NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow....I seriously wanted a thread to take a look at Kerry's record in the Senate. I just wondered why he was only running on his 4 months of service in Vietnam and not his 19 years in the Senate. Unfortunately the thread has turned into the very thing I feared it would....a slugfest totally out of step with the main topic.

Anyway..... It would appear that Kerry put forth not one serious bill in 19 years....not one. He cannot argue with this because the record is there. Not to even mention his record of attendance which is abysmal.

I am sure that this will be brought up in the next few weeks and will do a lot to further damage Kerry's chances of getting elected.

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.

We could have a windfarm where no one lives, but that would do no good, because NO ONE LIVES THERE! Sheesh...Electricity attenuates as it travels down lines, and needs to be boosted by substations to make it to its destination with enough power left to be useful. THAT'S not economically viable either.

I notice you ignore the cleanest, most efficient power source available to mankind right now: nuclear. Why is that?
Until you try and get rid of it. Then you've got some of the most dangerious, deadly stuff on the planet in your hands that doesn't go away for a good hundred thousand years.

Wow....I seriously wanted a thread to take a look at Kerry's record in the Senate. I just wondered why he was only running on his 4 months of service in Vietnam and not his 19 years in the Senate. Unfortunately the thread has turned into the very thing I feared it would....a slugfest totally out of step with the main topic.

Anyway..... It would appear that Kerry put forth not one serious bill in 19 years....not one. He cannot argue with this because the record is there. Not to even mention his record of attendance which is abysmal.

I am sure that this will be brought up in the next few weeks and will do a lot to further damage Kerry's chances of getting elected.

Why? George Bush didn't have a Senate record to run on and his stint as governor of Texas is, well, probably best forgotten. Cheney had no governmental experience period, other than lobbying. Bob Dole had a long record to support him and ran on it and still lost. How is this going to be any more damaging or supportive? Besides, why are his solely sponsored bills more important than co-sponsored ones or his voting record?

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.
They are called omnibus bills, learn about them. He didn't vote against increasing pay, he voted against the entire budget...

In The 1990s, Kerry Voted For The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History.

Jan-June Average Unemployment
1996: 5.5%
2004: 5.6%

30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages
1996: 8.32%
2004: 6.29%

June Consumer Sentiment
1996: 92.4
2004: 95.2

Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04)

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.
quote said bills

"As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

Kerry Was On Senate Select Intelligence Committee For Eight Years (1993-2000).

· While On Committee, Kerry Missed 38 Of 49 Intelligence Committee Hearings. During John Kerry's eight years of service on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, there were 49 open, public hearings. Of these 49, John Kerry attended just 11 (22.4%). Among the most notable of those he missed is the June 8, 2000, hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat we now face and recommended numerous steps to address that threat (few of which were adopted prior to 9/11/01).

· While On Committee, Kerry Proposed Over $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Cuts To Intelligence Budget, All Of Which Were Rejected By Democrats And Republicans Alike. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

· A Look At Kerry's Legislative Record During That Same Time Period Finds No Legislation That Kerry Proposed (Wrote And Sponsored) To Increase Funding For Human Intelligence Or Reform Intelligence Community To Focus Resources On Human Intelligence Gathering.

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.

http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/bushtroops.htm

Fact is no one is supporting the veterans.

quote said bills

As Senator, Kerry Voted At Least Twelve Times Against Increasing Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military Personnel. (H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request," CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; "Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Clinton Signs GOP's Fortified Bill," CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)


Good enough for ya, Chuckie?

http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/bushtroops.htm

Fact is no one is supporting the veterans.

Associated Press
Thursday, August 05, 2004

President Bush signed a $417.5 billion wartime defense bill Thursday providing an additional $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, body armor for troops and reinforced Humvee vehicles.

[T]he measure includes money for 39 more Army Black Hawk (search) helicopters, a Virginia-class attack submarine, three guided-missile destroyers and a 3.5 percent pay increase for troops.

As Senator, Kerry Voted At Least Twelve Times Against Increasing Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military Personnel. (H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request," CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; "Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Clinton Signs GOP's Fortified Bill," CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)


Good enough for ya, Chuckie?

You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

Associated Press
Thursday, August 05, 2004

President Bush signed a $417.5 billion wartime defense bill Thursday providing an additional $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, body armor for troops and reinforced Humvee vehicles.

[T]he measure includes money for 39 more Army Black Hawk (search) helicopters, a Virginia-class attack submarine, three guided-missile destroyers and a 3.5 percent pay increase for troops.

Ooo, you can bold! I'm dead impressed. And the additional support for veterans is where?

Why? George Bush didn't have a Senate record to run on and his stint as governor of Texas is, well, probably best forgotten. Cheney had no governmental experience period, other than lobbying. Bob Dole had a long record to support him and ran on it and still lost. How is this going to be any more damaging or supportive? Besides, why are his solely sponsored bills more important than co-sponsored ones or his voting record?

Actually...Cheney was Sec. of Defense AND a Senator from Wyoming.

ANY Senator can be a co-sponsor, it is just jumping on the band wagon to put more emphasis on a bill. Some bills have 20 or more co-sponsors.

Serious bills show that he has some ideas and is able to lead. Look at the Senators who sponsor serious legislation. Dole, McCain, Feingold, Gephardt and others. Even bow-tie Simon did more.

By renaming buildings and other "soft" legislation, Kerry did not take a leadership position at all. Now he wants to actually take on the number one leadership position when he did nothing in his last.

You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

104th Congress
H.R. 3230

Title VI: Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits - Subtitle A:

Pay and Allowances - Waives any FY 1997 military pay increases tied to increases in the General Schedule of Compensation for Government employees. Increases by 3.0 percent, effective on January 1, 1997, the rates of basic pay and basic allowance for subsistence. Increases by 4.0 percent, on the same date, the rate of basic allowance for quarters (BAQ).

(Sec. 602) Repeals the requirement that the rates of monthly cadet and midshipman pay be adjusted in the same manner and time as the rates of monthly basic pay to military personnel.

(Sec. 603) Authorizes senior noncommissioned officers who are hospitalized to continue to be entitled to basic pay for up to 180 days after commencement of such hospitalization.

(Sec. 604) Authorizes a BAQ for certain members (single or married personnel of specified grades) assigned to sea duty.

(Sec. 606) Authorizes a family separation allowance for a member who is separated from a spouse who is also a member of the armed forces if the member has no dependents and the two members were residing together immediately before such separation.

(Sec. 607) Authorizes the Comptroller General to waive certain time limitations with respect to claims for military pay or allowances of $25,000 or less.

Subtitle B: Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays - Extends through FY 1998 specified authorities currently scheduled to expire at the end of FY 1997 with respect to certain special pay and bonus programs within the regular and reserve armed forces.

(Sec. 614) Increases the special pay for dental officers of the armed forces.

(Sec. 615) Repeals the requirement limiting special pay for optometrists to those in the armed forces (thereby qualifying PHS optometrists for such pay).

(Sec. 616) Authorizes special pay as nonphysician health care providers for officers in the PHS Regular or Reserve Corps.

(Sec. 617) Authorizes the payment of foreign language proficiency pay for officers of the PHS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Currently, such pay is limited to officers in the armed forces.)

Subtitle C: Travel and Transportation Allowances - Authorizes the payment of a travel expense for travel from a new duty station to the port of debarkation to pick up a privately owned vehicle.

(Sec. 622) Allows a member authorized to have a vehicle shipped to a foreign country due to a change of duty station to store such vehicle at Government expense in lieu of such shipping when the government of such foreign country precludes the entry of such vehicle or requires extensive vehicle modification before such entry is permitted.

(Sec. 623) Authorizes a member to defer travel leave permitted between consecutive tours of duty for up to one additional year due to participation in a contingency operation.

(Sec. 624) Provides funding for the transportation of household effects of members of the Commissioned Corps of the PHS.

Subtitle D: Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters - Repeals a provision providing a conditional effective date for the FY 1998 military retirement pay cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).

(Sec. 632) Authorizes a member or former member, subject to specified conditions and restrictions, to transfer or assign such member's retired or retainer pay account when it becomes due and payable for the payment of any financial obligations.

(Sec. 633) States that Survivor Benefit Plan COLAs shall become effective concurrently with the payment of related military retirement pay COLAs.

(Sec. 634) Directs the Secretary concerned to pay an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of the armed forces who: (1) died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled to retired or retainer pay on such date; or (2) was a member of the reserves between September 21, 1972, and October 1, 1978, and at the time of death would have been entitled to retired pay but for being under 60 years of age. Terminates the Secretary's authority to pay such annuities on September 30, 2001.

(Sec. 635) Increases the annual income limitation, for purposes of eligibility for supplemental income, for certain spouses of former military personnel.

(Sec. 636) Amends Federal employee provisions to provide that if a DOD employee or member of the armed forces waives his or her military retired pay that is subject to a court order (for support or alimony payments), the military service on which the retired pay is based may be credited as service for civil service retirement purposes only if the employee or member authorizes the same amount of annuity deductions and spousal payments that would have been deducted and paid from the military retired pay.

Subtitle E: Other Matters - Authorizes military personnel and members of the Coast Guard to be reimbursed for adoption expenses incurred through any adoption source (private source) if the adoption is supervised by a court under a State or local law.

(Sec. 642) Authorizes the withholding for Federal income tax purposes of amounts from the separation pay received by involuntarily separated military personnel.

(Sec. 643) Directs the Secretary to make a payment of $40,000 to any person who demonstrates that he or she was captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam after having entered into its territory pursuant to operations conducted under OPLAN 34A or its predecessor (Vietnamese commando operations).

Associated Press
Thursday, August 05, 2004

President Bush signed a $417.5 billion wartime defense bill Thursday providing an additional $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, body armor for troops and reinforced Humvee vehicles.

[T]he measure includes money for 39 more Army Black Hawk (search) helicopters, a Virginia-class attack submarine, three guided-missile destroyers and a 3.5 percent pay increase for troops.
IF Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be $200 Billion more dollars for the citizens of the US. More money for the impoverished, more funds for education, more funds for improving a horrible environment, and more funds to provide hospital insurance for the 41 million Americans that don't have ANY!!

104th Congress
H.R. 3230

Title VI: Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits - Subtitle A:

Pay and Allowances - Waives any FY 1997 military pay increases tied to increases in the General Schedule of Compensation for Government employees. Increases by 3.0 percent, effective on January 1, 1997, the rates of basic pay and basic allowance for subsistence. Increases by 4.0 percent, on the same date, the rate of basic allowance for quarters (BAQ).

(Sec. 602) Repeals the requirement that the rates of monthly cadet and midshipman pay be adjusted in the same manner and time as the rates of monthly basic pay to military personnel.

(Sec. 603) Authorizes senior noncommissioned officers who are hospitalized to continue to be entitled to basic pay for up to 180 days after commencement of such hospitalization.

(Sec. 604) Authorizes a BAQ for certain members (single or married personnel of specified grades) assigned to sea duty.

(Sec. 606) Authorizes a family separation allowance for a member who is separated from a spouse who is also a member of the armed forces if the member has no dependents and the two members were residing together immediately before such separation.

(Sec. 607) Authorizes the Comptroller General to waive certain time limitations with respect to claims for military pay or allowances of $25,000 or less.

Subtitle B: Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays - Extends through FY 1998 specified authorities currently scheduled to expire at the end of FY 1997 with respect to certain special pay and bonus programs within the regular and reserve armed forces.

(Sec. 614) Increases the special pay for dental officers of the armed forces.

(Sec. 615) Repeals the requirement limiting special pay for optometrists to those in the armed forces (thereby qualifying PHS optometrists for such pay).

(Sec. 616) Authorizes special pay as nonphysician health care providers for officers in the PHS Regular or Reserve Corps.

(Sec. 617) Authorizes the payment of foreign language proficiency pay for officers of the PHS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Currently, such pay is limited to officers in the armed forces.)

Subtitle C: Travel and Transportation Allowances - Authorizes the payment of a travel expense for travel from a new duty station to the port of debarkation to pick up a privately owned vehicle.

(Sec. 622) Allows a member authorized to have a vehicle shipped to a foreign country due to a change of duty station to store such vehicle at Government expense in lieu of such shipping when the government of such foreign country precludes the entry of such vehicle or requires extensive vehicle modification before such entry is permitted.

(Sec. 623) Authorizes a member to defer travel leave permitted between consecutive tours of duty for up to one additional year due to participation in a contingency operation.

(Sec. 624) Provides funding for the transportation of household effects of members of the Commissioned Corps of the PHS.

Subtitle D: Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters - Repeals a provision providing a conditional effective date for the FY 1998 military retirement pay cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).

(Sec. 632) Authorizes a member or former member, subject to specified conditions and restrictions, to transfer or assign such member's retired or retainer pay account when it becomes due and payable for the payment of any financial obligations.

(Sec. 633) States that Survivor Benefit Plan COLAs shall become effective concurrently with the payment of related military retirement pay COLAs.

(Sec. 634) Directs the Secretary concerned to pay an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of the armed forces who: (1) died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled to retired or retainer pay on such date; or (2) was a member of the reserves between September 21, 1972, and October 1, 1978, and at the time of death would have been entitled to retired pay but for being under 60 years of age. Terminates the Secretary's authority to pay such annuities on September 30, 2001.

(Sec. 635) Increases the annual income limitation, for purposes of eligibility for supplemental income, for certain spouses of former military personnel.

(Sec. 636) Amends Federal employee provisions to provide that if a DOD employee or member of the armed forces waives his or her military retired pay that is subject to a court order (for support or alimony payments), the military service on which the retired pay is based may be credited as service for civil service retirement purposes only if the employee or member authorizes the same amount of annuity deductions and spousal payments that would have been deducted and paid from the military retired pay.

Subtitle E: Other Matters - Authorizes military personnel and members of the Coast Guard to be reimbursed for adoption expenses incurred through any adoption source (private source) if the adoption is supervised by a court under a State or local law.

(Sec. 642) Authorizes the withholding for Federal income tax purposes of amounts from the separation pay received by involuntarily separated military personnel.

(Sec. 643) Directs the Secretary to make a payment of $40,000 to any person who demonstrates that he or she was captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam after having entered into its territory pursuant to operations conducted under OPLAN 34A or its predecessor (Vietnamese commando operations).


You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

H.R.3230 Text, PDF
Title: An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Saying that he didn't support a pay raise by not voting for this bill is like saying that he voted against the US army existing for a year.

IF Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be $200 Billion more dollars for the citizens of the US. More money for the impoverished, more funds for education, more funds for improving a horrible environment, and more funds to provide hospital insurance for the 41 million Americans that don't have ANY!!

Well, had 9-11 not happened there would be more money too.

However, the US will take care of itself thank you. We always have and that will continue. If and when we ever need any help, we will ask. Not that it will ever be forthcoming anyway. :rolleyes:

Actually...Cheney was Sec. of Defense AND a Senator from Wyoming.

Really? Huh. I didn't know that. Looks like I'm going to have to go searching into someone's record and expand my knowledge base a bit. :)

You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

H.R.3230 Text, PDF
Title: An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Saying that he didn't support a pay raise by not voting for this bill is like saying that he voted against the US army existing for a year.

Why DID he vote against it? I think Kerry owes us an explanation, don't you? There doesn't seem to be one forthcoming though, since he doesn't appear willing to discuss his Senate voting record.

You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

H.R.3230 Text, PDF
Title: An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Saying that he didn't support a pay raise by not voting for this bill is like saying that he voted against the US army existing for a year.

Well, he voted against it and it had to be rewritten and resubmitted...sometimes it takes dozens of rewrites until they pass. he voted against them every time though....the man was a menace to the military...and we knew it too. The military always knows who its friends are.

Really? Huh. I didn't know that. Looks like I'm going to have to go searching into someone's record and expand my knowledge base a bit. :)

Well, he MAY have been a Representative, but I know he WAS one or the other.

Well, he voted against it and it had to be rewritten and resubmitted...sometimes it takes dozens of rewrites until they pass. he voted against them every time though....the man was a menace to the military...and we knew it too. The military always knows who its friends are.
And? That means that he voted against an appropriation bill, not against raising pay...

You do realize that these are yearly appropriation bills?

H.R.3230 Text, PDF
Title: An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Saying that he didn't support a pay raise by not voting for this bill is like saying that he voted against the US army existing for a year.
dont give them any ideas

And? That means that he voted against an appropriation bill, not against raising pay...

TWELVE TIMES he voted against them. It seems he didn't want to give the military ANY money, EVER.

And? That means that he voted against an appropriation bill, not against raising pay...


Actually...the pay raise was part of the bill...he voted against EVERY military appropriations bill.

Oh my! :eek:

There has been some serious misleading to out right not true to myths in this thread, far too many for me to go into, I would be writing all night.

First of all, Kerry earned all of his medals. There were no "fishy" circumstances.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Second, every man that severed with Kerry on the swift boat were at the DNC convention. The man who's life he saved (which earned him the silver star) spoke and the rest of the crew were all standing behind him.

Third, If you want to call it "flip flopping over a 19 year service to his country in the Senate, fine. I would say this, the world is not static but yet fluid. If Kerry had not ever changed his position on issues in 19 years, then I would worry about him folks!

Fourth, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, he could of taken the easy way out like Bush/Chenney/Rove/ well every one in the White House except Powell, and Rumsfeld who served before Vietnam, but not actually in Vietnam.

Fifth, Kerry went on to protest a war that turned into a very unpopular war because CBS mostly were sending back pictures to back up what Kerry testified to about the things that were going on in Vietnam. It happened. The government of the day was also lying (not unlike this current one) to the American people about the war.

Sixth, after Kerry returned to the USA he completed law school and went on to be one of the most effective prosecutors Massachusetts had ever seen. He had a sense of conviction and had a success rate second to none at putting the bad guys away.

Seventh, Kerry went on to further serve his county in the Senate for 19 years. You don't have to agree with which way he voted, but you can't take away from him that he served. He could of done like so many with budding law careers and went out and made him self a fortune, but no, he instead choice to serve his county.

Eighth, Chenney still has about 500,000 stock option in Haliburton that don't expire till 2009. Chenney actively owns 189.000 stocks in Halliburton right now.

Nineth, What was George Bush doing all the time Kerry was serving his country? You do the math and decide, he sure as hell wasn't serving his country, he sure as hell wasn't willing to risk his life for yours, no he was out there trying to get rich off of daddy's name while boozing it up and getting stoned.

You want to stack these two men together and ask who has the better character, you'd have to be brain dead not to see it's Kerry.

Believe me, I could keep going, there is much more, however I don't feel like writing a small novel on the difference between these two men or dispelling all the dis-information and myths in this thread.

A lie told often enough still doesn't make it the truth.

Actually...the pay raise was part of the bill...he voted against EVERY military appropriations bill.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but if you took the pay raise out of the bill, I'd say that there is a good chance that he (along with everyone else) would have voted yes.

"Third, If you want to call it "flip flopping over a 19 year service to his country in the Senate, fine. I would say this, the world is not static but yet fluid. If Kerry had not ever changed his position on issues in 19 years, then I would worry about him folks!"

He NEVER changed his mind on military appropriations. He ALWAYS voted against them. They contain funding for military pay increases and modern weapons systems.

Well, had 9-11 not happened there would be more money too.

However, the US will take care of itself thank you. We always have and that will continue. If and when we ever need any help, we will ask. Not that it will ever be forthcoming anyway. :rolleyes:
That is strange but I do believe that most of your fellow posters do not concur with that assessment?

There are many, myself included, that firmly believe that the US has made more enemies and that terrorism has actually increased since Iraq was invaded.

There was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy for America when the WTC was attacked. It appears that Bush and his lackeys have squandered that goodwill, and the brave face you paint today can be cancelled in a heartbeat. Smugness, and ignorance will not win the day?

Oh my! :eek:

Since you have no vote...your work is for naught anyway. As for kerry and his record of 19 years....why does he not campaign on it? Why only on 4 months in Vietnam?

Cause he did pretty much nothing for 19 years but live off the people.

His record is pretty pathetic.

But thanks for pushing me into the Bush corner...I have never voted for a Republican before, but since so many people in other countries want us to vote for Kerry...there must be something fishy about it.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but if you took the pay raise out of the bill, I'd say that there is a good chance that he (along with everyone else) would have voted yes.

Yeah...and in effect...still denying a payraise.

That is strange but I do believe that most of your fellow posters do not concur with that assessment?

There are many, myself included, that firmly believe that the US has made more enemies and that terrorism has actually increased since Iraq was invaded.

There was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy for America when the WTC was attacked. It appears that Bush and his lackeys have squandered that goodwill, and the brave face you paint today can be cancelled in a heartbeat. Smugness, and ignorance will not win the day?

Thats fine, to each their own opinion...however, I unlike you, CAN vote in this coming election. So while words are one thing...actions are another. I will now be voting for Bush because of all this pro Kerry nonsense from people in other countries trying to tell me how to vote.

"Third, If you want to call it "flip flopping over a 19 year service to his country in the Senate, fine. I would say this, the world is not static but yet fluid. If Kerry had not ever changed his position on issues in 19 years, then I would worry about him folks!"

He NEVER changed his mind on military appropriations. He ALWAYS voted against them. They contain funding for military pay increases and modern weapons systems.

WRONG!

In 19 years he voted 3 times against the defense appropriations, That's it. At least do your research before you make false claims. It doesn't bode well for your credibility.

Since you have no vote...your work is for naught anyway. As for kerry and his record of 19 years....why does he not campaign on it? Why only on 4 months in Vietnam?

Cause he did pretty much nothing for 19 years but live off the people.

His record is pretty pathetic.

But thanks for pushing me into the Bush corner...I have never voted for a Republican before, but since so many people in other countries want us to vote for Kerry...there must be something fishy about it.

Listen the no vote routine is getting a little old. I didn't see you saying that to Menelmacar once even though she too is a Canadian. Or is that because she was agreeing with you? Just because you don't happen to live in the USA, doesn't mean you don't have an opinion, lets face it, what Bush is doing in the world right now effects us all in some way or another. So, find a valid argument, the "you got no vote" one is just bullshit. Obviously if that's the best argument you can come up with, I must be doing some thing right!

Since you have no vote...your work is for naught anyway. As for kerry and his record of 19 years....why does he not campaign on it? Why only on 4 months in Vietnam?

Cause he did pretty much nothing for 19 years but live off the people.

His record is pretty pathetic.

But thanks for pushing me into the Bush corner...I have never voted for a Republican before, but since so many people in other countries want us to vote for Kerry...there must be something fishy about it.

You know, Biff, that's just plain silly. If you want to vote Republican because you truly believe that George W. Bush is leading this country in the direction you want to see it go, fine. That's your right. But to allow the opinions of non-US citizens to choose your vote for you is an abandoning of everything you seem to be against. Simply saying this, even in jest, does not bode well for your credibility and makes me question exactly how strongly you believe anything.

WRONG!

In 19 years he voted 3 times against the defense appropriations, That's it. At least do your research before you make false claims. It doesn't bode well for your credibility.

(H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request," CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; "Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Clinton Signs GOP's Fortified Bill," CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)

There are twelve there, count them. Go look them up.

You were saying something about credibility?

Thats fine, to each their own opinion...however, I unlike you, CAN vote in this coming election. So while words are one thing...actions are another. I will now be voting for Bush because of all this pro Kerry nonsense from people in other countries trying to tell me how to vote.
You have been spouting anti-Kerry rhetoric since your first post on here, so don't give us that crap. Besides if there is more pro Kerry stuff than that would make you vote for Bush? Sound reasoning for sure.

You can vote for whoever you want that is what democracy is all about, however, if it means sending more and more US troops off into frivolous battles perhaps you will think hard before you push that ballot into the box, or punch that card?

God that thing is parsed badly. Mind breaking that up for us?

Listen the no vote routine is getting a little old. I didn't see you saying that to Menelmacar once even though she too is a Canadian. Or is that because she was agreeing with you? Just because you don't happen to live in the USA, doesn't mean you don't have an opinion, lets face it, what Bush is doing in the world right now effects us all in some way or another. So, find a valid argument, the "you got no vote" one is just bullshit. Obviously if that's the best argument you can come up with, I must be doing some thing right!

Ya think? Well, lets see. Why do you Canadians think you know what is best for the US? We here in the US know you live in a very liberal country...too liberal in many ways. Since Canada and the US are each others major trading partners, the leader of your country is of concern to us too...but ya know what? It is in effect, NONE of our business. Canada is a sovereign nation and the people there have their own issues and will work them out in their own way. So will we. While I like a spirited debate, the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush diatribes get old on all sides. Looking at Kerry now, the man would be a disaster to both the US and Canada.

You know, Biff, that's just plain silly. If you want to vote Republican because you truly believe that George W. Bush is leading this country in the direction you want to see it go, fine. That's your right. But to allow the opinions of non-US citizens to choose your vote for you is an abandoning of everything you seem to be against. Simply saying this, even in jest, does not bode well for your credibility and makes me question exactly how strongly you believe anything.

Kerry's the one making his "support" in foreign countries an issue. He is the darling of socialist Euro-trash. He says they will all come running to his side to help us, if only we elect him.

Biff's reaction could be an indicator of the effect Kerry's tactical decision is having with the U.S. electorate.

Ya think? Well, lets see. Why do you Canadians think you know what is best for the US? We here in the US know you live in a very liberal country...too liberal in many ways. Since Canada and the US are each others major trading partners, the leader of your country is of concern to us too...but ya know what? It is in effect, NONE of our business. Canada is a sovereign nation and the people there have their own issues and will work them out in their own way. So will we. While I like a spirited debate, the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush diatribes get old on all sides. Looking at Kerry now, the man would be a disaster to both the US and Canada.

Biff, do you realize in that last statement you just did exactly what you accused Steph of doing?

Kerry's the one making his "support" in foreign countries an issue. He is the darling of socialist Euro-trash. He says they will all come running to his side to help us, if only we elect him.

Biff's reaction could be an indicator of the effect Kerry's tactical decision is having with the U.S. electorate.

Not according to his own statement it couldn't.

You know, Biff, that's just plain silly. If you want to vote Republican because you truly believe that George W. Bush is leading this country in the direction you want to see it go, fine. That's your right. But to allow the opinions of non-US citizens to choose your vote for you is an abandoning of everything you seem to be against. Simply saying this, even in jest, does not bode well for your credibility and makes me question exactly how strongly you believe anything.

Is it? I have looked closer to the candidates in the past few weeks than I ever have before and I find that I like Bush better of the two. I do usually vote Libertarian without thought, but this election will be so close, and Kerry would really be a disaster. Our Canadian friends with their vociferous lauding of Kerry made me take a close look at the man...and he is very scary indeed.

Biff, do you realize in that last statement you just did exactly what you accused Steph of doing?

Yeah....but we don't really care who is elected in Canada do we? I am in a mood tonight.... :sniper:

Yeah....but we don't really care who is elected in Canada do we? I am in a mood tonight.... :sniper:

Then perhaps you should stop posting, have a beverage of your choice and read a book. While I don't agree with you, you tend to make good points and when you say something like this and do something like this it argues against your credibility.

The forum needs more coherent, rational posters of conservative or even right-leaning centrist views, so I'd hate to see you botch a reputation because you're in a mood.

Kerry Claim: Families are finding it harder to make ends meet because they are struggling to keep up with mounting debt.

The Truth: Low interest rates are allowing Americans to purchase a home, invest in education, and buy their first car. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan this week pointed out that the increase in household debt reflects the increase in homeownership.
(Remarks by Alan Greenspan, U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 6/15/04)

Kerry Claim: Families are finding it harder to make ends meet because they are struggling to keep up with mounting debt.

The Truth: Low interest rates are allowing Americans to purchase a home, invest in education, and buy their first car. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan this week pointed out that the increase in household debt reflects the increase in homeownership.
(Remarks by Alan Greenspan, U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 6/15/04)

You, Galtania, just go ahead and keep on posting. No big loss.

Then perhaps you should stop posting, have a beverage of your choice and read a book. While I don't agree with you, you tend to make good points and when you say something like this and do something like this it argues against your credibility.

The forum needs more coherent, rational posters of conservative or even right-leaning centrist views, so I'd hate to see you botch a reputation because you're in a mood.

Ok...beer in hand. Now, when is the Canadian election and who is running? ;)

(H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request," CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; "Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers," CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; "Clinton Signs GOP's Fortified Bill," CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)

There are twelve there, count them. Go look them up.

You were saying something about credibility?

Yes, I believe I was...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

You, Galtania, just go ahead and keep on posting. No big loss.

Hmm...this from the person who makes personal attacks on me and doesn't answer any of my posts in a substantive way. And didn't know that Cheney was SecDef and a congressman.

All I've done is post facts about Kerry's record. You know, the one he doesn't want brought up.

Care to answer the home ownership post in a substantive way?

Ok...beer in hand. Now, when is the Canadian election and who is running? ;)

Hehe, sorry dude, you're going to have to wait a few years, we just had it in June ;)

Look....we can argue over what Kerry voted for or voted against all day. Those votes are not as important as any legislation that he may have sponsored. Take a look at the bills he sponsored in 19 years. is it no wonder that he only campaigns on a 4 month trip to Vietnam?

The man sponsored not a single bill of importance...not one! So it is no wonder he is not bringing up his record. He has said his first action will be to institute national healthcare and raise taxes!

Does he have ANY handlers? You don't tell people you are going to raise their taxes!!

Healthcare? is THAT the number one issue facing the country today? I don't think so.

Yes, I believe I was...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

That's not the proper site to look up voting records in the U.S. Congress.

Here, I'll help you:

http://www.senate.gov
http://www.congress.gov

Hehe, sorry dude, you're going to have to wait a few years, we just had it in June ;)


Well...not that it is any of my business anyway.... ;)

Look....we can argue over what Kerry voted for or voted against all day. Those votes are not as important as any legislation that he may have sponsored. Take a look at the bills he sponsored in 19 years. is it no wonder that he only campaigns on a 4 month trip to Vietnam?

The man sponsored not a single bill of importance...not one! So it is no wonder he is not bringing up his record. He has said his first action will be to institute national healthcare and raise taxes!

Does he have ANY handlers? You don't tell people you are going to raise their taxes!!

Healthcare? is THAT the number one issue facing the country today? I don't think so.

It's OK for him to talk about his tax increase, because he SAYS he will only raise taxes on those evil rich people. You know, the top 2% of wage earners who already pay 41% of all federal income taxes.

Kerry missed both 2004 votes on medical liability reform, putting his own campaign ahead of making healthcare more affordable. His opposition to medical malpractice liability reform shows that he has chosen lining the pockets of trial lawyers over helping American families.

More dismal attendance by Kerry. But hey, at least it lines the pockets of his running-mate's buddies!

Well...not that it is any of my business anyway.... ;)

Sure it is, we are the world's largest trading partners, what happens in each of our countries does have a direct effect on the other my dear.

Listen, just because we may not agree, there is no need for us not to be civil to each other. I respect that's how you feel. I disagree. However, I'm still a nice person and I'm sure you are too. Lets remember this is just a forum on the net. I think some times we forget that. *Smile* :)

It's OK for him to talk about his tax increase, because he SAYS he will only raise taxes on those evil rich people. You know, the top 2% of wage earners who already pay 41% of all federal income taxes.

The man is INSANE...idiots who think the wealthy got a bigger tax cut are living in lala land. How does a 5% cut in taxes across the board give ANYONE more than a 5% tax cut? Oh, thats right...5% of $500,000 is a bigger number than 5% of $50,000. THATS where I made my mistake. :rolleyes:

Poor people do not create jobs.....

My business partner and I are almost to the point that we can afford to hire an office person to do paperwork and other tasks, but if Kerry is elected and our taxes are raised...thats at least ONE job I know that won't be created.

In a normal world, Kerry would be in big trouble by now. But this isn't a normal world. America is very polarized, and most of the nation has made its mind up, refusing to change it. Ok, George Bush might loose some votes if he brought an M-16 on the House floor and opened fire, and John Kerry could loose some if it was revealed he was a cop killer. Other than that, no one will change their minds. That's why I find it slightly ironic to see Bush and/or Kerry sucks threads. I'm a violator myself, but hey, it's still fun to post.

Sure it is, we are the world's largest trading partners, what happens in each of our countries does have a direct effect on the other my dear.

Listen, just because we may not agree, there is no need for us not to be civil to each other. I respect that's how you feel. I disagree. However, I'm still a nice person and I'm sure you are too. Lets remember this is just a forum on the net. I think some times we forget that. *Smile* :)

Thats cool...you are right. Canada is a nice place, I have been there many times, but it is just too cold for me. ;)

That's not the proper site to look up voting records in the U.S. Congress.

Here, I'll help you:

http://www.senate.gov
http://www.congress.gov

Sorry, I missed the detail in the conversation about pay raises. I just saw the "appropriations" part, and caught Bif's "he voted against EVERY military appropriations bill" and jumped in without fully reading everything.

However, only THREE years did he vote against the complete defense appropriations bill - as I mentioned.

And some of your examples are very specific to pay raises and not hardware appropriations.

e.g.:

HR 1335 was a Bill allowing Military Employees To Receive Cost-Of-Living Adjustment In FY 1993. This seems to be a pay issue only - not equipment appropriations.

Similar comments can be made on:
S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73
S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #72
S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46
etc.

Anyway, can you please point to years where he voted against the main annual defence appropriations bills besides those couple I mentioned? No? Didn't thinks so...

So the comment that he "It seems he didn't want to give the military ANY money, EVER" is rather bogus isn't it?


Oh, and while we're at it though, let us all remember the spirit of the times after the end of the Cold War. You remember? Like on 1 February 1992, when Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16:

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s all great systems . . . but we have enough of them. "


Gee - that would be right in that same timeframe when Kerry was voting to cut appropriations too right?

In a normal world, Kerry would be in big trouble by now. But this isn't a normal world. America is very polarized, and most of the nation has made its mind up, refusing to change it. Ok, George Bush might loose some votes if he brought an M-16 on the House floor and opened fire, and John Kerry could loose some if it was revealed he was a cop killer. Other than that, no one will change their minds. That's why I find it slightly ironic to see Bush and/or Kerry sucks threads. I'm a violator myself, but hey, it's still fun to post.

Actually I think Bush would be crowned King if he opened up on the house floor.

Ok...beer in hand. Now, when is the Canadian election and who is running? ;)

I have no idea and that's a black mark on my own knowledge record.

While I think I understand what you're trying to say and, at least in part, agree with your frustration, at the same time I value the input of posters like Steph, Zep, Cannuk and the many other non-US citizens who not only take time to post on this board, but to also research their posts and back their opinions and critiques up with figures, particularly when so many US citizens don't bother themselves to get informed about their own government, let alone the rest of the world. I may not always agree with their conclusions, but their input is as valid as anyone's on an international Internet chat board and it can give us perspective that we frequently lack in the States.

We don't act in a vacuum. We are a strong nation on many different levels but with that strength comes and increased responsibility to consider our actions with respect to how they affect others. If we are going to truly claim a global right to "export liberty" and "clean up messes" as we see fit, then we have a corresponding duty to at least listen and consider the comments of those who we are exporting to and cleaning up.

Your frustration and anger is understandable and I share it sometimes. The fact is we are a young nation and have rocketed to world power in an astonishingly quick space of time. All nations make mistakes and errors and , indeed, choices that look wrong at the moment, but prove to be the right ones in retrospect. We have the additional pressure, in this day and age of the Internet and global communications, of having our growing pains broadcast instantly throughout the entire world and then having everyone feel like that gives them the right to stick in their oar. To an extent, this is justified. As I said, our actions affect millions and, those who are affected, have a right to express their justified concern and caution. On another level, it's the height of hypocracy because no one has a clean slate and the actions we're being challenged on now are no worse than many that have gone before us. It's an uncomfortable paradox that causes me to get pissed as hell when I see responses like those in the "Why The World Hates the USA" thread, but at the same time crave the input of people outside of our country who raise valid differences of opinion and perception. Sometimes, I truly do believe we're just too close to it, too caught up in our own splendor, and perhaps make mistakes, not out of evilness or meanness or stupidity or bad intent, but out of simple inexperience and awe at our power. That's when outside viewpoints can be helpful and should be encouraged. Sometimes those outside viewpoints are just plain full of it.

But such is humanity in general.

I try to keep one thing in mind. There are bonds between nations, reverences, obligations, friendships. Friends don't let other friends make mistakes, or even take actions that they think are mistakes, without saying something. We then have a choice. We can accept the criticism, evaluate it and judge the validity of their point under the assumption that they are as well educated, well intentioned and well meaning as we are. Or, we can break our ties with that friend, who has been there for us in the past, simply because we don't like what they're saying. It's our choice about how we receive their information and, at the end of the day, it's still our choice what we do. But to dissolve friendships over it seems to me to be the lesser of the two options.

America and it's ideals of freedom, equality, liberty and prosperity have inspired the world. They truly have. They've invoked fear, awe, longing, envy, and a whole host of other eqaully profound human emotions. It's perfectly understandable that when people around the world see us doing things that don't seem to synch up with these ideals, the same ideals that brought many of them from their home countries to our shores just to share in them, that they would speak up. Their informed input and concerns should be welcomed as advice from a friend. The rest can be safely ignored, just as one can safely ignore idiots from the United States.

Oh, and while we're at it though, let us all remember the spirit of the times after the end of the Cold War. You remember? Like on 1 February 1992, when Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16:

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s all great systems . . . but we have enough of them. "


Gee - that would be right in that same timeframe when Kerry was voting to cut appropriations too right?

Now lets look at this in eyes from that time shall we? The military was being scaled down. Bases were being closed, troop levels were being GREATLY reduced very quickly. Anyone who wanted to get out was allowed. Many units were all but gone except on paper. Those like me who wanted to stay in had a harder time than usual doing so. So with Congress ordering all this hardware on one hand and closing bases and getting rid of people on the other. Cheney was right....

However, lets look at it from Congresses point of view. With the cuts would come MASSIVE job losses in the military industrial complex. Who wants to be responsible for a lot of people losing their jobs?

Now lets look at this in eyes from that time shall we? The military was being scaled down. Bases were being closed, troop levels were being GREATLY reduced very quickly. Anyone who wanted to get out was allowed. Many units were all but gone except on paper. Those like me who wanted to stay in had a harder time than usual doing so. So with Congress ordering all this hardware on one hand and closing bases and getting rid of people on the other. Cheney was right....

I don't disagree with you, however in the same breath, then so was Kerry.

Hmm...this from the person who makes personal attacks on me and doesn't answer any of my posts in a substantive way. And didn't know that Cheney was SecDef and a congressman.

All I've done is post facts about Kerry's record. You know, the one he doesn't want brought up.

Care to answer the home ownership post in a substantive way?

I don't have to refute you. Steph's doing a bloody good job on her own. Additionally, I never claimed to know everything and I'll freely admit that I'm far more interested in what Cheney's doing now (except where Halliburton's concerned) than in his political past. That's a failing on my part and one I shall endeavor to correct soon. However, at least I'm able to admit it when I'm wrong, which is a trait that's sorely lacking in this country at present.

I have no idea and that's a black mark on my own knowledge record.

While I think I understand what you're trying to say and, at least in part, agree with your frustration, at the same time I value the input of posters like Steph, Zep, Cannuk and the many other non-US citizens who not only take time to post on this board, but to also research their posts and back their opinions and critiques up with figures, particularly when so many US citizens don't bother themselves to get informed about their own government, let alone the rest of the world. I may not always agree with their conclusions, but their input is as valid as anyone's on an international Internet chat board and it can give us perspective that we frequently lack in the States.

We don't act in a vacuum. We are a strong nation on many different levels but with that strength comes and increased responsibility to consider our actions with respect to how they affect others. If we are going to truly claim a global right to "export liberty" and "clean up messes" as we see fit, then we have a corresponding duty to at least listen and consider the comments of those who we are exporting to and cleaning up.

Your frustration and anger is understandable and I share it sometimes. The fact is we are a young nation and have rocketed to world power in an astonishingly quick space of time. All nations make mistakes and errors and , indeed, choices that look wrong at the moment, but prove to be the right ones in retrospect. We have the additional pressure, in this day and age of the Internet and global communications, of having our growing pains broadcast instantly throughout the entire world and then having everyone feel like that gives them the right to stick in their oar. To an extent, this is justified. As I said, our actions affect millions and, those who are affected, have a right to express their justified concern and caution. On another level, it's the height of hypocracy because no one has a clean slate and the actions we're being challenged on now are no worse than many that have gone before us. It's an uncomfortable paradox that causes me to get pissed as hell when I see responses like those in the "Why The World Hates the USA" thread, but at the same time crave the input of people outside of our country who raise valid differences of opinion and perception. Sometimes, I truly do believe we're just too close to it, too caught up in our own splendor, and perhaps make mistakes, not out of evilness or meanness or stupidity or bad intent, but out of simple inexperience and awe at our power. That's when outside viewpoints can be helpful and should be encouraged. Sometimes those outside viewpoints are just plain full of it.

But such is humanity in general.

I try to keep one thing in mind. There are bonds between nations, reverences, obligations, friendships. Friends don't let other friends make mistakes, or even take actions that they think are mistakes, without saying something. We then have a choice. We can accept the criticism, evaluate it and judge the validity of their point under the assumption that they are as well educated, well intentioned and well meaning as we are. Or, we can break our ties with that friend, who has been there for us in the past, simply because we don't like what they're saying. It's our choice about how we receive their information and, at the end of the day, it's still our choice what we do. But to dissolve friendships over it seems to me to be the lesser of the two options.

America and it's ideals of freedom, equality, liberty and prosperity have inspired the world. They truly have. They've invoked fear, awe, longing, envy, and a whole host of other eqaully profound human emotions. It's perfectly understandable that when people around the world see us doing things that don't seem to synch up with these ideals, the same ideals that brought many of them from their home countries to our shores just to share in them, that they would speak up. Their informed input and concerns should be welcomed as advice from a friend. The rest can be safely ignored, just as one can safely ignore idiots from the United States.

Firstly, I am an isolationist and therefore an oddity in todays world. After being deployed around the world 3 times and seeing how other countries are and how they then act toward the US I would rather see all of our troops home from ALL the 120 countries we have them stationed in. Being the tip of the spear is a real pain and has made me very jaded to the concerns of other countries in regards to the US. The UN? Useless. How many times has the US had to act unilaterally to take on tasks that the "world body" should take on? have you ever been awakened at 3 am and find yourself on an aircraft at 35,000 feet going somewhere that you have no idea where to take part in operations necessitated because the "international community" could not decide what to do and so it is up to you to fix it? Trust me, you realy don't want to.

I really have a hard time being told by non-US citizens that our president is a monster and is so bad for the rest of the world. If it was Clinton they were saying that about I would still not like it and I hated Clinton with a passion. The US has done more for the world than ANY other country. In these days of terrorist attacks and the constant threat of those, having outsiders complain about the US is really just about the last straw. I would love to see Bush take a cue from Mrs. Kerry and just tell the rest of the world to "shove it."

Thats cool...you are right. Canada is a nice place, I have been there many times, but it is just too cold for me. ;)
On a lighter note Biff, I too have been to the US many times on vacation. In Feb. and Mar. this year, I spent 18 days in California, mostly in San Fran with my GF. I have been to Disney World 5 times, Mrtyle Beach 8 times, California twice. I have been to Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Miami, San Fran, L.A., Cleveland, Las Vegas, and many other places.

Most Canadians posting on this forum think highly of Americans and want you to do well. However, many, including myself, thought that the US invasion of Iraq was a step in the wrong direction for our closest friend and lifetime ally.

We think Bush is dangerous and we express that everyday. Maybe you don't like to hear it, but that is what is in our hearts and minds. We don't hate America. We don't hate the soldiers for they must go where they are sent. I just seriously dislike where they have been sent.

If I have stated anything that offends you personally, I am sorry. Having said that, I might have to say sorry, many times, until this election is over.

Yeah, you're right. Bush is better than Saddam. He's only tortured and murdered dozens of people instead of thousands.

I really do think that its a sad day when Saddam Hussain is the benchmark for our judgement of evil

What kind of person compares the leader of the free world to a Dictator of the ba'th party? Night and Day. Saddam Hussein has done things to terrible, so disgustingly inhuman to HIS OWN PEOPLE, I can't even fit most of it in my head. Here's an example, this story leaked out from an Iraqi a while ago- the guy spoke, I repeat SPOKE out against the Ba'th party and as punishment he was forced to watch as SADDAM HUSSEIN HIMSELF ran his family through a wood chipper. Ran his family through a wood chipper ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who compares this sorry, useless, evil, worthless sack of human shit to George Bush should be ashamed of themselves. Please be specific on George Bush's atrocities, because last time I checked when you run people through a wood chipper your days are numbered in this country. Shame on you.

Firstly, I am an isolationist and therefore an oddity in todays world. After being deployed around the world 3 times and seeing how other countries are and how they then act toward the US I would rather see all of our troops home from ALL the 120 countries we have them stationed in.

I understand and actually agree with you (although for different reasons, I suspect.) Isolationism is indeed an oddity in today's world and I'm not sure that you can be a hard liner about it without ending up like North Korea. In an increasingly globalized world, it's getting harder and harder to maintain a total isolationist stance. All actions nowadays have the significance of a flutter of a butterfly's wings, assuming it believes in chaos theory. Even if we did completely shut down tomorrow, withdraw all troops and slam our boarders tight like a political Willy Wonka, there would still be repercussions. The best you can hope for and maintain your sanity is a sort of enlightened isolation, meaning he who interferes best, interferes least.

That's the thing, though. I don't see this changing under Bush. Admittedly, there's also no specific reason to think it'll change under Kerry, but I'm willing to take the risk.


Being the tip of the spear is a real pain and has made me very jaded to the concerns of other countries in regards to the US.

I'm sure it did and I respect and value your sacrifice. I'll freely admit that my own pacifism and religious ideals make me incapable of doing the things you did and this perhaps reverberates through my opinions (well, who am I kidding, it certainly does) and colors the way others view those opinions. I realize that your choice makes my choice possible and I am indebted to you for that. This is exactly why I value your opinion and crave it as much as I crave Steph's or Incertonia's or Thunderland's or Purly Euclid's or any of a whole host of other posters who make me think about my positions and challenge me to defend my choices.


The UN? Useless. How many times has the US had to act unilaterally to take on tasks that the "world body" should take on? have you ever been awakened at 3 am and find yourself on an aircraft at 35,000 feet going somewhere that you have no idea where to take part in operations necessitated because the "international community" could not decide what to do and so it is up to you to fix it? Trust me, you realy don't want to.

No, I haven't. And I'll agree that the UN is far from perfect. However, it's not "useless". It's the best we've got right now. The UN is the best hope we have of making sure no one ever again has to wake up at 3 am on an aircraft at 35,000 feet. It is a step towards solving our differences, not at the point of a sword, but like rational beings. It's not perfect, but instead of abandoning it and what it represents, we must work to perfect it, fix it, make it truly function as it should and serve the purpose it was intended for. Now, I have little to no idea as to how to do this, but through exchange of ideas, I'm sure we as a species can make this happen. I haven't given up that hope yet and would rather die than do so. Because if we can't do this, if we can't chose rationality over war, then we are truly lost as a species and are little better than fancy monkeys with shiney toys and the ability to wipe ourselves off of the face of the Earth. I refuse to live in that world so this one had damn well better catch up.


I really have a hard time being told by non-US citizens that our president is a monster and is so bad for the rest of the world. If it was Clinton they were saying that about I would still not like it and I hated Clinton with a passion. The US has done more for the world than ANY other country. In these days of terrorist attacks and the constant threat of those, having outsiders complain about the US is really just about the last straw. I would love to see Bush take a cue from Mrs. Kerry and just tell the rest of the world to "shove it."

I agree. Truly I do. It's hard. We're an easy target right now. There's a lot of fear and frustration and anger in the world and we make a perfect punching bag. Some of those blows are deserved while the majority are not. But that is what it has always meant to be an American. The rest of the world will have their opinions, some favorable, some not. It is up to us to listen to the informed ones and then make choices that preserve our country and it's ideals, to rise above petty bickering and squabbling and demand perfect accountability both from ourselves and others.

Sorry, I missed the detail in the conversation about pay raises. And some of your examples are very specific to pay raises and not hardware appropriations.

That was my claim, let me just show it again:

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

Then another poster came along (don't remember who it was, sorry) and said that ALL those votes were omnibus appropriation bills. The omnibus appropriations bills contain chapters dealing with pay issues. So, in effect, you're proving me right.

So the comment that he "It seems he didn't want to give the military ANY money, EVER" is rather bogus isn't it?

It was hyperbole, of course. Don't pretend you never use it. That still doesn't change the veracity of my initial assertion:

"1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military"

Would you now agree that it is a true statement?

That was my claim, let me just show it again:

1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military.

Then another poster came along (don't remember who it was, sorry) and said that ALL those votes were omnibus appropriation bills. The omnibus appropriations bills contain chapters dealing with pay issues. So, in effect, you're proving me right.



It was hyperbole, of course. Don't pretend you never use it. That still doesn't change the veracity of my initial assertion:

"1990-2003: Kerry Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military"

Would you now agree that it is a true statement?

Factually correct, while certainly misleading..

On a lighter note Biff, I too have been to the US many times on vacation. In Feb. and Mar. this year, I spent 18 days in California, mostly in San Fran with my GF. I have been to Disney World 5 times, Mrtyle Beach 8 times, California twice. I have been to Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Miami, San Fran, L.A., Cleveland, Las Vegas, and many other places.

Most Canadians posting on this forum think highly of Americans and want you to do well. However, many, including myself, thought that the US invasion of Iraq was a step in the wrong direction for our closest friend and lifetime ally.

We think Bush is dangerous and we express that everyday. Maybe you don't like to hear it, but that is what is in our hearts and minds. We don't hate America. We don't hate the soldiers for they must go where they are sent. I just seriously dislike where they have been sent.

If I have stated anything that offends you personally, I am sorry. Having said that, I might have to say sorry, many times, until this election is over.

No apology neccessary. You guys may think Bush is dangerous because he takes unilateral action, but did he? The "rush to war" that everyone seems to think that Bush was on is a farce as well. When Saddam signed the "cease fire" agreement with the US he agreed to do certain things. He violated the agreement daily for the next 12 years. Each shell fired at US planes enforcing the no-fly zones was a violation and military action could have been taken, but it wasn't. How long could that situation go on? I think 12 years was too long. I would have resumed military action immediately and ended Saddam right then. However, the US, bending to international pressure let things go for way too long. Now that Saddam has been taken out, despite the thousands of cease fire violations, the international community is all up in arms. They fail to see that the US really did not NEED to consult the UN anyway but because of certain "sensibilities" they did so. The UN has for years been an anti-US bastion and really a joke. Libya leading the human rights commission...come on. The reason the US does not pay it's dues is because they demanded an audit of where the money was going because of huge waste and fraud. The audit was refused so the US said that no more of it's money would be wasted.

As an isolationist, I would like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. How many Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Libyan spys do we have to throw out before it becomes obvious that the UN is not what it appears to be. No, other people of the world may not like Bush the man, and I did not vote for him in 2000, but looking at things the way they are, he is a FAR better choice than Kerry who has pledged to raise our taxes right away. Hillary Clinton the other day speaking at a fund raising luncheon said that the Democrats were "going to take away from you for the common good." Now what does that sound like to you? it sounds like wealth redistribution to me and THAT is as un-American as you can get. The Democrats may better resemble Canadian politicians, but the US is not Canada. We NEED a strong leader...and Kerry is a wet rag compared to Bush.

Changing your positions after a few years isn't flip-flopping, it's assessment. Kerry doesn't view the world in black and white.

1) I see you use the "rich people create more jobs" argument. Maybe they do, but nowadays, the new jobs are likely to be in Mexico or Haiti, not the USA. But at least you realise this in your "reublican reality", but your "Democrat reality" is totally wrong for about 90% of welfare recipients. I hate it that the conservatives assume that everyone on welfare abuses the system.

3) At least Kerry went to Vietname in the first place. How does refusing to waste money on tinpot "Star Wars" schemes cause infantry casualties. The money is better spent on education and healthcare.

4) Wars shouldn't be launched if intelligence is shaky.

International co-operation is of paramount importance for such an intelligence-based war as the war on terror. How is Britain your only ally? What about Poland? Pakistan?
Okay buddy, lets get through this
1) are you an economist? We cannot say every corporate head does this, or every poor person does that, as for booze and Velveeta, that was thrown in for a bit of humor, I see your sense of it has disappeared, as well as your knowledge of military history, but I'll come to that in #3. The cold hard fact is both strategies help the economy best at different time, honestly I and most people in the world don't give a shit where the money goes, top or bottom, because it doesn't influence us enough to matter. Human life is a complex system, no Algorithm can make us behave one way or another, this is a matter of personal preference, I'm just exposing a bogus arguement.
2) oh, I see you were spechless to point #2
3) Obviously you don't know dick about what an M1, M2, or F-15E are and do. The M2 Bradley for instance, carries our Infantry into battle in a cheaper fashion then the old AMTRAKs, prevents them from being shot to hell on the way, and covers them in battle. The f-15E is used for close support, most notably for taking out SCUD Missile sites which are used to gas our soldiers while they sleep- Once again cheaper, more effecient, and all-around better than older systems. And as for the M1, this is the greatest tank in the world hands-down, It costs more, but we can build much, much less. The Burlington armor makes it all but invulnarable to most other tanks (we don't have to replace burned out husks), It has a turbine engine, which burns cheap Kerosene fuel, which saves money on diesel fuel. Not to mention, the most important fact, many, many more tank crews are coming home alive. These arent your "Star Wars" weapons, these are vital. We don't keep up with technology, we die. That's what happened in Pearl Harbor. and your "Star Wars" comment will keep me chuckling to myself for days, thank you
4) okay, last one. Bush may have jumped the gun, fine. But when all your advisors CIA, NSA, the lot, say he has WMD's and your allies, which you undeiably want to keep Mr. Siljhouettes, are in danger you want to defend them. He did have chemical weapons, they weren't the huge stockpiles, but weapons EXPRESSLY forbidden by the last Gulf War treaty. That is a reason to go to war, he broke a treaty, he ignored ultimatums, and he was an all-out evil Dictator (NO ONE can deny that though it is technically an opinion). I'm glad that dickweed's in custody of we "Infadels."
Oh, and when you COMPLETELY reverse your beliefs, you vote for one thing, and you believe something else a few years later, when it becomes important that you voted for a bill no one supported, that's flip-flopping. Sorry, you're flat out wrong. "Star Wars" hahaha.

I understand and actually agree with you (although for different reasons, I suspect.) Isolationism is indeed an oddity in today's world and I'm not sure that you can be a hard liner about it without ending up like North Korea. In an increasingly globalized world, it's getting harder and harder to maintain a total isolationist stance. All actions nowadays have the significance of a flutter of a butterfly's wings, assuming it believes in chaos theory. Even if we did completely shut down tomorrow, withdraw all troops and slam our boarders tight like a political Willy Wonka, there would still be repercussions. The best you can hope for and maintain your sanity is a sort of enlightened isolation, meaning he who interferes best, interferes least.

Let me clarify my position. Isolationism by my definition is not total. Just militarily unless US interests are at stake. Should we intervene again as in the Balkans when the Europeans would do nothing? No, we should not. France fancies themselves a world leader...let them act like one for a change.

That's the thing, though. I don't see this changing under Bush. Admittedly, there's also no specific reason to think it'll change under Kerry, but I'm willing to take the risk.

It won't. Kerry will just follow whatever the UN tells him he can. Imagine that...the man will go to the UN to ask permission to do anything. Want to guess what the odds are of him getting it?

I'm sure it did and I respect and value your sacrifice. I'll freely admit that my own pacifism and religious ideals make me incapable of doing the things you did and this perhaps reverberates through my opinions (well, who am I kidding, it certainly does) and colors the way others view those opinions. I realize that your choice makes my choice possible and I am indebted to you for that. This is exactly why I value your opinion and crave it as much as I crave Steph's or Incertonia's or Thunderland's or Purly Euclid's or any of a whole host of other posters who make me think about my positions and challenge me to defend my choices.

While I enjoyed my travels immensly, I learned that the US does too much to help others out and only gets kicked in the teeth for doing so. If I had my way, there would be no more rapid deployments to put out fires around the world. let them burn out or have the UN send in their peacekeepers they always want to use...but never do. Just make sure they are allowed to fight back and are not slaughtered like in the past.

No, I haven't. And I'll agree that the UN is far from perfect. However, it's not "useless". It's the best we've got right now. The UN is the best hope we have of making sure no one ever again has to wake up at 3 am on an aircraft at 35,000 feet. It is a step towards solving our differences, not at the point of a sword, but like rational beings. It's not perfect, but instead of abandoning it and what it represents, we must work to perfect it, fix it, make it truly function as it should and serve the purpose it was intended for. Now, I have little to no idea as to how to do this, but through exchange of ideas, I'm sure we as a species can make this happen. I haven't given up that hope yet and would rather die than do so. Because if we can't do this, if we can't chose rationality over war, then we are truly lost as a species and are little better than fancy monkeys with shiney toys and the ability to wipe ourselves off of the face of the Earth. I refuse to live in that world so this one had damn well better catch up.

No, the UN is useless...and terribly corrupt. It was BECAUSE of the UN that I found myself booting around the world. The endless trips to the middle east because Saddam had done something else. That Clinto or Bush did not act earlier is a testament to US tolerance. We did not NEED permission from the UN to go into Iraq. Each violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991 was justification enough, but we bent over backwards for 12 years. The UN protested and we were reviled...but everyone forgets that only a cease fire was signed in 1991 and our acting unilaterally was wholly legal and justified.

I agree. Truly I do. It's hard. We're an easy target right now. There's a lot of fear and frustration and anger in the world and we make a perfect punching bag. Some of those blows are deserved while the majority are not. But that is what it has always meant to be an American. The rest of the world will have their opinions, some favorable, some not. It is up to us to listen to the informed ones and then make choices that preserve our country and it's ideals, to rise above petty bickering and squabbling and demand perfect accountability both from ourselves and others.

As for this next election...I am going to vote for Bush. Kerry is just NOT the man for the job. he is not tough enough and I for one am tired of turning the other cheek...we have had all four slapped too many times.

Factually correct, while certainly misleading..

Now we're getting somewhere. "Factually correct." Will you now withdraw your slur against my credibility?

I don't disagree with you, however in the same breath, then so was Kerry.

Now you are not seeing the big picture here. Kerry, being from Mass. had NO military industries to worry about. So he could vote against it and "claim" he was voting to save money knowing that he was safe. While Cheney was being told he had to accept the new weapons and find a place for them among the decreasing number of bases and personnel.

Politics is a funny game.

I am commenting on the original thread here, that Kerry has been campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. Stop watching Fox news please, and look at what the candidate has to say. News today really pisses me off, because I see uninformed posts like this, obviously the result of news clips and snips. It takes real effort to dig into the truth behind any news story, and people just don't have the time.

Well, neither do I really, but I do remember some of the points that he has brought up.

Get back to the fight on terrorism. One of the biggest shames of the last 4 years is we started a war on terrorists, but ended up in a war on Iraq, soaking up incredible amounts of resources.

Kerry wants to rebuild our relations with other nations, increasing our intelligence capabilities and our reach. Wants to double the special forces, these are the guys doing the brunt of the terrorist hunting, and he wants to give them the lastest tech to do the job. Bush has offered nothing to his "plan" to hunt terrorists, except keep at it in Iraq.

Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts on those making over 200k a year, increasing their tax burden. These people have it very easy compared to what they used to pay in the 60s and 70s, INCREDIBLY EASY.

Work at mass purchasing of drugs to help lower the cost of medications, and push forth efforts to keep insurance companies from increasing premiums the way they have been.

Ensuring that our nations children have access to health care, ALL CHILDREN. The savings in ER visits alone will benefit this country greatly.

For those of you posting about Kerry's past as a reason to Vote for Bush, let's examine a little of Bush's past. Only fair yes?

Drunken driving conviction
Cocaine use
Used priveledge to escape service in Vietnam
Created the most polluted state in the UNION
Created a floundereing Texas school system, where many schools have over 50% drop out rates.
Executed the most people of any Governor
Bankrupted two businesses, and was bailed out by the Saudis
Failed to find OIL IN TEXAS
Became the first President with a criminal record
Has more convicted crimninals in his admin than any other pres
Has detained US citizens and denied them their rights, because they are "bad"
Has supported the proposition that we don't need to follow the Geneva convention
Has the richest admin of any pres. The poorest millionaire in the group (Rice) has an oil tanker named after her.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded gov contracts
Broke more international peace treaties than any US president
Had the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commission
Withdrew the US from the world court of law
First US pres to refuse UN elections inspectors
Set record for most vacation days in a one year period
Set record for most people in the world to protest an individual at the same time
Cut vets health benefits and supported a cut in active duty pay (during wartime!)
Supports development of a nuclear tactical weapon "bunker buster"
All records to Bush's iunvolvement into insider trading and his bankrupt companies are sealed and unavailable for view
All records of his activities as Texas gov are sealed and unavailable for review
All energy policy meeting notes are sealed and unavailable for review



So who has the better past?

No apology neccessary. You guys may think Bush is dangerous because he takes unilateral action, but did he? The "rush to war" that everyone seems to think that Bush was on is a farce as well. When Saddam signed the "cease fire" agreement with the US he agreed to do certain things. He violated the agreement daily for the next 12 years. Each shell fired at US planes enforcing the no-fly zones was a violation and military action could have been taken, but it wasn't. How long could that situation go on? I think 12 years was too long. I would have resumed military action immediately and ended Saddam right then. However, the US, bending to international pressure let things go for way too long. Now that Saddam has been taken out, despite the thousands of cease fire violations, the international community is all up in arms. They fail to see that the US really did not NEED to consult the UN anyway but because of certain "sensibilities" they did so. The UN has for years been an anti-US bastion and really a joke. Libya leading the human rights commission...come on. The reason the US does not pay it's dues is because they demanded an audit of where the money was going because of huge waste and fraud. The audit was refused so the US said that no more of it's money would be wasted.

As an isolationist, I would like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. How many Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese and Libyan spys do we have to throw out before it becomes obvious that the UN is not what it appears to be. No, other people of the world may not like Bush the man, and I did not vote for him in 2000, but looking at things the way they are, he is a FAR better choice than Kerry who has pledged to raise our taxes right away. Hillary Clinton the other day speaking at a fund raising luncheon said that the Democrats were "going to take away from you for the common good." Now what does that sound like to you? it sounds like wealth redistribution to me and THAT is as un-American as you can get. The Democrats may better resemble Canadian politicians, but the US is not Canada. We NEED a strong leader...and Kerry is a wet rag compared to Bush.

Well Bush is a dangerous leader, with a large agenda and apparently is armed with an unlimited amount of blank checks. I will address your post tomorrow, as time does not permit me to do so at this moment.

However, considering your statement about wealth redistribution being "un-American", I will share this thread that I came across while searching for historically high US tax rates. Perhaps you are aware that during WW 2, the highest tax rate was 94%? At any rate here is the thread:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacrifice_shared_glory.php

I have never served in the military, except a brief stint in the militia when I was 16 (artillery). But war was in my family. My father was stationed in England during in WW 2, as was his sister who was a CWAC, and his 3 brothers all fought on the front lines in France and in Italy. All of them were volunteers from Day 1, and even though they all came back, the war exacted a very large price on them. Though they are all gone now, I know that they suffered, and at times, I could see their pain.

Peace

Well Bush is a dangerous leader, with a large agenda and apparently is armed with an unlimited amount of blank checks. I will address your post tomorrow, as time does not permit me to do so at this moment.

Every leader has an "agenda" but that hardly makes them dangerous. The checks and boundaries are always in place to keep any one man from going too far.

However, considering your statement about wealth redistribution being "un-American", I will share this thread that I came across while searching for historically high US tax rates. Perhaps you are aware that during WW 2, the highest tax rate was 94%? At any rate here is the thread:

Thats true, there was a 94% tax rate and only a few people actually paid taxes. Trust me, I would rather not pay taxes, but with everyone paying some taxes there is far more money available. It was not until the 60's that that changed. Want to hazard a guess at which party made the change? Thats right, it was the Democrats and their "War on poverty." How did that work you ask? Well, poverty is still out there. Wealth redistribution does not work. The Democrats seem to think they are more "socially aware" than anyone else, I think they are just more socialist.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacrifice_shared_glory.php

I have never served in the military, except a brief stint in the militia when I was 16 (artillery). But war was in my family. My father was stationed in England during in WW 2, as was his sister who was a CWAC, and his 3 brothers all fought on the front lines in France and in Italy. All of them were volunteers from Day 1, and even though they all came back, the war exacted a very large price on them. Though they are all gone now, I know that they suffered, and at times, I could see their pain.

Then you don't have first hand knowledge of what being the "worlds policeman" is all about. Canada hardly even has a military anymore, and why should they? They, like MANY countries can always rely on the US for their defense. Well, since that IS the case, maybe Canada and other countries should not be so vocally opposed to what the US is doing in it's own interests. Afterall, the Canadian taxpayers are not footing the bill.

Peace[/QUOTE]

Canada hardly even has a military anymore, and why should they?

True, because the only country that has ever tried to invade us is the USA and we kicked their asses back to the states with the help of the British. No one hates us and you know why? Because we don't try to police the world, we only go where we are needed and we do it selflessly, not out of Canadian interest unlike some countries I could name.

Lets not forget Canada WAS a force to be reckoned with back in WWII. However, since we have no enemies, I guess we didn't see the point. Although granted since we've taken up the American cause in Afghanistan (fighting your war) we may have to re-evaluate that. It's not like Canada isn't up for the job, are technology has also been second to none, or need I remind people about the Avro-Arrow.. :D

True, because the only country that has ever tried to invade us is the USA and we kicked their asses back to the states with the help of the British. No one hates us and you know why? Because we don't try to police the world, we only go where we are needed and we do it selflessly, not out of Canadian interest unlike some countries I could name.

Lets not forget Canada WAS a force to be reckoned with back in WWII. However, since we have no enemies, I guess we didn't see the point. Although granted since we've taken up the American cause in Afghanistan (fighting your war) we may have to re-evaluate that. It's not like Canada isn't up for the job, are technology has also been second to none, or need I remind people about the Avro-Arrow.. :D


...Yeah, she has a point. I mean, they torched the white house, and nobody else has been able to do that :p

Half my blood beams with pride xD

I am commenting on the original thread here, that Kerry has been campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. Stop watching Fox news please, and look at what the candidate has to say. News today really pisses me off, because I see uninformed posts like this, obviously the result of news clips and snips. It takes real effort to dig into the truth behind any news story, and people just don't have the time.

Since I watch MANY different news programs and read the paper and on-line news. (I have plenty of time to do so) I have looked at what he says he will do, but he consistently fails to say HOW he will do anything


Well, neither do I really, but I do remember some of the points that he has brought up.

Do tell...

Get back to the fight on terrorism. One of the biggest shames of the last 4 years is we started a war on terrorists, but ended up in a war on Iraq, soaking up incredible amounts of resources.

WE started a war on terrorists? I think THEY started it in 1993...but Clinton allowed things to escalate. Had he treated it as a war and not a criminal act we might have gotten somewhere.

Kerry wants to rebuild our relations with other nations, increasing our intelligence capabilities and our reach. Wants to double the special forces, these are the guys doing the brunt of the terrorist hunting, and he wants to give them the lastest tech to do the job. Bush has offered nothing to his "plan" to hunt terrorists, except keep at it in Iraq.

Rebuild our relations? I've got news for you. having lived in other countries i can tell yuo that they don't like us regardless of who is in office. They just do not like us, they are just more vocal about it now because we suddenly have grown a spine. As for kerry wanting to build up the military? This being the same guy who voted AGAINST payraise after payraise for the military? IF he was to build up the military it would go against 19 years of Senatorial voting patterns.

Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts on those making over 200k a year, increasing their tax burden. These people have it very easy compared to what they used to pay in the 60s and 70s, INCREDIBLY EASY.

Yes...and when was the last time a poor person crated a job. I can tell you, my business partner and I are just at that point where we can hire someone to run our office and do the paperwork for us...in the next 6 months we hope to do so, but if Kerry wins AND raises our taxes, that won't happen. High taxes stifle economic growth, but hey, lets STICK it to those "rich" guys!! Socialist propagande for the prolitariat....

Work at mass purchasing of drugs to help lower the cost of medications, and push forth efforts to keep insurance companies from increasing premiums the way they have been.

Yes...lets nationalize the medical industry. That will work. While I agree that something has to be done about the high cost we pay for medicine vs what other countries pay, setting up a system like the VA is NOT the answer. have you ever been to a VA hospital? trust me, you don't want to have to ever use them.

Ensuring that our nations children have access to health care, ALL CHILDREN. The savings in ER visits alone will benefit this country greatly.

Yes...all this sounds wonderful, but how is he going to pay for it? Tax hikes for the "rich" alone won't do it. Trust me, EVERYONES taxes will go up. Democrats always promise this social utopia but they never deliver no matter how much they tax and spend.

For those of you posting about Kerry's past as a reason to Vote for Bush, let's examine a little of Bush's past. Only fair yes?

Drunken driving conviction - Ok...granted.

Cocaine use - Ok

Used priveledge to escape service in Vietnam - He was in the National guard and his unit COULD have been called up and sent to Vietnam, but it wasn't.

Created the most polluted state in the UNION - have you ever been to New Jersey?

Created a floundereing Texas school system, where many schools have over 50% drop out rates - I doubt he CREATED the school system, i am sure they had schools before he became governor.

Executed the most people of any Governor - So, they were criminals and had been sentanced to death. He just did not pardon them

Bankrupted two businesses, and was bailed out by the Saudis - So, a LOT of businesses fail.

Failed to find OIL IN TEXAS - Oil drilling is hit and miss, not every well comes a gusher.

Became the first President with a criminal record - So, he came in with one...Clinton left with one.

Has more convicted crimninals in his admin than any other pres - names please?

Has detained US citizens and denied them their rights, because they are "bad" - No, they are beyond bad, they are treasonous.

Has supported the proposition that we don't need to follow the Geneva convention - really? I have not heard this one.

Has the richest admin of any pres. The poorest millionaire in the group (Rice) has an oil tanker named after her. - So, does that make them less effective? Since when is being successful a liability?

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded gov contracts - Refrences?

Broke more international peace treaties than any US president - really? Against who?

Had the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commission - Why not, Libya was the head of the commision...a real humanitarian country there.

Withdrew the US from the world court of law - The court has no jurisdiction here.

First US pres to refuse UN elections inspectors - The UN has NEVER inspected US elections before.

Set record for most vacation days in a one year period - Misnomer, the president works every day and has his staff present always.

Set record for most people in the world to protest an individual at the same time - So what. Hitler had the most praise a person at the same time.

Cut vets health benefits and supported a cut in active duty pay (during wartime!) - Incorrect. You need to do your homework. As a disabled veteran I KNOW this to be blatently false.

Supports development of a nuclear tactical weapon "bunker buster" - It is needed and is a very low yield weapon.

All records to Bush's iunvolvement into insider trading and his bankrupt companies are sealed and unavailable for view - As are those of MANY people.

All records of his activities as Texas gov are sealed and unavailable for review - Actually, thats a common practice for ALL governors. Clintons are still sealed...as are some of Kennedy's.

All energy policy meeting notes are sealed and unavailable for eview - Do you think the government should be so open that EVERYTHING is available for review?

So who has the better past?

I would say Bush has...Kerry spent 19 years in the Senate and did NOTHING. Find ONE major legislation that Kerry sponsored...just ONE. He renamed a few buildings, but he did NOTHING for 19 years. Thats what he would do as president too.

Now we're getting somewhere. "Factually correct." Will you now withdraw your slur against my credibility?

A question though - Will you balance your view by listing the number of votes he made FOR military appropriations over that same period?

I mean, no bills are perfect and sometimes people vote against them for one reason (i.e. method of funding, a specific clause that would hurt their local constituents, etc.) while still fundamentally believing in much of the bill.

Now we're getting somewhere. "Factually correct." Will you now withdraw your slur against my credibility?

I will indeed if you stop misleading people by making it sound like Kerry never voted for military spending.

True, because the only country that has ever tried to invade us is the USA and we kicked their asses back to the states with the help of the British. No one hates us and you know why? Because we don't try to police the world, we only go where we are needed and we do it selflessly, not out of Canadian interest unlike some countries I could name.

Lets not forget Canada WAS a force to be reckoned with back in WWII. However, since we have no enemies, I guess we didn't see the point. Although granted since we've taken up the American cause in Afghanistan (fighting your war) we may have to re-evaluate that. It's not like Canada isn't up for the job, are technology has also been second to none, or need I remind people about the Avro-Arrow.. :D

I tell you what then, since Canada can look after itself, and it is welcome to do so, then maybe you should not be so concerned about who we elect as our president. Afterall, whoever he/she is, is NOT the Canadian president. Now, if the US was to decide to invade Canada today, do you think the outcome would be the same? I don't.

Ok, lets keep this thread flame free for as long as possible.

John kerry is campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. All we hear form him is about his purple hearts and that gets old.

So, he spent 19 years in the Senate......what did he do during this time? Did he do ANYTHING of note or did he just bide his time?

I have looked for any legislation that he has written, but I have been unable to find any. Also, he has not mentioned anything that he has done in the Senate either. Since there does not seem to be anything that he himself seems to want to campaign on except his 4 months in Vietnam, does anyone have ANY idea of what he has done in the past 19 years?

Since he seems to want to become the president should he not have SOME experience in running something? I mean even Bush was a governor and had THAT experience coming in. For the life of me, I cannot find anything that the man has actually done and it is scary to think that someone could become the most powerful man on earth with a 19 year gap in his resume. That gap placed there by Kerry since he is campaigning on Vietnam alone.

I agree

I tell you what then, since Canada can look after itself, and it is welcome to do so, then maybe you should not be so concerned about who we elect as our president. Afterall, whoever he/she is, is NOT the Canadian president. Now, if the US was to decide to invade Canada today, do you think the outcome would be the same? I don't.

As hard as it was for you to justify invading Iraq, I would love to see you justify invading one if not the most peaceful nations on earth... but good luck with that.

Besides, doesn't matter to me, it's not going to happen and we at least live knowing we beat you, even if we agreed to sign a stalemate agreement to end it. Yet, we know who really won ;)

By the way, the USA has never protected Canada from any thing, however Canada has raced to your rescue more then once.. so.. whateverah! !~

As hard as it was for you to justify invading Iraq, I would love to see you justify invading one if not the most peaceful nations on earth... but good luck with that.

Besides, doesn't matter to me, it's not going to happen and we at least live knowing we beat you, even if we agreed to sign a stalemate agreement to end it. Yet, we know who really won ;)

By the way, the USA has never protected Canada from any thing, however Canada has raced to your rescue more then once.. so.. whateverah! !~

No, its not going to happen, but for a country that relies so heavily on the US for its own defense, it should be there if asked.

What happened 200 years ago between Canada and the US has very little bearing on events of today. The same is true of britain, they are really the only friend the US can count on when things are tough. Can't say the same of Canada.

As for the US never protecting Canada from anything? Ever heard of NORAD? We have protected Canadian airspace for over 50 years. You might want to look into that one. There is more to the US/Canadian relationship than you might know.

As for the US never protecting Canada from anything? Ever heard of NORAD? We have protected Canadian airspace for over 50 years. You might want to look into that one. There is more to the US/Canadian relationship than you might know.

Which really wasn't needed.. we didn't need to be protected, no one hated us. Also, don't think for two seconds no Canadian money went into NORAD or the Space program or, or, or.. I could go on.

True, because the only country that has ever tried to invade us is the USA and we kicked their asses back to the states with the help of the British. No one hates us and you know why? Because we don't try to police the world, we only go where we are needed and we do it selflessly, not out of Canadian interest unlike some countries I could name.

Lets not forget Canada WAS a force to be reckoned with back in WWII. However, since we have no enemies, I guess we didn't see the point. Although granted since we've taken up the American cause in Afghanistan (fighting your war) we may have to re-evaluate that. It's not like Canada isn't up for the job, are technology has also been second to none, or need I remind people about the Avro-Arrow.. :D


No one hates you because your country really doesn't matter. The only thing you have going for you is maple syrup, Celine Dion, Alanis, pale white people, and "huge" 35 million population. Canada is basically America's little brother, nice and all, but you really don't want them hanging around with you. Canada is just like America, but their volume is turned down.

A "FORCE" to be reckoned with? How many troops did they field? I guess our GI's could have stayed home, what with the Canadian Juggernaut destroying the Nazis. BTW nice job killing those Japanese as well. hahaha.

PS thanks for harboring terrorists.

I will indeed if you stop misleading people by making it sound like Kerry never voted for military spending.

No conditions. I made a statement for which you cast slurs against my credibility. You now agree that very same statement is factually correct. If you withdraw your statement to correct the slur you made, then we can talk about other things.

You Americans are too proud of yourselfs :rolleyes:

Which really wasn't needed.. we didn't need to be protected, no one hated us. Also, don't think for two seconds no Canadian money went into NORAD or the Space program or, or, or.. I could go on.

Wow...so you helped pay for something that you did not need? I think you might want to talk to your government then. They owe you an explanation.

You Americans are too proud of yourselfs :rolleyes:

No, not really, but we do get our hackles up from time to time. ;)

No one hates you because your country really doesn't matter. The only thing you have going for you is maple syrup, Celine Dion, Alanis, pale white people, and "huge" 35 million population. Canada is basically America's little brother, nice and all, but you really don't want them hanging around with you. Canada is just like America, but their volume is turned down.

A "FORCE" to be reckoned with? How many troops did they field? I guess our GI's could have stayed home, what with the Canadian Juggernaut destroying the Nazis. BTW nice job killing those Japanese as well. hahaha.

PS thanks for harboring terrorists.

Awwwwwwwww - such a pithy little rant.

For the record, Canada sent more of it's population per-capita to support WWII than you did. With a population at the time of only 12 Million we still had 1.1 million uniformed soldiers in that war. And without our help (and others) while the US was still twiddling it's thumbs, it is entirely possible that the Battle of Britain would have been lost, and the Nazi's succeeded in overrunning Europe before you got off your asses and helped.

Was the US help critical to the war? Of course it was. Nobody up here denigrates your involvement.

But for such a staunch supporter of the troops your decision to piss on the honour of those who also served is a disgusting display.

As to harbouring terrorists - perhaps you might want to look inwards on that one. NO 911 terrorists EVER entered the US through Canada. HAve we found a few since that got in here? Of course we did. Along with every other damn country it seems.

If you just want to insult people, may I suggest that at least you come up with something factual on which to base your juvenile mud-slinging.


The US is bigger in population. Whoop dee do. Pat yourself on the back and see if anyone thinks that that really matters. There is an old maxim: Quality over quantity, and in this case you are showing yourself to be too odious for even WalMart to stock.... and that is not a statement against Americans in general - just you in particular.


-Z-

As hard as it was for you to justify invading Iraq, I would love to see you justify invading one if not the most peaceful nations on earth... but good luck with that.

Besides, doesn't matter to me, it's not going to happen and we at least live knowing we beat you, even if we agreed to sign a stalemate agreement to end it. Yet, we know who really won ;)

By the way, the USA has never protected Canada from any thing, however Canada has raced to your rescue more then once.. so.. whateverah! !~

How did you beat us. Canada was not a nation at the time. British regulars landed by sea and torched the White House. It was a stalemate, but we had momentum at the time of the treaty, considering how we controlled the great lakes, won in New Orleans (after the treaty), captured York for a time, and won many sea battles. Yes you and your poutine destroyed us, but at least we don't have an inbred monarch on our money. (or loons for that matter).

You Americans are too proud of yourselfs :rolleyes:
no, biff is just a fucking idiot because american schools dont teach shit, he is a nationalist half wit who preobably thinks the rest of the world thinks 2+2=4 (i hope some one gets this joke)

no, biff is just a fucking idiot because american schools dont teach shit, he is a nationalist half wit who preobably thinks the rest of the world thinks 2+2=4 (i hope some one gets this joke)

Isn't that just the same? =p

no, biff is just a fucking idiot because american schools dont teach shit, he is a nationalist half wit who preobably thinks the rest of the world thinks 2+2=4 (i hope some one gets this joke)

Oh, ya got me. It is when the name calling starts that you know you have forced them to lose their cool.

I am no nationalist, and I was schooled in Europe....so I guess that makes me what? A quarter-wit?

Oh, ya got me. It is when the name calling starts that you know you have forced them to lose their cool.

I am no nationalist, and I was schooled in Europe....so I guess that makes me what? A quarter-wit?

I guess it makes you dumb ^^

BTW, do you like cats?

no, biff is just a fucking idiot because american schools dont teach shit, he is a nationalist half wit who preobably thinks the rest of the world thinks 2+2=4 (i hope some one gets this joke)


That is as unfair as the disgusting rant that Hannibal just made.

Disagree with positions and politics. The random insults serve no purpose at all.

Awwwwwwwww - such a pithy little rant.

For the record, Canada sent more of it's population per-capita to support WWII than you did. With a population at the time of only 12 Million we still had 1.1 million uniformed soldiers in that war. And without our help (and others) while the US was still twiddling it's thumbs, it is entirely possible that the Battle of Britain would have been lost, and the Nazi's succeeded in overrunning Europe before you got off your asses and helped.

Was the US help critical to the war? Of course it was. Nobody up here denigrates your involvement.

But for such a staunch supporter of the troops your decision to piss on the honour of those who also served is a disgusting display.

As to harbouring terrorists - perhaps you might want to look inwards on that one. NO 911 terrorists EVER entered the US through Canada. HAve we found a few since that got in here? Of course we did. Along with every other damn country it seems.

If you just want to insult people, may I suggest that at least you come up with something factual on which to base your juvenile mud-slinging.


The US is bigger in population. Whoop dee do. Pat yourself on the back and see if anyone thinks that that really matters. There is an old maxim: Quality of quantity, and in this case you are showing yourself to be too odious for even WalMart to stock....


-Z-

My dear pale canuck friend. Yes you only had 12 million people back then so you would have a higher ratio of people in uniform, but uniformed troops don't only win wars, how many tens of millions of workers here built the ships, planes, tanks, jeeps, and other equipment that helped you guys fight. Ever here of lend lease. BTW thanks for the help with Japan. Are you a Frenchy?
I hope you aren't, but if you are then I'm truly sorry.

I guess it makes you dumb ^^

Could be, but I am wildly successful nonetheless. ;)

However, when you make assumptions about people, you are very often wrong.

Cats? No, I don't particularly like cats, but I would never harm one.

ok
I would like to apologize to the rest of the world represented on these forums on behalf of America for these uncivilized creatons who call themselves American and attack and harass anyone who disagrees.

and yes you are a nationalist, you are sitting there harassing other nations with trivial bullshit, a country you obviously dont know shit about. you pretend america is some great nation, yeah it was, UNTIL PEOPLE LIKE YOU STARTED RUNNING IT

no, biff is just a fucking idiot because american schools dont teach shit, he is a nationalist half wit who preobably thinks the rest of the world thinks 2+2=4 (i hope some one gets this joke)

Hey, no need to resort to name calling, please stop.

Thank You,
Stephanie
Game Moderator

ok
I would like to apologize to the rest of the world represented on these forums on behalf of America for these uncivilized creatons who call themselves American and attack and harass anyone who disagrees.

and yes you are a nationalist, you are sitting there harassing other nations with trivial bullshit, a country you obviously dont know shit about. you pretend america is some great nation, yeah it was, UNTIL PEOPLE LIKE YOU STARTED RUNNING IT

So by arguing about who should be the leader of MY country, I am a nationalist? Hmmmm....well, since it is MY country I guess I have a right to do so, or do you think that right should only be reserved for those who have no vote anyway?

Chess, you're being threatened with pure power =D

Barghol,
Normal player

How did you beat us. Canada was not a nation at the time. British regulars landed by sea and torched the White House. It was a stalemate, but we had momentum at the time of the treaty, considering how we controlled the great lakes, won in New Orleans (after the treaty), captured York for a time, and won many sea battles. Yes you and your poutine destroyed us, but at least we don't have an inbred monarch on our money. (or loons for that matter).

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You invaded Canada and gained not a single thing. You were driven back. A lot of those troops that fought for Canada stayed in Canada and are my ancestors! So yes, Canada did beat you in the war of 1812, despite us signing the stalemate agreement.

My dear pale canuck friend. Yes you only had 12 million people back then so you would have a higher ratio of people in uniform, but uniformed troops don't only win wars, how many tens of millions of workers here built the ships, planes, tanks, jeeps, and other equipment that helped you guys fight. Ever here of lend lease. BTW thanks for the help with Japan. Are you a Frenchy?
I hope you aren't, but if you are then I'm truly sorry.


YEs, I HAVE heard of Lend Lease.

Canada didn't accept any. Instead we instituted our own program called "Mutual Aid" which contributed over 4 billion in supplies to our allies (and that is in 1940 dollars)


But I bet you never heard of that right?

Did we have "tens of millions" doing it? NO. We couldn't (remember that population detail) howver we equally put every resource we had towards defeating the common enemy.

And throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, graduating 132,000 pilots and aircrew, over half of whom were Canadian.

Indeed, U.S. president F.D. Roosevelt called Canada "the aerodrome of democracy".

Again. Try working with a factual knowledge of Canada's involvement instead of your ridiculous assertions that dishonor yourself as well as those who served alongside you.

THIS: http://www.nt.net/~toby/ww2.html might give you a start on overcoming your obvious ignorance.....

Chess, you're being threatened with pure power =D

Barghol,
Normal player
im used to it

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

You invaded Canada and gained not a single thing. You were driven back. A lot of those troops that fought for Canada stayed in Canada and are my ancestors! So yes, Canada did beat you in the war of 1812, despite us signing the stalemate agreement.

I still don't know how Canada beat us as there was no victory and there was no Canada (since you were a part of the Empire). England didn't gain anything from us. We did gain two things, stopping England from taking our ships at sea, and stopping England from screwing with us. Why does your government still allow the clubbing murders of 300,000 baby Harp seals.

I have a funny story about some French Canadians who called me up asking about coming out for some hunting. They seemed to be really offended that I didn't speak French. I explained that Montana was a part of the US, and therefore I speak English. They seemed rather offended that I was not understanding their outrageous English, and by the fact that I really didn't seem to care. Plus they wanted to not have to pay taxes as they called themselves first nations, I told them where to go. I guess you had to be there. I've had Europeans here many times before and never had a problem with them, many spoke English quite well, and even tipped me well for finding them some nice trophies.

Stop bashing Canada, people. They fought hard and contributed as much as they could to WWII. And they are standing side-by-side with the coalition in Afghanistan.

My only beef with Canada is the growing hatred for the U.S., especially among the youth. I think there is a serious flaw in their media and educational systems that is causing this hatred.

Stop bashing Canada, people. They fought hard and contributed as much as they could to WWII. And they are standing side-by-side with the coalition in Afghanistan.

My only beef with Canada is the growing hatred for the U.S., especially among the youth. I think there is a serious flaw in their media and educational systems that is causing this hatred.

Now you have hit the nail on the head!!

Its not canada that makes me mad, its France

YEs, I HAVE heard of Lend Lease.

Canada didn't accept any. Instead we instituted our own program called "Mutual Aid" which contributed over 4 billion in supplies to our allies (and that is in 1940 dollars)


But I bet you never heard of that right?

Did we have "tens of millions" doing it? NO. We couldn't (remember that population detail) howver we equally put every resource we had towards defeating the common enemy.

And throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, graduating 132,000 pilots and aircrew, over half of whom were Canadian.

Indeed, U.S. president F.D. Roosevelt called Canada "the aerodrome of democracy".

Again. Try working with a factual knowledge of Canada's involvement instead of your ridiculous assertions that dishonor yourself as well as those who served alongside you.

THIS: http://www.nt.net/~toby/ww2.html might give you a start on overcoming your obvious ignorance.....

I am not ignorant, but I do like making fun of Canada (esp those French). Have some poutine and a mountain dew (without caffeine), enjoy your Canadian content laws, and have a good day, eh!

I am not ignorant, but I do like making fun of Canada (esp those French). Have some poutine and a mountain dew (without caffeine), enjoy your Canadian content laws, and have a good day, eh!

Well, you sure ACT ignorant with the style of attacks on your allies. And people wILL judge you by how you act.

Incidentally, try taking your anti-French routine to Louisiana and see how well it plays....

Its not canada that makes me mad, its France

Yeah, those French are funny. They snub their nose at the UN over nuclear testing...AND attack the greenpeace ship in New Zealand (an act of war?) and then get all indignant at the US over any and everything we do. it is a funny world out there and I for one would like us to pull back and just watch the rest of the world fight it out for a change. The balkans? Not our business. Concentration camps? Not our business. Mass graves? Not our business. Starting to see a trend here?

Well, you sure ACT ignorant with the style of attacks on your allies. And people wILL judge you by how you act.

Incidentally, try taking your anti-French routine to Louisiana and see how well it plays....

Louisiana? Well, there are some people in the swamps that might be offended, but their muskets are not very accurate. LOL

Stop bashing Canada, people. They fought hard and contributed as much as they could to WWII. And they are standing side-by-side with the coalition in Afghanistan.

My only beef with Canada is the growing hatred for the U.S., especially among the youth. I think there is a serious flaw in their media and educational systems that is causing this hatred.

Most of us are specific in the individuals that we disagree with rather than a general condemnation of the USA as a whole. However I will admit that there are some who DO just flame. I, however, would write that off to a character flaw by our own share of ignorant a-holes rather than an indictment of or media or education. In general, both of those tend towards a pretty fair bi-partisan view of your country.

Louisiana? Well, there are some people in the swamps that might be offended, but their muskets are not very accurate. LOL

Uhm, sure. Didn't know Louisiana has one of the highest homicide rates between all the states? Right next to guess-who, Texas.

Most of us are specific in the individuals that we disagree with rather than a general condemnation of the USA as a whole. However I will admit that there are some who DO just flame. I, however, would write that off to a character flaw by our own share of ignorant a-holes rather than an indictment of or media or education. In general, both of those tend towards a pretty fair bi-partisan view of your country.

I'm basing my criticism on the poll published by the Globe and Mail. In it, over 40% of Canadian teenagers said they thought the U.S. was a force for evil in the world. Among French-Canadian teenagers, that number rose to 64%.

AND attack the greenpeace ship in New Zealand (an act of war?)

Greenpeace sucks anyway. They're the worst.

Uhm, sure. Didn't know Louisiana has one of the highest homicide rates between all the states? Right next to guess-who, Texas.

Actually I was making a joke...as for homicide rates, not a real issue to anyone here, but they always seem to be a big deal for others who don't live here.

Take a look at WHO is being killed. One study I read a few years ago showed that 80% of the homicides were crime related anyway, criminals killing each other. Not a big loss in my opinion. Remember that old saying, if you live by the sword you will die by the sword? I guess the same holds true for guns too.

Greenpeace sucks anyway. They're the worst.

Maybe, but the French action was quite serious.

Actually I was making a joke...as for homicide rates, not a real issue to anyone here, but they always seem to be a big deal for others who don't live here.

Take a look at WHO is being killed. One study I read a few years ago showed that 80% of the homicides were crime related anyway, criminals killing each other. Not a big loss in my opinion. Remember that old saying, if you live by the sword you will die by the sword? I guess the same holds true for guns too.

BUT WAIT, *gasp* does that term suggest that by having guns, we get killed by them? Liberal concept alert! Take the guns away and let the criminals try to beat the policemen with twigs!

Bill is such a liberal :D

It's funny that the Americans which talk so much trash about so many other countries and cultures around the world, get so pissed off when people from other countries have something negative about them. Anyone that thinks their shit doesn't stink is truely blind.

All of these countries being bashed or held up as a pinncacle of goodness have all done both good and bad things. To say that the USA has not done underhanded shit is to have yoru head up you a$$. That goes for every other Nation as well.

I'm basing my criticism on the poll published by the Globe and Mail. In it, over 40% of Canadian teenagers said they thought the U.S. was a force for evil in the world. Among French-Canadian teenagers, that number rose to 64%.

Yeah and at one point 80% of Americans thought Saddam had some thing to do with 9/11. ignorance is rampant world wide.

Well, you sure ACT ignorant with the style of attacks on your allies. And people wILL judge you by how you act.

Incidentally, try taking your anti-French routine to Louisiana and see how well it plays....

Actually, we really don't care. We rant against the French just as much as anyone else down here.

BUT WAIT, *gasp* does that term suggest that by having guns, we get killed by them? Liberal concept alert! Take the guns away and let the criminals try to beat the policemen with twigs!

No, WE do not get killed by them, but those who misuse them do. I do not own a gun, but I would NEVER suggest that firearms be denied to those who have a right to own them.

I'm basing my criticism on the poll published by the Globe and Mail. In it, over 40% of Canadian teenagers said they thought the U.S. was a force for evil in the world. Among French-Canadian teenagers, that number rose to 64%.
Of course the french-canadian numbers will be higher. We are proud of our heritage and where we come from. So, when the whole french-bashing happened, we took it as further evidence of the evil of the US.

Not that I agree with the poll, just letting you know the opinion of the french-speaking canadians.

No, WE do not get killed by them, but those who misuse them do. I do not own a gun, but I would NEVER suggest that firearms be denied to those who have a right to own them.


Misuse? What are guns meant to do? Let's see. We'll trace in back to Chinese rocketry. First began as alchemists' expiriments, then used as WEAPON. In WAR. Guns are made for war. Europe used theirs at first, no, not for target shooting, but for wars and hunting. Seems that the people who "misuse" them actually use the correctly. I think not being able to get a little lead point through a piece of paper and not being able to maul animals as an excuse for bloodlust are both okay sacrifices for the whole saving-lives thing.

Of course the french-canadian numbers will be higher. We are proud of our heritage and where we come from. So, when the whole french-bashing happened, we took it as further evidence of the evil of the US.

Not that I agree with the poll, just letting you know the opinion of the french-speaking canadians.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. In my opinion, Canada's media and educational systems are doing a disservice to Canadian youth.

Misuse? What are guns meant to do? Let's see. We'll trace in back to Chinese rocketry. First began as alchemists' expiriments, then used as WEAPON. In WAR. Guns are made for war. Europe used theirs at first, no, not for target shooting, but for wars and hunting. Seems that the people who "misuse" them actually use the correctly. I think not being able to get a little lead point through a piece of paper and not being able to maul animals as an excuse for bloodlust are both okay sacrifices for the whole saving-lives thing.

Guns on their own do not just jump up and kill people. Someone has to USE them to do so. people are responsible for their actions, not an inanimate object.

Guns on their own do not just jump up and kill people. Someone has to USE them to do so. people are responsible for their actions, not an inanimate object.

Exactly. Flat out gun-destroying-stealing isn't the only answer. Criminals need to be caught'n'taught. But they won't kill each other as "efficiently" without guns. And cops will be safer, if they have guns and the criminals don't.

Exactly. Flat out gun-destroying-stealing isn't the only answer. Criminals need to be caught'n'taught. But they won't kill each other as "efficiently" without guns. And cops will be safer, if they have guns and the criminals don't.
Only if you get rid of all of the guns in the world (not happening). Black markets are fun.

I'm basing my criticism on the poll published by the Globe and Mail. In it, over 40% of Canadian teenagers said they thought the U.S. was a force for evil in the world. Among French-Canadian teenagers, that number rose to 64%.

Well, teenagers have a tendancy to extremism. Eventually they grow up and learn a thing or two. Judging a whole country by a small slice of the demographic is pretty silly.

If I wanted to judge all Americans on teen polls, then I would have to assume that most Americans think that Britney Spears is a truly great musical artist worthy of the highest praise.... and that, frankly, would be almost as scary as GW!

:D

Misuse? What are guns meant to do? Let's see. We'll trace in back to Chinese rocketry. First began as alchemists' expiriments, then used as WEAPON. In WAR. Guns are made for war. Europe used theirs at first, no, not for target shooting, but for wars and hunting. Seems that the people who "misuse" them actually use the correctly. I think not being able to get a little lead point through a piece of paper and not being able to maul animals as an excuse for bloodlust are both okay sacrifices for the whole saving-lives thing.

You don't understand what the Second Amendment is about, or why it was put in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. Flat out gun-destroying-stealing isn't the only answer. Criminals need to be caught'n'taught. But they won't kill each other as "efficiently" without guns. And cops will be safer, if they have guns and the criminals don't.

Gun ownership in the US is one of the cornerstones of the country. it is NOT going to go away. Why is that you ask? Well, you have to go back to the colonies and the decree by George III that the colonists could not own firearms, but his troops marching around enforcing his will could.

So when King George was sent packing, the colonists, in order to assure they would never be subjugated again decreed that firearm ownership was sacrosanct.

I don't see that changing even though many people around the world hate us for it because they do not allow their people to do likewise. Loss of lives is just another cost of freedom. Freedoms ALWAYS come with a price of some sort and that there are those who will abuse their rights is a given.

This thread is supposed to be about Kerry's Senate record and his positions on the issues, so back to it.

Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04)

Jan-June Average Unemployment
1996: 5.5%
2004: 5.6%

30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages
1996: 8.32%
2004: 6.29%

June Consumer Sentiment
1996: 92.4
2004: 95.2

As you can see by these numbers, Kerry's statement above on the economy is not true. How could it be the worst since the Great Depression if it's essentially equal to 1996?

Well, the Democrats want to scare everyone into thinking that the economy is terrible....everything is bad.....but if you vote for us, we will make it all better. Does ANYONE actually believe that? Sure, the hard core base does, but the rest of us who are not thirsty for that kool-aid flavor live in the real world. Kerry is NOT campaigning on his record in the Senate for obvious reasons. Vietnam was over 30 years ago and has as much relevence to this election as prohibition. ;)

Well, the Democrats want to scare everyone into thinking that the economy is terrible....everything is bad.....but if you vote for us, we will make it all better. Does ANYONE actually believe that? Sure, the hard core base does, but the rest of us who are not thirsty for that kool-aid flavor live in the real world. Kerry is NOT campaigning on his record in the Senate for obvious reasons. Vietnam was over 30 years ago and has as much relevence to this election as prohibition. ;)

The Democrats trot out this tired old saw in every election campaign ("Worst economy in 50 yrs", "Worst since the Great Depression").

The only things they've got, in the economic arena, are class warfare and wealth redistribution.

Gun ownership in the US is one of the cornerstones of the country. it is NOT going to go away. Why is that you ask? Well, you have to go back to the colonies and the decree by George III that the colonists could not own firearms, but his troops marching around enforcing his will could.

So when King George was sent packing, the colonists, in order to assure they would never be subjugated again decreed that firearm ownership was sacrosanct.

I don't see that changing even though many people around the world hate us for it because they do not allow their people to do likewise. Loss of lives is just another cost of freedom. Freedoms ALWAYS come with a price of some sort and that there are those who will abuse their rights is a given.

You really think that that is gonna happen? That a president will go totalitarian (and manage to get by all the checks and balances), or a foreign power will completely invade the most powerful militaristic nation on Earth, and that we'll need to take it back ourselves, with no other countries helping?

Good excuse, but it doesn't really, well.... work. Having a tool universally known to kill should NOT be allowed. Hell, they shouldn't even be MADE. What if all arms factories everywhere were shut down completely? Then once we ran out of bullets, anyone wanting to go to war would be outta luck.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. In my opinion, Canada's media and educational systems are doing a disservice to Canadian youth.
I don't understand how they do. Could you explain your opinion more elaborately please?

The Democrats trot out this tired old saw in every election campaign ("Worst economy in 50 yrs", "Worst since the Great Depression").

The only things they've got, in the economic arena, are class warfare and wealth redistribution.

The Democrats have always been the party of doom and gloom. They created a system of indentured servitude (welfare) and allowed it to grow to such an extent that there were families who had been trapped in that trap for generations. Imagine that, families where noone has held a job for generations, but just lived off those who worked hard every day. The US is a land of unlimited opportunities, just about the ONLY such land in the world, the Democrats would legislate that away from us if they could. Look to California and how the liberals there have legislated business almost to a standstill. Many companies are leaving the state because of that.

was it Iraqi law to keep guns out of the hands of citizens?

The Democrats have always been the party of doom and gloom. They created a system of indentured servitude (welfare) and allowed it to grow to such an extent that there were families who had been trapped in that trap for generations. Imagine that, families where noone has held a job for generations, but just lived off those who worked hard every day. The US is a land of unlimited opportunities, just about the ONLY such land in the world, the Democrats would legislate that away from us if they could. Look to California and how the liberals there have legislated business almost to a standstill. Many companies are leaving the state because of that.

Funny you should mention California. I was born and lived most of my life there. (I live in Virginia now.) You are abosolutely correct about the liberal state assembly and local governments. They are taxing and regulating businesses right out of the state. Hell, they drove me out!

Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the sorriest judicial joke in the nation.

You really think that that is gonna happen? That a president will go totalitarian (and manage to get by all the checks and balances), or a foreign power will completely invade the most powerful militaristic nation on Earth, and that we'll need to take it back ourselves, with no other countries helping?

Good excuse, but it doesn't really, well.... work. Having a tool universally known to kill should NOT be allowed. Hell, they shouldn't even be MADE. What if all arms factories everywhere were shut down completely? Then once we ran out of bullets, anyone wanting to go to war would be outta luck.

Well, look at the world 200 years ago. The founding fathers fought against a tyrant and wanted to keep it form happening here. The best way was to have an armed society. No government can subjugate an armed populace. Look to China or Cuba to see how an unarmed society is treated. You think the people would put up with tyranny if they were armed?

Now you are living in a fantasy if you think you can un-invent something. Hell, knives have killed more people throughout history than guns have. Should we destroy all of those too?

John Kerry......is

GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION!!!! :cool:

was it Iraqi law to keep guns out of the hands of citizens?

I believe it was....

GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION!!!! :cool:
*waves a Kerry Edwards sign*

*waves a Kerry Edwards sign*

Hmmm...can wave a sign very well, but doesn't want to talk about his record. Just like the candidate himself.

Hmmm...can wave a sign very well, but doesn't want to talk about his record. Just like the candidate himself.

I do find that very odd myself. When the debates start, that will all come out. He will hold up those purple hearts from over 30 years ago....but "what have you done for me lately" should be playing in the background....;)

John Kerry: "As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics."


Kerry Was On Senate Select Intelligence Committee For Eight Years (1993-2000).

· While On Committee, Kerry Missed 38 Of 49 Intelligence Committee Hearings. During John Kerry's eight years of service on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, there were 49 open, public hearings. Of these 49, John Kerry attended just 11 (22.4%). Among the most notable of those he missed is the June 8, 2000, hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat we now face and recommended numerous steps to address that threat.

· While On Committee, Kerry ProposedOver $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Cuts To Intelligence Budget, All Of Which Were Rejected By Democrats And Republicans Alike. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

· A Look At Kerry's Legislative Record During That Same Time Period Finds No Legislation That Kerry Proposed (Wrote And Sponsored) To Increase Funding For Human Intelligence Or Reform Intelligence Community To Focus Resources On Human Intelligence Gathering.

Funny you should mention California. I was born and lived most of my life there. (I live in Virginia now.) You are abosolutely correct about the liberal state assembly and local governments. They are taxing and regulating businesses right out of the state. Hell, they drove me out!

Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the sorriest judicial joke in the nation.

Isn't Californias economy the fith largest in the world or something like that?

Kerry wants to cut taxes and raise educational spending. Where the hell is he going to get the money to do so if he cuts taxes, his wife?!?

was it Iraqi law to keep guns out of the hands of citizens?

I believe it was....

Then that should show that you can't keep the populace unarmed in case of an invasion. They have some big ass guns too! :eek:

Kerry wants to cut taxes and raise educational spending. Where the hell is he going to get the money to do so if he cuts taxes, his wife?!?

Have you ever heard of reallocation of funds? There was this big long thread about this the other day and it was shown that Bush will be spending just as much if not more than Kerry, so it is incorrect to think either one of them are going to spend less. They will spend differently, but not less.

Kerry wants to cut taxes and raise educational spending. Where the hell is he going to get the money to do so if he cuts taxes, his wife?!?
Actually he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, they have the money for education so it works.

Then that should show that you can't keep the populace unarmed in case of an invasion. They have some big ass guns too! :eek:

Actually when we took away the jobs of the military and some police we let them keep their guns so that was a mistake. What kind of disgruntled employee do you trust with a gun?

Actually when we took away the jobs of the military and some police we let them keep their guns so that was a mistake. What kind of disgruntled employee do you trust with a gun?
What kind of police or military personal do you know that are that mentally unstable? I shudder to think that people who have sworn their lives to defend this country against all enemies, foreign or domestic, would go postal. Oh, and guns aren't hard to aquire, for 10 grand, a 200 dollar tax, and a couple signatures I can have my own .50 caliber machine gun.

What kind of police or military personal do you know that are that mentally unstable? I shudder to think that people who have sworn their lives to defend this country against all enemies, foreign or domestic, would go postal. Oh, and guns aren't hard to aquire, for 10 grand, a 200 dollar tax, and a couple signatures I can have my own .50 caliber machine gun.


I have great respect for the people in the military but that doesnt rule out the fact that there are some nutjobs in there. What about all those women that came forward about being raped on base? Anyone who rapes another human being is mentally unstable. At least thats how I see it. Anyone who can torture another human being like they did to prisones iin Iraq and Afghanistan is mentally unstable. Any military member that would kill babies like what a few had done in Vietnam is mentally unstable.

Isn't Californias economy the fith largest in the world or something like that?

Well, there are 35 million people there.

During 1999 - 2001, under Gray-out Davis, businesses were leaving or closing up shop in droves. Rising unemployment. Rolling power black-outs across the state. Some of the highest state income tax rates in the nation; 8.5% sales tax. Outrageous fees ($423/yr to get tags for my car). 18% gasoline tax (part of that is federal, don't remember the exact split). All of these ailments courtesy of the 2/3 majority liberal state assembly, and liberal local governments (e.g., San Francisco).

During which years did you live in California?

I have great respect for the people in the military but that doesnt rule out the fact that there are some nutjobs in there. What about all those women that came forward about being raped on base? Anyone who rapes another human being is mentally unstable. At least thats how I see it. Anyone who can torture another human being like they did to prisones iin Iraq and Afghanistan is mentally unstable. Any military member that would kill babies like what a few had done in Vietnam is mentally unstable.
Okay, I can see your point, but still most high-level police and military own their own guns, that's how they can customize them to their needs. It's kind of like a cavalryman owning his own horse, they depend on the horse as these men depend on guns so they must know their tools very well. If you own your own gun, you've paid the tax, you legally own it the government can't just take it away from you because you were discharged, that's flat out theft. And I've never heard of a discharge in which the leading officer says "Oh, and to thank you for playing, here's your lovely parting gift: A Fully-Automatic Assault Weapon!" And as for police, they carry pistols- they probably have a pistol at home anyways.

I live here now. and am suffering from a high cost of living. Nevertheless the economy is huge in Californa (bigger than most nations). I don't think it would be if California was anti-business.

The main thing to remember about John Kerry is that he has missed 2/3 of all votes in the Senate. In this day and age, I do not think this country needs a leader that's going to give a 33% effort. I myself am terrified, because I truly believe that Kerry will be elected because of this "Anyone's better than Bush" mentality. That is psychosis, plain and simple-you will come to realize this in a few months. I pray that Kerry will not wreak havoc when he gets power.

I live here now. and am suffering from a high cost of living. Nevertheless the economy is huge in Californa (bigger than most nations). I don't think it would be if California was anti-business.
So how are things going over there with the Govanator in charge? Gotta be better than Gray Davis.

so you are rooting for Bush? a man who has taken more vacation than any other president?
Maybe you aren't and I would hope that you are not. But it does seem that more and more Republicans lately are accepting that Bush will lose this election.

I live here now. and am suffering from a high cost of living. Nevertheless the economy is huge in Californa (bigger than most nations). I don't think it would be if California was anti-business.

It would be even bigger if the state assembly didn't enact such socialistic policies. There's no doubt many businesses left during Gray-out Davis' rule. Getting them to return to California was a big part of Schwarzenegger's winning campaign platform.

I have great respect for the people in the military but that doesnt rule out the fact that there are some nutjobs in there. What about all those women that came forward about being raped on base? Anyone who rapes another human being is mentally unstable. At least thats how I see it. Anyone who can torture another human being like they did to prisones iin Iraq and Afghanistan is mentally unstable. Any military member that would kill babies like what a few had done in Vietnam is mentally unstable.

Ever heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? How metally stable, normal college students treat their fellow students as dogs in an experiment about how good people would react on an evil place?

http://www.prisonexp.org/

So how are things going over there with the Govanator in charge? Gotta be better than Gray Davis.

I don't like either of them. I feel so ashamed that the Arnold is our Governer. He is taking away crucial govt funds from the disabled and is not focusing on education like he promised. I am actually moving away.

so you are rooting for Bush? a man who has taken more vacation than any other president?
Maybe you aren't and I would hope that you are not. But it does seem that more and more Republicans lately are accepting that Bush will lose this election.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is a misnomer. Even when the President is on vacation, he is surrounded by staff. He is in communication with anyone he needs to contact, on a moment's notice. He is still doing his job.

A Senator, on the other hand, can only do his job if he votes. He cannot vote if he is not present on the Senate floor. John Kerry simply chose not to go to work 2/3 of the time.

Ever heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? How metally stable, normal college students treat their fellow students as dogs in an experiment about how good people would react on an evil place?

http://www.prisonexp.org/

yes I have - but how does that explain the rape of fellow service women while on base in the US?

So how are things going over there with the Govanator in charge? Gotta be better than Gray Davis.

Anyone would be better than Gray-out Davis. When he was booted from office, his approval rating was 21%! I have never in my life seen a politician with a lower approval rating. He was completely inept.

Anyone would be better than Gray-out Davis. When he was booted from office, his approval rating was 21%! I have never in my life seen a politician with a lower approval rating. He was completely inept.

the only thing I like better about Davis then I do Arnold is that Davis was fighting to get all of the money back that the energy industry ripped off from us with their shady accounting tactics. Arnold is giving in to them (probably because he is profiting from it) and is settling for pennies on the dollar.

John Kerry: "And the front lines of this battle are not just far away - they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America."


Overall Homeland Security Funding Tripled: Since 2001, President Bush has nearly tripled the amount of funds devoted to homeland security. In his 2005 budget, President Bush has called for a $3.6 billion (9.7%) increase over funding levels for DHS from 2004.

President Bush Will Take Action "Within Days." "President Bush is preparing executive orders and a speech detailing his initial plans for revamping the nation's intelligence services, administration officials said Wednesday. He is likely to begin his announcements within days, the officials said." (Mike Allen And Dan Eggen, "Bush May Move Soon On 9/11 Report," The Washington Post, 7/29/04)

First Responders Funding Up 680%: President Clinton's last budget (FY 2001) provided $456 million for state & local funding. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $3.561 billion to states & locals. That is a $3.1 billion increase (680%) in funding levels from President Clinton's last budget. President Bush has allocated more than $13 billion since 2001 to state and local law enforcement for use in counter-terrorism preparedness efforts.

Assistance To Firefighters. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase since taking office. Assistance to Firefighter Grants go directly to local firehouses to increase the effectiveness of firefighting operations, firefighter health and safety programs, new fire apparatus, emergency medical service programs and fire prevention programs. President Bush has already awarded over $1.1 billion in firefighter grants in the last three years. The President's budgets have provided 900 percent more funds for firefighter grants than the previous administration's budgets. ("USFA: Assistance To Firefighters Grants Program Fiscal Year 2003 Recipients," U.S. Fire Association, , Accessed 5/28/04)

John Kerry continues to expound falsehoods and spin, rather than talk about his Senate record.

yes I have - but how does that explain the rape of fellow service women while on base in the US?

A very good question, but honestly, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with group behaviour, maybe it's just a sick mind who would do such a thing.

I do not deny that people can be manipulated into doing things that they normally wouldnt do. In fact you have shown that they can. I do highly doubt that the rapes fall into this catagory but that may be debatable, I dont know. My only point was that not all people in the military are mentally stable and completly trustworthy, like someone earlier was tryign to state.

so you are rooting for Bush? a man who has taken more vacation than any other president?
Maybe you aren't and I would hope that you are not. But it does seem that more and more Republicans lately are accepting that Bush will lose this election.
No shit I support Bush! Perhaps you don't understand that Kerry did 1/3 of his duty as a senator, I don't care how many damn vacations Bush took, it wasn't 2/3 of the past 4 years! This world needs a leader right now who's willing to do something, no wait till everyone says "Okay, go ahead, we'll still like you." I'm sorry to say this, but frequently people don't know what's good for them, that's why we have an electoral college and that's why that pussy Gore didn't get in. I thank God for that every day- Gore wouldn't have done shit about terrorists. I prefer Bush to Kerry any day, but I think its clear that most people have the "Anyone but Bush" idea. Okay, how bout Saddam Hussein! Is he frickin better than Bush!?!?! I know Kerry isn't and I pray that I'm wrong about most people believing "Anyone but Bush"

No shit I support Bush! Perhaps you don't understand that Kerry did 1/3 of his duty as a senator, I don't care how many damn vacations Bush took, it wasn't 2/3 of the past 4 years! This world needs a leader right now who's willing to do something, no wait till everyone says "Okay, go ahead, we'll still like you." I'm sorry to say this, but frequently people don't know what's good for them, that's why we have an electoral college and that's why that pussy Gore didn't get in. I thank God for that every day- Gore wouldn't have done shit about terrorists. I prefer Bush to Kerry any day, but I think its clear that most people have the "Anyone but Bush" idea. Okay, how bout Saddam Hussein! Is he frickin better than Bush!?!?! I know Kerry isn't and I pray that I'm wrong about most people believing "Anyone but Bush"

and you have every right to believe what you want. I fully support you in expressing your views and rooting for who you want to root for.

Question.... How do you have any clue what Gore would have done in the event of 9/11? Although I wonder if 9/11 even would have happened had Gore won. Gore probably would have taken Clintons advice and focused on terrorism right when he got into office, rather than focused on Iraq, like Bush did from the beginning and paid no mind to terrorism, hoping to make his Neo-ConPNAC pals happy instead.

And I wonder... are you comparing Kerry to Saddam Hussein or what is your point here? Would anyone in their right mind want Saddam to run America? Has anyone even suggested this?

I do agree that most people are on the Anyone But Bush bandwagon though. But that is just because of the fact that most of us think his presidency is illegitimate. Although beyond that he has done nothing but hurt the US economy because nobody has faith in him, disable envoronmental protections for his corporate buddies and made the US look like Imperialistic warmongering fools to the better part of the world.

and you have every right to believe what you want. I fully support you in expressing your views and rooting for who you want to root for.

Question.... How do you have any clue what Gore would have done in the event of 9/11? Although I wonder if 9/11 even would have happened had Gore won. Gore probably would have taken Clintons advice and focused on terrorism right when he got into office, rather than focused on Iraq, like Bush did from the beginning and paid no mind to terrorism, hoping to make his Neo-ConPNAC pals happy instead.

And I wonder... are you comparing Kerry to Saddam Hussein or what is your point here? Would anyone in their right mind want Saddam to run America? Has anyone even suggested this?

I do agree that most people are on the Anyone But Bush bandwagon though. But that is just because of the fact that most of us think his presidency is illegitimate. Although beyond that he has done nothing but hurt the US economy because nobody has faith in him, disable envoronmental protections for his corporate buddies and made the US look like Imperialistic warmongering fools to the better part of the world.

I think Gore would have been a disaster if he had been elected. He would have finished off the military once and for all. Clinton did a lot of damage to it and we were having a hard time keeping first term troops to reenlist.

Since the election, Gore's timing has been awful.

He grows a full beard just in time for 9-11.

He hosts a talk on global warming on the coldest day in recorded history.

His rants of the past few months have shown me and a LOT of others that he is not quite stable. I am quite thankful that he is not in office....any office.

I think Gore would have been a disaster if he had been elected. He would have finished off the military once and for all. Clinton did a lot of damage to it and we were having a hard time keeping first term troops to reenlist.

Since the election, Gore's timing has been awful.

He grows a full beard just in time for 9-11.

He hosts a talk on global warming on the coldest day in recorded history.

His rants of the past few months have shown me and a LOT of others that he is not quite stable. I am quite thankful that he is not in office....any office.

"Not entirely stable?!" -- Han Solo

His remarks the past few months have convinced me he has gone entirely off the deep end. I think he really believes he IS the President.

"Not entirely stable?!" -- Han Solo

His remarks the past few months have convinced me he has gone entirely off the deep end. I think he really believes he IS the President.

Yeah, we really dodged a bullet there. At least the people of Tenn. saw through him first.

This thread is supposed to be about Kerry's Senate record and his positions on the issues, so back to it.

Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04)

Jan-June Average Unemployment
1996: 5.5%
2004: 5.6%

30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages
1996: 8.32%
2004: 6.29%

June Consumer Sentiment
1996: 92.4
2004: 95.2

As you can see by these numbers, Kerry's statement above on the economy is not true. How could it be the worst since the Great Depression if it's essentially equal to 1996?
Perhaps these numbers will prove that Kerry is right?

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040704differenceactproj650.gif

The other graphs are also noteworthy at Jobwatch:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

BTW the July figures are out and the economy added only 32,000 jobs for July:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[QUOTE=Galtania]President Bush has called for a $3.6 billion (9.7%) increase over funding levels for DHS from 2004.
First Responders Funding Up 680%
Assistance To Firefighters. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase since taking office.QUOTE]

Haven't had much time to go over your post in detail, but just on first glance...in addition to military spending for Iraq/Afghanistan, I wonder where Bush thinks all this money is coming from?

[QUOTE=Galtania]President Bush has called for a $3.6 billion (9.7%) increase over funding levels for DHS from 2004.
First Responders Funding Up 680%
Assistance To Firefighters. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase since taking office.QUOTE]

Haven't had much time to go over your post in detail, but just on first glance...in addition to military spending for Iraq/Afghanistan, I wonder where Bush thinks all this money is coming from?

I guess he will get the money from the same place Kerry is going to get the money for his national healthcare. :rolleyes:

I thank God for that every day- Gore wouldn't have done shit about terrorists. I prefer Bush to Kerry any day, but I think its clear that most people have the "Anyone but Bush" idea. Okay, how bout Saddam Hussein! Is he frickin better than Bush!?!?! I know Kerry isn't and I pray that I'm wrong about most people believing "Anyone but Bush"
I am an "anyone but bush." I probably wouldn't vote for Saddam Hussein, considering the man cannot be president. Kucinich is the man (not THE MAN, but "the *man*!"), but I agree that people don't know what's best for themselves and he would never be elected. Therefore, albeit sad, I'm going to have to vote for the lesser of the two evils: John F. Kerry, someone who is morally right on many of the issues, in contrast to Bush's only semi-virtue (anti-abortion). At best, GWB is just a confused old guy who thinks he's doing the right thing. At worst, he's an Antichrist. And, quite frankly, I don't really want to give a vote to a person like that.

John Kerry may not be the best man for the job out there, but he will level the slope of this country's Bush-trademarked downward spiral.

And please don't take the Lord's name in vain again.

This thread is supposed to be about Kerry's Senate record and his positions on the issues, so back to it.

Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04)

Jan-June Average Unemployment
1996: 5.5%
2004: 5.6%

30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages
1996: 8.32%
2004: 6.29%

June Consumer Sentiment
1996: 92.4
2004: 95.2

As you can see by these numbers, Kerry's statement above on the economy is not true. How could it be the worst since the Great Depression if it's essentially equal to 1996?

Greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression

Since the recession began 40 months ago in March 2001, 1.2 million jobs have disappeared, representing a 0.9% contraction. To put this performance in historical perspective, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs had fully recovered to above the pre-recession peak within 31 months of the start of the recession.

Today's labor market would have 6.2 million more jobs if employment had grown by the same 3.7% average that characterized the last three recession cycles. As for who has been hurt most, private-sector jobs have fared worse than public-sector jobs. Jobs in the private sector have dropped by 1.8 million since March 2001, representing a 1.6% contraction.


http://www.jobwatch.org/

John Kerry is.... a presidential candidate with lots of hair. A very thick head of hair, has he.

They mentioned it in the New Yorker a while back, and I was reading it in the car. Well I pulled up to my house and noticed that the grass had gotten very tall and thick and said randomly, "makes me think of john kerry".
my family was flabbergasted.

so now we all know my house is built on kerry's head... damn... now yall know how to find me... he he

[/end tangent]

I am an "anyone but bush." I probably wouldn't vote for Saddam Hussein, considering the man cannot be president. Kucinich is the man (not THE MAN, but "the *man*!"), but I agree that people don't know what's best for themselves and he would never be elected. Therefore, albeit sad, I'm going to have to vote for the lesser of the two evils: John F. Kerry, someone who is morally right on many of the issues, in contrast to Bush's only semi-virtue (anti-abortion). At best, GWB is just a confused old guy who thinks he's doing the right thing. At worst, he's an Antichrist. And, quite frankly, I don't really want to give a vote to a person like that.

John Kerry may not be the best man for the job out there, but he will level the slope of this country's Bush-trademarked downward spiral.

And please don't take the Lord's name in vain again.

The "antichrist"? A bit melodramatic don't you think? Kucinich? How did the president of the Lollipop Guild think he was going to become our president.

Yes, and that's why it's weird that I like Kucinich. At 6 and a half feet tall, I tend to want to punt small things/people. With Kucinich, I haven't had the urge (yet...).

Also, Bush may not be "the" Antichrist (the Biblical end-times one that one immediately thinks of), but he certainly is an Antichrist. Quoting Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary:

an Antichrist is someone "against Christ, or an opposition Christ, a rival Christ. The word is used only
by the apostle John. Referring to false teachers, he says (1 John 2:18, 22;
4:3; 2 John 1:7), "Even now are there many antichrists."

So an Antichrist is any false prophet, and Bush matches almost every quality of one that the Bible serves up.