitutional so they changed them to something else but were essentially the same. Sounds like what the USSC did with the University of Michigan Case.

Yes, and that is why I believe that gay marriage will come through the judicial system. I think eventually the Supreme Court (like the one in Massachusetts) will agree that it is a denial of basic human rights to deny someone the right to marriage.

Right, so torture and repressing peoples rights is ok, so long as it exists in a legal vaccum. And the questioning was of many people who were of US citizenship, but of Middle Eastern descent. Also, as for "failing", you didn't deny Free Speech Zones, a clear infringement on the First Amendment.


Oh, Free speach zones, sorry forgot to address that one. It doesn't deny people freedom of speach. It just makes sure that they can not harm anyone. For instance, you're having a little demonstration...terrorist can not come in and kill Kennedy because he is too far away...understand now?

You said he violated the constitution...now you're backtracking and saying "legal vaccume" Amazing how the arguement changes...why don't you form your own opinion instead of just listening to what the 'cool kids' have to say. Some times debating with you liberals seems like debating what running shoes to wear when I was in High School.