NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey liberal socialists (democrats). I would like you to post what you "think" Kerry will do if he is elected. This ought to be funny. I would appreciate educated responses, and not just Bush attacks.
1. What are his differences on Iraq?
(the truth= nothing)

2. Explain his flip-flops
(the truth= voting for the war, and against funding)

3. Bush lied
(the truth= if kerry was "truly misled by Bush, then Kerry is a weak senator and does not even deserve that office. There are recorded statements of Kerry talking about how he thought Saddam was a threat with WMD when Clinton was in office, and the policy was regime change. Don't believe me, I was in the gulf under clinton.)

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate. (Edwards is close also)
(check the voter roles)

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?

6. Since he has voted to raise taxes 90 times through his career, how does this help the economy in a recession?

7. How does the president actually create jobs?
(truth- he doesn't, he can only help create a favorable market- few regulations, low taxes)

8. Anyway, I could go on forever, but I am curious about what the left actually thinks this man can and will do differently the George Bush.

I like your points, but the only reason these people are voting for Kerry is because he is the only person they think can beat Bush, even though Bush will win ;-), who they see as worse than Hitler,Saddam, Osama and France combined.

They just want one of their own elected, even if he is a goober/muckadoo
(I stole that word from Frank J at imao.us btw)

u cant listen to Kerry, his fellow swift boat patrol said he self-inflicted wounds on him to get purple hearts...talk about dishonor...

Yes, I know these things. Like I said, I could go on and on. I am just curious at what "they" have to say. I read post after post of people that are either in the fifth grade, have never watched the news, or learned anything about politics, economics etc. etc. It is sad that Americans with the power to vote are so uninformed about something so important, and they have the power to vote. I think people should take the time to learn the candidate because it is a great responsibility.

Hey liberal socialists (democrats). I would like you to post what you "think" Kerry will do if he is elected. This ought to be funny. I would appreciate educated responses, and not just Bush attacks.
1. What are his differences on Iraq?
(the truth= nothing)

2. Explain his flip-flops
(the truth= voting for the war, and against funding)

3. Bush lied
(the truth= if kerry was "truly misled by Bush, then Kerry is a weak senator and does not even deserve that office. There are recorded statements of Kerry talking about how he thought Saddam was a threat with WMD when Clinton was in office, and the policy was regime change. Don't believe me, I was in the gulf under clinton.)

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate. (Edwards is close also)
(check the voter roles)

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?

6. Since he has voted to raise taxes 90 times through his career, how does this help the economy in a recession?

7. How does the president actually create jobs?
(truth- he doesn't, he can only help create a favorable market- few regulations, low taxes)

8. Anyway, I could go on forever, but I am curious about what the left actually thinks this man can and will do differently the George Bush.

1. Since Bush has burned all his bridges to international diplomacy, it'll require a changing of the guard to effect international cooperation in Iraq so that America isn't footing the entire bill in dollars and our young men and women's lives.

2. Name a flip-flop and I will explain it. I could give you 2 Bush flip-flops for every one of Kerry's.

3. Kerry and others may have believed that Saddam had WMD's, but none of them thought the case was strong enough to justify the War...and they were right.

4. Kerry, unlike many Senators, chooses his battles. The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless.

5. The price of goods goes up with or without a minimum wage increase. American's actual buying power eroded seriously under Bush.

6. What did the votes involve? Where were the taxes targeted? What else was on the particular bills? Bills are never simple, and they never involve a single issue.

7. The President creates jobs by sponsoring legislation that, by his judgement, will spur economic growth.

8, The man will be less reckless, less unilateral, and will not stick so stubbornly to failed policies.

I guess my hypothesis is gaining ground, no explainations yet.

Use more infantry rather than missiles in order to save civilians. Not start any more wars. Not get more Americans killed in a year and a half than in the previous 31 years.

Sounds like you've already decided. Nothing we can say is going to change your mind, so in reality you're just trolling for attacks.

Turn America into France Jr?
How about the Chinese Provinces of Amerika?
Korean?
Something like that...

The truth is that there is very little kerry would do besides increases taxes on the rich ( which would only pay for 1/3 of his spending increases), and brown nosing europe and the UN a little more. Besides, with a republican congress his hands are tied. But if you happen to be one of those people who sees President bush as "evil" , "stupid". "reckless" ect. you will no doubt also be living in the fairy land that mr. kerry is so much different. Be this the case you have some required viewing: mr. kerry himself on prime time television:
www.johnkerryoniraq.com

Use more infantry rather than missiles in order to save civilians. Not start any more wars. Not get more Americans killed in a year and a half than in the previous 31 years.

To address your first point: Using infantry instead of guided missiles raises our casulty level. Second of all, it will kill more civilians because instead of one controlled explosion you have bullets, grenades, morters, close air support, tanks artillery etc. all flying around from both sides. Now tell me how a few guided missiles will kill more people. Having served in the Marine Corps, and trained in urban combat I can tell you sending more infantry to be in bloody house to house fighting saves nobody. Especially the enemy because we are good at it.

So he would not start any more wars? Are you saying that all war is bad? Is is not more human to give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom whether they accept is or not. Do you realize how many people Saddam hussein killed? He would not defend the US from attack? Or swear to uphold the Constitution and the United States of America?

I assume your are referring to Vietnam. We lost 2800 people on Sept. 11, many sailors in the USS Cole, several people in the first WTC Bombing, Kenya and Tanenia Embassy bombings, the pentagon, the plane in the Penn field. There were nine terrorist attacks under Clinton, and Kerry was in the Senate then, what did he do? How many people died? I guess you want to give the terrorist exactly what they want. Hey we surrender. No more fighting for us. We have insurance kill us all you want. That is the weakest, fear ridden, I am safe because others provide safety for me excuse I have ever heard. I wonder how many Vietnam veterans suffered in the POW camps while Kerry was aiding and abetting the Viet Cong, and bashing their efforts? I wonder how many people Kerry influenced when he came back and testified before the Senate calling them baby killers, rapist etc. and those that commited suicide or got on drugs from depression because of the liberal sentiment he helped create against our Veterans. Then he wants to bathe in the glory of Vietnam. Did you even watch the Democratic Convention? He said "the terrorist cannot run we will find and destroy you". No how is that not going to start anymore wars. He admitted we need to stay in Iraq for a few more years. Now explain that contradiction. I would go on, but I figure you will not even be able to rebut half of this. I just want to get something across by posting here. Think and stop being led around like a sheep.

just an fyi: not everyone in the WTC was american. the WTC were international buildings.

It frightens me to think of how Mr. kerry would run the country. The social policy of Jimmy Carter with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. God help us.

u cant listen to Kerry, his fellow swift boat patrol said he self-inflicted wounds on him to get purple hearts...talk about dishonor...

I believe that plenty of forumers have already proved the Swift Vet attacks to be complete BS.

just an fyi: not everyone in the WTC was american. the WTC were international buildings.

But it was on American territory thereby making it an act of agression towards America. And I dont think anyone ever said it was jsut Americans who were killed.

It frightens me to think of how Mr. kerry would run the country. The social policy of Jimmy Carter with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. God help us.

How 'bout random invasions by Dubya? Complete with the sheer idiocy, Bush is no prize pig either.

random invasions? name one.

Iraq had violated UN resolutions, violated the gulf war cease fire ( the only nation doing that to us in the world) american, British, Russian, And UN intelligence said he had dangerous weapons. Hardly "random". I know you are anti-war, but random is not the word. Perhaps misinformed, perhaps even a mistake, but not random.

Someone posted on here that kerry choose his attacks. Funny, I thought us Massholes chose him as a legislator. His job is not to be absent, and ignore his duty. His job is to vote. It is a dishonest living, and he is bad at it. In fact, he is bad at everything. The truth is, Kerry got his nomination because he kisses Ted Kennedy's pinky ring, and basks in the afterglow of a once purposeful political party. I thank god that he will not win.

1. Since Bush has burned all his bridges to international diplomacy, it'll require a changing of the guard to effect international cooperation in Iraq so that America isn't footing the entire bill in dollars and our young men and women's lives.

2. Name a flip-flop and I will explain it. I could give you 2 Bush flip-flops for every one of Kerry's.

3. Kerry and others may have believed that Saddam had WMD's, but none of them thought the case was strong enough to justify the War...and they were right.

4. Kerry, unlike many Senators, chooses his battles. The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless.

5. The price of goods goes up with or without a minimum wage increase. American's actual buying power eroded seriously under Bush.

6. What did the votes involve? Where were the taxes targeted? What else was on the particular bills? Bills are never simple, and they never involve a single issue.

7. The President creates jobs by sponsoring legislation that, by his judgement, will spur economic growth.

8, The man will be less reckless, less unilateral, and will not stick so stubbornly to failed policies.

1. There were never any bridges there. I think going to the UN repeately over 12 years and just as many broken agreements is being pretty concilliatory. Kerry will have no more sucess with the Russians or French than Bush. Just because Kerry has a cousin that is a mayor in France does not mean he has favortism with them. They didn't even defend their own country twice. Guess who saved them? If you think they will suddenly change their minds and help with a kerry presidency you are sadly mistaken. They were being paid, plain and simple. Furthermore, what do you know about the international comunity? We have over 60 countries in our colalition. Yes, we lack Russia and France. Who cares, what good are they for defense purposes or money anyway? They are both broke. Besides, I am married to a French woman who does support Bush. So does her family, and many of their neighbors. Chirac does not support Bush because he was paid by saddam. Chirac is a criminal that will be convicted as soon as he leaves office. In france there is a law saying the sitting president cannot be convicted. Look for a long trip to Canada a few days before his term ends.
Why did Kerry vote for the war then? Check the record. He voted for something he didn't think there was strong evidence of? That's not very good representation. Why did Clinton/ Kerry send me and others to the Gulf if there were no weapons or threat? Sounds like a waste of money then. I have news for you. We live in a market economy. the people, not the government create jobs. Unless you are the FBI etc. If you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to reflect, so nothing is accomplished. Did you ever take a basic economics class?

The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless. (This is apalling nonsense) Is this good representation? He is a lawyer. I am in law school, and I read everything I sign. I wonder how the people who voted for representation in the Senate would feel about that? How can he vote if he is not there. I challenge you two name two flip-flops of Bush.

Someone posted on here that kerry choose his attacks. Funny, I thought us Massholes chose him as a legislator. His job is not to be absent, and ignore his duty. His job is to vote. It is a dishonest living, and he is bad at it. In fact, he is bad at everything. The truth is, Kerry got his nomination because he kisses Ted Kennedy's pinky ring, and basks in the afterglow of a once purposeful political party. I thank god that he will not win.

Us Massholes? Since when did anyone from Massachusetts call themselves a Masshole?

just an fyi: not everyone in the WTC was american. the WTC were international buildings.

True, but it was an attack on our soil.

How 'bout random invasions by Dubya? Complete with the sheer idiocy, Bush is no prize pig either.

Random invasions? I would think that you lefties of all people would be outraged by the blatent defiance by Saddam of your beloved UN.

texas! I said those things before, but glad you are here. I am the lone desperado conservative here most of the time.

texas! I said those things before, but glad you are here. I am the lone desperado conservative here most of the time.
:(
I need to post more I guess.

I always feel so outnumbered on this forum.

texas! I said those things before, but glad you are here. I am the lone desperado conservative here most of the time.

Sorry I didn't mean to steal your thunder :)

my thunder hasnt been stolen! please, I wish I could see others like me so I wouldnt be so outnumbered. That was an excellent thread you created!

I just want to get something across by posting here. Think and stop being led around like a sheep.

http://vote4change.net/sheep3LG.jpg

my thunder hasnt been stolen! please, I wish I could see others like me so I wouldnt be so outnumbered. That was an excellent thread you created!

Thanks. It is a test. I would just like to hear one Kerry supporter give me
a logical breakdown on what they think they are getting from him. It really disturbs me that all I see posted is Bush bashing, and radical, biased, completely uninformed opinions and no facts to back up what they say. You notice the difference in postings from the right and the left. I would not condemn someone for a logical and rational Kerry response, but I have yet to hear one yet. And I am a political junkie.

http://vote4change.net/sheep3LG.jpg

Yes, that is funny, but it proves my point exactly. No substance to your positions. I asked a simple question, and all I get is a link to a sheep with Bush/Cheney on it. Witty, pictures do not maintain/ protect this great country of ours. Substance please!

Oh I agree 100% .

Wild swiping and a lack of solid facts are what the liberals on these forums survive on. many times I can disprove them based on personal experience with a littel help from first hand sources. I am a sort of political junkie, but I really like to carefuly research before I make a statement. For example, the "Bush cut education" claim......I actualy went to a government budgetary websight and found out the truth. Mr. bush increased the education budget more than any other President.....ever. Or actualy ( god forbid) reading the constitution on occaision. Am I crazy or what?

Where are all the liberals when an attempted intelligent conversation is going on? Did you get the munchies or what?

Where are all the liberals when an attempted intelligent conversation is going on? Did you get the munchies or what?

I can smell fear, and I smell it the most when facts are presented that cannot be denied.

Where are all the liberals when an attempted intelligent conversation is going on? Did you get the munchies or what?
Perhaps they just wanted you and Undecidedterritory to enjoy complimenting each other such as the last two pages. Enjoy!! :rolleyes:

I must go now. I will no doubt find tomorrow that this thread has been taken over by some sort of liberal slime. goodbye now.

Wild swiping and a lack of solid facts are what the liberals on these forums survive on. many times I can disprove them based on personal experience with a littel help from first hand sources. I am a sort of political junkie, but I really like to carefuly research before I make a statement. For example, the "Bush cut education" claim......I actualy went to a government budgetary websight and found out the truth. Mr. bush increased the education budget more than any other President.....ever. Or actualy ( god forbid) reading the constitution on occaision. Am I crazy or what?

I do that also. And that is what every citizen should do. Find out the truth. No wonder we loose freedoms daily because the average citizen does not even know who his elected leaders are, much less what is in the Constitution, or the latest Supreme Court case. That is what is important, not the latest sheep link. I think there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans think, find the information and make an informed decision, and the democrats are lead by the latest talking points if they happend to get that off Comedy Central, or a commercial after Survivor. I hope to be proven wrong. they have the power to vote, as they should, but its scary. Not that Bush has done everything perfectly, but I believe he has done his best to live up to the presidental duties required of the office. That's Article II of the US Constitution for you liberals. And I will mention that it says nothing about "regulating the economy" "healthcare" and many other suppose things Kerry will get done. Why did not of those democratic issues not get solved when the Dems were in power? Because if they solve them, they have no supporters anymore. So they don't solve any problems, and blame it on the evil republicans. I ask you, who gave the seniors a prescription drug benefit?

I don't know what he'll do different than Bush, but I DO know that he can't possibly be worse.
Plus, hopefully he won't sell out to AIPAC and keep America Israel's bitch.

I think there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans think, find the information and make an informed decision, and the democrats are lead by the latest talking points if they happend to get that off Comedy Central, or a commercial after Survivor. I hope to be proven wrong. they have the power to vote, as they should, but its scary.
I am sure that the Democrats will be swarming to the Republican Party so that they too can be known as thinkers such as yourself?

I am sure that the Democrats will be swarming to the Republican Party so that they too can be known as thinkers such as yourself?

Ok, you can attack me. But you still have not put forth one good argument for Kerry.

I don't know what he'll do different than Bush, but I DO know that he can't possibly be worse.
Plus, hopefully he won't sell out to AIPAC and keep America Israel's bitch.

That's not the point. Can he be better? If he is no worse, lets save the tax money it costs to change administrations and keep the one we have. If he sold out to AIPC then why is the FBI prosecuting an alleged spy from that very organization? America is nobody's bitch, and who would you have Kerry support hezbollah? How about the Al Aqusa Marter's Brigage? Real intelligent post. (yes, that's sarcasm)

1. Since Bush has burned all his bridges to international diplomacy, it'll require a changing of the guard to effect international cooperation in Iraq so that America isn't footing the entire bill in dollars and our young men and women's lives.

2. Name a flip-flop and I will explain it. I could give you 2 Bush flip-flops for every one of Kerry's.

3. Kerry and others may have believed that Saddam had WMD's, but none of them thought the case was strong enough to justify the War...and they were right.

4. Kerry, unlike many Senators, chooses his battles. The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless.

5. The price of goods goes up with or without a minimum wage increase. American's actual buying power eroded seriously under Bush.

6. What did the votes involve? Where were the taxes targeted? What else was on the particular bills? Bills are never simple, and they never involve a single issue.

7. The President creates jobs by sponsoring legislation that, by his judgement, will spur economic growth.

8, The man will be less reckless, less unilateral, and will not stick so stubbornly to failed policies.


1) This is insulting to our many allies in the region. G.B. has been with us the entire time and they aren't even recognized by the Kerry camp. I find that horrible.
Secondly how has Bush burned all his bridges? France and Germany did not go along.... and Bush is with France in Afghanistan and in Haiti. Do you fail to grasp what diplomacy is? Just because we disagree on when and how to go to war does not make us enemies. I think Kerry's proposition for all countries "stealing" US jobs to go screw themselves is much more diplomatic don't you?

2) Alright I'm not going to defend this. I fail to see why Bush and his supporters put perogetive into it.

3) Actually Kerry was for going to war with or without the existence of WMD's you can hear his words on it on the GOP website. Or you can just email me and I will send you to videofeed. You might be mistaking him for John Mcain that said WMDs were the only threat.
John Kerry also said in June after knowing that there are no WMDs he would vote the same way.

4) This is a ridiculous statement. Him and Edwards are head and shoulders below any other person in the senate as far as attendance goes. They should resign as Dole did in 1996 and have some decency respecting the wishes of their constituents. But instead they laugh at democracy. I fail to see how Kerry's 0% after 9/11 attendance to his INTELLIGENCE COMITTEE meetings shows his decision to pick his battles. Considering he is trying to win the battle for American security interests. Just a thought.

5) The price of goods and the economy at large are hardly affected by the president. They have more to do with the price of crude oil which is at $46 a barrel at the current. When oil goes up other common items go up in price. Needless to say raising minimum wage is just a way to raise inflation rates. It just goes without saying much like the republican tax cuts wage increases do not do much for the economy.

6) For him to vote effectively on votes he has to actually be there for a vote. Kerry is rarely ever there even in comittee in one of the nations highest comittees.

7) Hahahahah..... short of going the path of FDR the president does very little for job creation. Though Clinton created an influx of jobs with his bill NAFTA. Jobs are also outsourced through this method though so Kerry would very likely be against it. His and your mythical economies of lore run off offending every ally in the WTO with rising tariffs. The president can also create jobs as if the United States were a welfare state.

8) I don't think offending our number one trade partner while we are nearing economic repression is cautious. I think it is very reckless not to mention all of our allies in Europe with protectionism.
For those of you who don't know Unilateralism means "going it alone." Uni- the suffix means one, not dozens of countries. Even if we were just with G.B. it would not be unilateralism. We have all of NATO behind us, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Austrilia, Japan, S. Korea. That is not unilateralism.

Ok, you can attack me. But you still have not put forth one good argument for Kerry.

Furthermore, I don't care what party someone is if they can explain why they think a certain way. And obviously, "thinking" must be a bad thing in Canada, according to your post.

1) This is insulting to our many allies in the region. G.B. has been with us the entire time and they aren't even recognized by the Kerry camp. I find that horrible.
Secondly how has Bush burned all his bridges? France and Germany did not go along.... and Bush is with France in Afghanistan and in Haiti. Do you fail to grasp what diplomacy is? Just because we disagree on when and how to go to war does not make us enemies. I think Kerry's proposition for all countries "stealing" US jobs to go screw themselves is much more diplomatic don't you?

2) Alright I'm not going to defend this. I fail to see why Bush and his supporters put perogetive into it.

3) Actually Kerry was for going to war with or without the existence of WMD's you can hear his words on it on the GOP website. Or you can just email me and I will send you to videofeed. You might be mistaking him for John Mcain that said WMDs were the only threat.
John Kerry also said in June after knowing that there are no WMDs he would vote the same way.

4) This is a ridiculous statement. Him and Edwards are head and shoulders below any other person in the senate as far as attendance goes. They should resign as Dole did in 1996 and have some decency respecting the wishes of their constituents. But instead they laugh at democracy. I fail to see how Kerry's 0% after 9/11 attendance to his INTELLIGENCE COMITTEE meetings shows his decision to pick his battles. Considering he is trying to win the battle for American security interests. Just a thought.

5) The price of goods and the economy at large are hardly affected by the president. They have more to do with the price of crude oil which is at $46 a barrel at the current. When oil goes up other common items go up in price. Needless to say raising minimum wage is just a way to raise inflation rates. It just goes without saying much like the republican tax cuts wage increases do not do much for the economy.

6) For him to vote effectively on votes he has to actually be there for a vote. Kerry is rarely ever there even in comittee in one of the nations highest comittees.

7) Hahahahah..... short of going the path of FDR the president does very little for job creation. Though Clinton created an influx of jobs with his bill NAFTA. Jobs are also outsourced through this method though so Kerry would very likely be against it. His and your mythical economies of lore run off offending every ally in the WTO with rising tariffs. The president can also create jobs as if the United States were a welfare state.

8) I don't think offending our number one trade partner while we are nearing economic repression is cautious. I think it is very reckless not to mention all of our allies in Europe with protectionism.
For those of you who don't know Unilateralism means "going it alone." Uni- the suffix means one, not dozens of countries. Even if we were just with G.B. it would not be unilateralism. We have all of NATO behind us, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Austrilia, Japan, S. Korea. That is not unilateralism.

haha, well said.

has anyone even mentioned what kerry will do next term?
3 pages later and no one can manage t odo it. well you know what, ill put one or two things:

Raise taxes!!!!!!
argue with alan greenspan!!!!
be responsible for future budget deficits because he refused to reform social security before 2010!


All the bush haters fail to realize the amount of bullshit that man has goen through in one presidency.
the internet bubble burst, 2 wars, wtc bombing, recession, investor scandals, etc..... Clinton never went through that much shit in his 8 years i dont believe....
yeah our economy sucks blame al qaida! for fuckin up our wonderful first recovery we almost had!
yes were losing troops in iraq, but its less then a 1% chance of death there first of all, second of all we should try and free those people, repressed people, are ones that will live their entire lives with no hope. atleast we give sum people hope.
as soon as 9/11 happened im sumhow glad that the person i voted for didnt win.

2. Explain his flip-flops
As far as I've see the only one he has been caught on is his very silly "I voted for the extra $87 Billion, then against it!". Hardly constitutes a flip-floper. There was another thread about this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6837020#post6837020) showing a video of Kerry's 'flip-flops'. I watched it and could only come up with the one mentioned above. Go to page 5 of the thread to see the transcript.

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate.
From what I'm aware, this figure reflects only the last few months, since he started campaigning. How do you expect him to do both? I suppose the many vacations Bush's taken don't bother you.
BTW this started out as 2/3 but I see is steadily increasing. Give it a couple of weeks and no doubt he'll be absent 120% of the time.

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?
If you had even a basic understanding of economics, you'd realise that:
1. Wages make up only a small part of the overall cost of a good. So rising wages by 10% doesn't mean prices will go up 10%. If you don't believe me, as an example, crude oil has gone up 80% over the past couple of months but prices at the pump only 30%. In fact even though crude is still rising, pump prices have eased lately. Why? Because crude is only a small component of the total cost of production.
2. Why would all goods and services go up? Not all g + s are produced by the mimimum wage. Any particular reason why lawyers for example would raise their fees cause a McDs worker's getting 30c more p/hour?
( In fact using your logic, there should be no mimimum wages, and indeed no wages as any wage will raise goods/services. Bring back slavery!! :rolleyes: )
3. Raising mimimum wage helps stimulate the economy far more than cutting the top tax rate. This is because any increase in the min. wage will be spent, while any upper tax refund will be banked. I'll make a simple example:
Say you're on $200 p/week. All your money goes on the neccessities of life (food, rent. power etc). If you get a pay raise of $20 p/week, you won't save it. You'll use to buy slightly better food or pay off bills faster.
Now let's say you're on $4000 p/week. Would you be spending all that each week? No. Once you've got all your necessities paid for, even taking into account your more extravagant tastes, you'll have money left over. You get a tax refund so now you're getting an extra $200 p/week. Will you spend it? No, cause you're not spending all your money already!
You have 3 options for this extra money:
A. Banking the money won't help stimulate the economy. It'll just sit there.
B. Putting it into overseas accounts or shares will in fact hurt the economy as the NET flow can become negative.
C. Investing in local companies can help the economy. But only if they use it to invest in domestic economy and not to send their factories to Mexico. Also it'll only help the local economy if it invests in the local area.
So 1 out of 3. Meanwhile tax take goes down, which hurts govt spending and possibly the economy.
Back to the poor person: They only have one option - spending the money. Times this by several million ppl and you have a healthy growing (local)economy. This money is taxed at least twice (first from the wage-earner, then from the retailer), thus raising govt revenue. Because more ppl are spending, more jobs are created and revenue increases, which can negate the effect of the min. pay increase. It's a win-win situation. So where is the problem? Personally I think if a company manager who claims their company can't stay open if it has to pay it's workers a few cents p/hour more than the $5.15 must be so appalling in their business skills that they don't deserve to be managers.
And b4 you say it, yes there are obviously limits to what the minimum wage should be. The above works only up to a point. Raising it to $50 p/hour for eg is obviously not a good idea. But Kerry's not advocating this.
If you want further reading, check these out:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004
Testimony before congress over the minimum wage increase and its effects on small business. (There is none)
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage
Which has all their articles about the minimum wage issue
BTW did you know that the minimum wage hasn't been raised for 7 years? How much inflation has there been in that time? Also when it was first introduced it was at 50% of the average wage. Now it's at 33%.

Ohh, to back up my opine about managers, I see someone far greater than me said it, and in a far better way (hate it when that happens!):
No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level: I mean the wages of a decent living.
Franklin Roosevelt (urging passage of minimum wage legislation)

Being quite a bit farther to the left than he is, I am not exactly a member of the Kerry fan club. So, my answers may not satisfy strong Kerry supporters any more than they please Bush fans. But, I think I'll add my two cents anyway.


1. What are his differences on Iraq?
(the truth= nothing)

To be honest, I think you may be right -- or pretty damn close to it. Like I said, I'm no Kerry fan, so I'm not that interested. I probably won't like what happens either way.

However, I don't think it matters to most Kerry supporters, not because they are ignorant, but because they believe that Bush has made huge mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere (if not outright lying about them). And what Kerry supporters are terribly afraid of is that Bush will continue to make such mistakes, and that these will be very costly.

Moreover, most Kerry supporters realize that his options are severely limited in the Iraq situation.

In other words, Bush got us there, and maybe Kerry can do better, maybe not. But, Kerry supporters are willing to bet that Kerry is less likely to do worse.

Now, you will complain that this is "just" bush-bashing. But, you have to admit that it's reasonable Bush-bashing, if you believe that Bush's policies have been mistakes (or outright lies). But that comes down to a matter of what information you trust, etc... It has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the argument once that decision has been made.

2. Explain his flip-flops
(the truth= voting for the war, and against funding)

Answer one: His information changed. A perfectly reasonable answer... the only way to critique it would be to show that his information, in fact, never changed.

Answer two: Bills are complicated things, to which any number of add-ons might be attached that the public never really hears about. Admittedly, to see if this is the case on particular bills on which Kerry "flip-flopped," one would have to read the full text and see if anything substantive changed. I have not done this. Personally, I think the most responsible thing your average voter can do, without spending the hours required to review all relevant legislation, is find some organizations whose basic philosophy and goals they agree with, and see what they think of the candidate. Most of them monitor votes very closely, and they will tell you how strong a candidate really is on the issues that matter to you. (I admit I have not done this either, being that I will probably write-in a vote for "none of the above." If invite you to show that kind of substantive flip-flopping.)

Answer three: What's wrong with flip-flopping, as long as the shift mirrors a shift in public opinion (especially in one's home state, for a Senator)? The Founders designed this government to be responsive because representatives depend on people to stay in power... and they should therefore be expected to vote the way "we" want them to. Show me a Federalist Paper that says representatives should actually believe in the things they vote for. (This was actually more of an issue for anti-federalists who wanted representatives from all classes.)

3. Bush lied
(the truth= if kerry was "truly misled by Bush, then Kerry is a weak senator and does not even deserve that office. There are recorded statements of Kerry talking about how he thought Saddam was a threat with WMD when Clinton was in office, and the policy was regime change. Don't believe me, I was in the gulf under clinton.)

First, if you believe that Bush lied, then most of the Senate was apparently fooled by him. You cannot simply single out Kerry as if trust was his downfall. So, the issue comes back to whether or not Bush lied.

Secondly, someone has already mentioned that, while Kerry may have expressed concerns about Saddam and WMD, he did not suggest going to war over it. This seems like a pretty accurate statement to me.

Thirdly, perhaps you should read up on the history that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. role in provoking the war suggests that we wanted Saddam out before we identified him as a "threat to the region." In other words, national security concerns were not strong enough even then before Saddam's military was beaten and his economy destroyed. But you believe since then he became more of a threat?

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate. (Edwards is close also)
(check the voter roles)

I can't. In fact, I'll even agree with you that it doesn't look good. Of course, I agree with other posters here that not every bill requires a vote, and some votes may be determined before they are even cast. But that only goes so far. This, I think, is a perfectly valid criticism of Kerry.

Of course, one has to ask how it stands up to Bush's liberal vacation record.

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?

Prices may go up. The economic theory conservatives apply to the issue is far too simple. They think that more $$$ in otherwise poor pockets equals increased demand, and increased demand means higher prices. Only the last part is necessarily true (and even there, temporarily higher prices may encourage new producers to enter the market, so that it all basically balances out in the long run).

First, as someone has already pointed out, we are dealing with an extremely high debt level. Under these conditions, more money in a persons pocket could very well go toward paying off credit cards, which will not directly affect prices of consumer goods.

Secondly, price changes are not likely to affect all sectors of the economy equally. At any given time, each person is getting by at a different income level, and is capable of buying only a limited number of the things they want. Some things, like staple foods, pretty much everyone buys already, and their consumption of such goods is not likely to increase dramatically with a pay raise. As you get further away from "necessaries," people are able to afford less. Thus with an increase in the minimum wage, you are not going to see a price increase in the most basic goods, which is what conservatives implicitly threaten when they say such increases never do any good. What you may see is a price increase on entertainment, finer foods, and so on...

So "what good have you done"? Plenty. Staple products retain a stable price, so the lowest paid workers can afford things they didn't have before... which, of course, acts as a stimulus to production, as noted above. Even if the prices of some goods increase to the point that the lowest paid workers again cannot afford them, you provide an economic stimulus that does not give up valuable government revenue.

6. Since he has voted to raise taxes 90 times through his career, how does this help the economy in a recession?

I guess it depends on whether or not you want to take him at his word. He says now that he only wants to increase taxes on the wealthy... and honestly, that's fine with me. Its impact on demand, at any rate, will be marginal.

7. How does the president actually create jobs?
(truth- he doesn't, he can only help create a favorable market- few regulations, low taxes)

Well, he can always spend a whole lot... create some work to be done. But, it's complicated either way. I will admit that "creating jobs" is usually an empty political promise, and is probably so in this case. If there were a simple formula for creating jobs, even Bush could have done better.

:mp5:

2. Explain his flip-flops
As far as I've see the only one he has been caught on is his very silly "I voted for the extra $87 Billion, then against it!". Hardly constitutes a flip-floper. There was another thread about this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6837020#post6837020) showing a video of Kerry's 'flip-flops'. I watched it and could only come up with the one mentioned above. Go to page 5 of the thread to see the transcript.

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate.
From what I'm aware, this figure reflects only the last few months, since he started campaigning. How do you expect him to do both? I suppose the many vacations Bush's taken don't bother you.
BTW this started out as 2/3 but I see is steadily increasing. Give it a couple of weeks and no doubt he'll be absent 120% of the time.

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?
If you had even a basic understanding of economics, you'd realise that:
1. Wages make up only a small part of the overall cost of a good. So rising wages by 10% doesn't mean prices will go up 10%. If you don't believe me, as an example, crude oil has gone up 80% over the past couple of months but prices at the pump only 30%. In fact even though crude is still rising, pump prices have eased lately. Why? Because crude is only a small component of the total cost of production.
2. Why would all goods and services go up? Not all g + s are produced by the mimimum wage. Any particular reason why lawyers for example would raise their fees cause a McDs worker's getting 30c more p/hour?
( In fact using your logic, there should be no mimimum wages, and indeed no wages as any wage will raise goods/services. Bring back slavery!! :rolleyes: )
3. Raising mimimum wage helps stimulate the economy far more than cutting the top tax rate. This is because any increase in the min. wage will be spent, while any upper tax refund will be banked. I'll make a simple example:
Say you're on $200 p/week. All your money goes on the neccessities of life (food, rent. power etc). If you get a pay raise of $20 p/week, you won't save it. You'll use to buy slightly better food or pay off bills faster.
Now let's say you're on $4000 p/week. Would you be spending all that each week? No. Once you've got all your necessities paid for, even taking into account your more extravagant tastes, you'll have money left over. You get a tax refund so now you're getting an extra $200 p/week. Will you spend it? No, cause you're not spending all your money already!
You have 3 options for this extra money:
A. Banking the money won't help stimulate the economy. It'll just sit there.
B. Putting it into overseas accounts or shares will in fact hurt the economy as the NET flow can become negative.
C. Investing in local companies can help the economy. But only if they use it to invest in domestic economy and not to send their factories to Mexico. Also it'll only help the local economy if it invests in the local area.
So 1 out of 3. Meanwhile tax take goes down, which hurts govt spending and possibly the economy.
Back to the poor person: They only have one option - spending the money. Times this by several million ppl and you have a healthy growing (local)economy. This money is taxed at least twice (first from the wage-earner, then from the retailer), thus raising govt revenue. Because more ppl are spending, more jobs are created and revenue increases, which can negate the effect of the min. pay increase. It's a win-win situation. So where is the problem? Personally I think if a company manager who claims their company can't stay open if it has to pay it's workers a few cents p/hour more than the $5.15 must be so appalling in their business skills that they don't deserve to be managers.
And b4 you say it, yes there are obviously limits to what the minimum wage should be. The above works only up to a point. Raising it to $50 p/hour for eg is obviously not a good idea. But Kerry's not advocating this.
If you want further reading, check these out:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004
Testimony before congress over the minimum wage increase and its effects on small business. (There is none)
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage
Which has all their articles about the minimum wage issue
BTW did you know that the minimum wage hasn't been raised for 7 years? How much inflation has there been in that time? Also when it was first introduced it was at 50% of the average wage. Now it's at 33%.

Ohh, to back up my opine about managers, I see someone far greater than me said it, and in a far better way (hate it when that happens!):

Franklin Roosevelt (urging passage of minimum wage legislation)

2. flip flops, both candidates make it, i think its stupid.policy changes over time, its evolution in thought.
3.minimum wage should be left up to the states not the federal government. some places its much cheaper to live in then others.
but i think the overall error with the wage increase, is the timing of it. right now companies are still worried about their bottom line and just got finished firing people, do you think they want to now have to pay their current employees more? no, and it will effect their bottom line more severly. If this was done during a period where companies werent worried about their bottom line, itd be much easier. This will only effect companies who of course pay minimum wage or close.
When you give a tax refund to a person they could either spend it in the economy, or save it and let it gain interest. If you invest it you are completely helping the economy. What do you think a bank does with that money? their completely using it! its more cashflow for them. Not only that but comapnies also now were paying lower taxes for capital gains, which is great, because what do companies do with their money? they invest it! so now they have 5% more money in their account, which is pretty decent when your talkin about millions of dollars invested. So really bushes tax cuts helped companies more then regular people, but its the companies that hire and fire the people, so indirectly he was helping the people.

2. Explain his flip-flops
As far as I've see the only one he has been caught on is his very silly "I voted for the extra $87 Billion, then against it!". Hardly constitutes a flip-floper. There was another thread about this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6837020#post6837020) showing a video of Kerry's 'flip-flops'. I watched it and could only come up with the one mentioned above. Go to page 5 of the thread to see the transcript.

4. Explain Kerry missing over 80% of the votes in the Senate.
From what I'm aware, this figure reflects only the last few months, since he started campaigning. How do you expect him to do both? I suppose the many vacations Bush's taken don't bother you.
BTW this started out as 2/3 but I see is steadily increasing. Give it a couple of weeks and no doubt he'll be absent 120% of the time.

5. Raising the minimum wage helps no one since the prices of all goods and services will go up to reflect the increased wages. How does this help?
If you had even a basic understanding of economics, you'd realise that:
1. Wages make up only a small part of the overall cost of a good. So rising wages by 10% doesn't mean prices will go up 10%. If you don't believe me, as an example, crude oil has gone up 80% over the past couple of months but prices at the pump only 30%. In fact even though crude is still rising, pump prices have eased lately. Why? Because crude is only a small component of the total cost of production.
2. Why would all goods and services go up? Not all g + s are produced by the mimimum wage. Any particular reason why lawyers for example would raise their fees cause a McDs worker's getting 30c more p/hour?
( In fact using your logic, there should be no mimimum wages, and indeed no wages as any wage will raise goods/services. Bring back slavery!! :rolleyes: )
3. Raising mimimum wage helps stimulate the economy far more than cutting the top tax rate. This is because any increase in the min. wage will be spent, while any upper tax refund will be banked. I'll make a simple example:
Say you're on $200 p/week. All your money goes on the neccessities of life (food, rent. power etc). If you get a pay raise of $20 p/week, you won't save it. You'll use to buy slightly better food or pay off bills faster.
Now let's say you're on $4000 p/week. Would you be spending all that each week? No. Once you've got all your necessities paid for, even taking into account your more extravagant tastes, you'll have money left over. You get a tax refund so now you're getting an extra $200 p/week. Will you spend it? No, cause you're not spending all your money already!
You have 3 options for this extra money:
A. Banking the money won't help stimulate the economy. It'll just sit there.
B. Putting it into overseas accounts or shares will in fact hurt the economy as the NET flow can become negative.
C. Investing in local companies can help the economy. But only if they use it to invest in domestic economy and not to send their factories to Mexico. Also it'll only help the local economy if it invests in the local area.
So 1 out of 3. Meanwhile tax take goes down, which hurts govt spending and possibly the economy.
Back to the poor person: They only have one option - spending the money. Times this by several million ppl and you have a healthy growing (local)economy. This money is taxed at least twice (first from the wage-earner, then from the retailer), thus raising govt revenue. Because more ppl are spending, more jobs are created and revenue increases, which can negate the effect of the min. pay increase. It's a win-win situation. So where is the problem? Personally I think if a company manager who claims their company can't stay open if it has to pay it's workers a few cents p/hour more than the $5.15 must be so appalling in their business skills that they don't deserve to be managers.
And b4 you say it, yes there are obviously limits to what the minimum wage should be. The above works only up to a point. Raising it to $50 p/hour for eg is obviously not a good idea. But Kerry's not advocating this.
If you want further reading, check these out:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004
Testimony before congress over the minimum wage increase and its effects on small business. (There is none)
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage
Which has all their articles about the minimum wage issue
BTW did you know that the minimum wage hasn't been raised for 7 years? How much inflation has there been in that time? Also when it was first introduced it was at 50% of the average wage. Now it's at 33%.

Ohh, to back up my opine about managers, I see someone far greater than me said it, and in a far better way (hate it when that happens!):

Franklin Roosevelt (urging passage of minimum wage legislation)

2) Never said flip flopping was an issue. Actually read my post and you would know that.

4) I expect Kerry to resign from the senate as virtually all senators running before them have. I told you this in my earlier message. Kerry has been routinely absent far before the primaries started. He was absent a high amont of the time in comittee meetings in the intelligence comittee. Bush on the other hand is the incumbent for him to resign would be to give up his chances on the presidency.

5) Actually increased wages do effect the American economy.
A- The United States is already shipping more and more jobs overseas to places with cheap labor. Raising minimum wage laws will encourage an even greater exodus. This is partially why France, UK, and other higher costing labor markets suffer more than the US.
B- Never said that raising minimum wage increased cost totally. I basically said it cant help the American economy. Look to every domestic intellectual and they will tell you the same thing.
C- The price at the pump has not hit as high as it will. It lags behind the prices the oil is bought for in Saudi Arabia. In the real world hundreds of tons of oil isn't instantly and magically teleported to the US from the middle east or Russia. The US also can aleviate prices to gas with its own supply as it has done many times before.
D- I said tax cuts were highly ineffective way of raising economic gain. So why isn't Kerry against them? Hmmm....

I dont see how raising overhead to small businesses will help the economy in the US. Prove that minimum wage laws help the economy. How is talking against a raise advocate slavery? Why not earn additions to salary?

Trp also makes a good point that minimum wage laws are hardly in the reigns of the federal government. Given that the constitution never says the federal government has power to force wage changes. All powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states.
Given that our system of government is a federal one. And our founding fathers saw importance in a multistage government I think Kerry and his compatriots should leave it to the states.

(Employment Outcomes: Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Small Businesses?

Despite the fact that contemporary economic research casts a long shadow of doubt on the contention that moderate minimum wage increases cause job losses, opponents still lead with this argument.)

Even your researcher says that claims that small business will not be hurt can not be ruled out. Hardly conclusive... I can get people on the senate floor saying that the New York police and fire department are as effective as school children. Does that make it true? (Btw that statement was made by a lead member in the 9/11 comittee)

yes were losing troops in iraq, but its less then a 1% chance of death there first of all, second of all we should try and free those people, repressed people, are ones that will live their entire lives with no hope. atleast we give sum people hope.

Just one thing: That 1% figure is not true. Sure there's 150 000 troops over there and 'only' 1000 have been killed, but you're forgetting that this 150 000 figure includes all personnel. All the naval and airforce ppl (as far I'm aware no soldiers on the ships have been killed, but I could be wrong), and all the non-combat support personnel. While they're in danger, it's not as extreme and constant as the troops in the field.
Then there's the number wounded. This is over the 10 000 mark. This is for ppl needing to be removed from Iraq (doesn't include minor wounds) And let's face it, the death toll is this low because of the body armour and vechicle armour the troops use, so it's not an indication that Iraq is a safe place.
Sorry I can't find wht the frontline troop numbers are (someone help me here pls!!), but I think it's around the 50 000 figure. 11 000 dead or injured.
So the chance of being injured or killed in Iraq is significantly higher than 1%.

Here's an article that makes me shake y head in disbelief:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL
Could a Bush supporter please justify this? How can he be a pro-Army pres who cares about his troop, but wants to cut their pay!
President Bush yesterday swooped into Baghdad for a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit with U.S. troops and, with a tear running down his cheek, said their countrymen "pray for your safety and your strength as you continue to defend America."
From the Washington Times.
Kerry might be a flip-flop, but at least he isn't a hypocritical a$$hole.

BTW there's only 9000 troops in Afghanistan. So I guess capturing the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks isn't important anymore.

Well, first of all, I agree with the opinion that hitting "Republican" or "Democrat" on a ballot & voting that way is probably not the best way to go. I mean, it's hard to read the issues because you find that you're choosing the lesser of two evils, really.

And, in response to your question, I honestly don't know what Kerry would do differently. I think whoever's elected after Bush will have no choice but a slow transition to his/her point of view.

Why would Osama be in Afghanistan right now? Of all places to be? When was the last time you saw a video of him?
Osama would be a nice person to catch I will admit that. But from what I have heard his remaining followers have been running in and out of Pakistan.
God only knows where he is...

It's really really interesting how over half of this thread is simply that Texas1 guy and undecidedterritory slapping each other on the backs and carrying on, and then have the audacity to criticize those 'damn pinko-commie libruls' for not bothering to comment on it.

The only thing I really have the time or inclination to bother with in this is the point about Kerry 'supporting the war'. He has clearly stated on many occasions (TIME magazine interview being one) that he voted to give the 'President' authority to go to war, not a mandate to go to war. Furthermore, his intention (again clearly stated, if necessary ask and I will provide a link or reference) was to give him authority as a last resort.

The fact is, Bush's neo-cons have been planning a war in Iraq, based on whatever grounds is convenient for YEARS. Don't beleive me? go to: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm: a conservative think tank which very clearly states it's contention that what can only be described as Imperialism (aka: "global American Leadership") is the best way to proceed.

Other examples of "global american leadership"- Support of Isreal, Vietnam War....
Perhaps it is this aggressive, 'reaganite' policy that has actually been pissing off all but the meekest of allies of the US (Conservatives in UK included here), rather than some irrational desire for every non-us person to try to kill the US as some actually beleive.

Normally, one would dismiss such ridiculous, myopic policies as those presented on PNAC as just the ravings of some loony jingoistic fringe-group. Think again, scroll down on the page I presented and look at the signatories: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (clot)

As for French/Russian interests in Iraq pre-invasion: As far as I know this is correct, however, one should also balance this agianst the MASSIVE profits that Halliburton (of which I beleive Cheney has at least $45 million in stock options due to his previous position in the company) has reaped from this little enterprize. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is also possible that the French actually looked at the flimsy evidence presented (Challabi, for christ's sake?) and actually called the administration's bluff. Or perhaps, god help us, there may have been individuals around the world, even countries who recognised that the US's abysmal knowledge of the region (particularly that of the Military regarding Middle Eastern culture) would lead to the thousands of Iraqi CIVILIANs dead (conservative estimate based on a compliation of media reports: www.iraqbodycount.org). After all, what the f*ck did you think an invasion would lead to?

Edit: just out of spite, I think I'll use my favourite Rumsfeld quote answer my last question- "we will be hailed by the Iraqi's as liberators". Yeah, just as we were in Vietnam you twit.

Oh, and as for 'flip flops', let's take a look at the biggest one of all :http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Kerry might be a flip-flop, but at least he isn't a hypocritical a$$hole.

How is saying the country is praying for our troops being hypocritical? And I'm glad at least one of you can admit he flip-flops more than an IHOP.

investor scandals


Problem: Do you think that "Kenny Boy" Lay will ever do any serious time?

The Iraqi people's freedom is nothing more then an excuse. They couldn't find any nukes or bio weapons so "we went in to liberate the Iraqi people."

Why aren't we liberating the North Korean people? They have severe power shortages. They face starvation all the time.

Why aren't we liberating 1/2 of the Central and South American countries from the despots that are there?

After 9/11 the shrub had the world in his hand. The world was ready to help us anyway they could. He throws that all away but going into Iraq. Why? "He tried to kill my daddy!" Hmmm could Oil be a factor?

We aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon so the question of liberation is rightfully challenged.

Consider Afghanistan. They were liberated and we leave a token force in a country that is far more screwed up then Iraq. Hmmm nothing to exploit?

Sorry he is not a great president.

It's really really interesting how over half of this thread is simply that Texas1 guy and undecidedterritory slapping each other on the backs and carrying on, and then have the audacity to criticize those 'damn pinko-commie libruls' for not bothering to comment on it.

The only thing I really have the time or inclination to bother with in this is the point about Kerry 'supporting the war'. He has clearly stated on many occasions (TIME magazine interview being one) that he voted to give the 'President' authority to go to war, not a mandate to go to war. Furthermore, his intention (again clearly stated, if necessary ask and I will provide a link or reference) was to give him authority as a last resort.

The fact is, Bush's neo-cons have been planning a war in Iraq, based on whatever grounds is convenient for YEARS. Don't beleive me? go to: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm: a conservative think tank which very clearly states it's contention that what can only be described as Imperialism (aka: "global American Leadership") is the best way to proceed.

Other examples of "global american leadership"- Support of Isreal, Vietnam War....
Perhaps it is this aggressive, 'reaganite' policy that has actually been pissing off all but the meekest of allies of the US (Conservatives in UK included here), rather than some irrational desire for every non-us person to try to kill the US as some actually beleive.

Normally, one would dismiss such ridiculous, myopic policies as those presented on PNAC as just the ravings of some loony jingoistic fringe-group. Think again, scroll down on the page I presented and look at the signatories: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (clot)

As for French/Russian interests in Iraq pre-invasion: As far as I know this is correct, however, one should also balance this agianst the MASSIVE profits that Halliburton (of which I beleive Cheney has at least $45 million in stock options due to his previous position in the company) has reaped from this little enterprize. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is also possible that the French actually looked at the flimsy evidence presented (Challabi, for christ's sake?) and actually called the administration's bluff. Or perhaps, god help us, there may have been individuals around the world, even countries who recognised that the US's abysmal knowledge of the region (particularly that of the Military regarding Middle Eastern culture) would lead to the thousands of Iraqi CIVILIANs dead (conservative estimate based on a compliation of media reports: www.iraqbodycount.org). After all, what the f*ck did you think an invasion would lead to?

Edit: just out of spite, I think I'll use my favourite Rumsfeld quote answer my last question- "we will be hailed by the Iraqi's as liberators". Yeah, just as we were in Vietnam you twit.

Oh, and as for 'flip flops', let's take a look at the biggest one of all :http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

ok so considering theres an entire site dedicated to this planning by the neo cons, do u think kerry would not have realized this? He's a politician he kno's everything. He's just saving face on iraq because it became unpopular.

When you invade a country theres gunna be alot of deaths, thats what an invasion does, i dont see why people are so shcoked.
The one problem with our society is everyone is quick to judge and say something is wrong. The truth is we wont know if iraq was better off until about 10 years. If in ten years iraq isnt better off, then bush would have been the worst president in a long freakin time. But, if in ten years iraq IS better off, and we have a more democratic less threatening more amiable mideast? then i believe the sacrifices were worth the end.
And if you ask if there was a draft would i go?
Yes i would
Im just not volunteering : )

as far as cheney goes, i dont like him or rumsfeld i really dislike them both. Thats why i plan on voting for a democrat if bush finishes his 8 years.

How is saying the country is praying for our troops being hypocritical? And I'm glad at least one of you can admit he flip-flops more than an IHOP.
I meant the article above and quote to go together. I meant how can he say he's praying for his troops, thus implying he cares deeply for them, yet supports cutting their pay. That's Grade-A Hypocrisy in my opinion.

Problem: Do you think that "Kenny Boy" Lay will ever do any serious time?

The Iraqi people's freedom is nothing more then an excuse. They couldn't find any nukes or bio weapons so "we went in to liberate the Iraqi people."

Why aren't we liberating the North Korean people? They have severe power shortages. They face starvation all the time.

Why aren't we liberating 1/2 of the Central and South American countries from the despots that are there?

After 9/11 the shrub had the world in his hand. The world was ready to help us anyway they could. He throws that all away but going into Iraq. Why? "He tried to kill my daddy!" Hmmm could Oil be a factor?

We aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon so the question of liberation is rightfully challenged.

Consider Afghanistan. They were liberated and we leave a token force in a country that is far more screwed up then Iraq. Hmmm nothing to exploit?

Sorry he is not a great president.

do you actually think under gore, or kerry that kenny boy lay would actually do any more time?
same thing different president. Thats a problem with our judicial system.

Well i never agreed with the iraq war, but i do see the cause let me put it like that.
we never left germany yet look at them today.
we may have control of iraq right now but we wont in about 4 years once theyve elected a few people.thats the true test.

North korea HAS nukes no question about it, if we attacked them imagine wut they could do? Not only that but china prolly wouldnt let us do it, and i dont think we want to really start a war with china.
The african countries, i completely agree we SHOULD liberate them, but alot of people dont think its the united states job.

and as far as afghanistan, we should completely put more troops there.

ok so considering theres an entire site dedicated to this planning by the neo cons, do u think kerry would not have realized this? He's a politician he kno's everything. He's just saving face on iraq because it became unpopular.

When you invade a country theres gunna be alot of deaths, thats what an invasion does, i dont see why people are so shcoked.
The one problem with our society is everyone is quick to judge and say something is wrong. The truth is we wont know if iraq was better off until about 10 years. If in ten years iraq isnt better off, then bush would have been the worst president in a long freakin time. But, if in ten years iraq IS better off, and we have a more democratic less threatening more amiable mideast? then i believe the sacrifices were worth the end.
And if you ask if there was a draft would i go?
Yes i would
Im just not volunteering : )

as far as cheney goes, i dont like him or rumsfeld i really dislike them both. Thats why i plan on voting for a democrat if bush finishes his 8 years.

That's just it isn't, is Iraq going to be better off?

Iraq's Shi'ite muslim (reasonably conservative/fundamentalist) majority is going to be given a vote: now, what one factor during the invasion and during Saddam was a constant and a stable element of this group's lives? Religion (even though the government under Saddam was effectively secular).

So in a country that is as chaotic as Iraq is and has been, what is a religious majority likely to vote for? A religious party that is going to promise stablity- fundamentalist relgion rarely changes by it's very nature- and unity for a majority which has not had it's relgious views in power ever in the countries history(most likely, although I am basing this on facts as current, this is still speculation).

The answer then is, we may end up with a more moderate version of Saudia Arabia/Iran, or we could get another goddamn Taliban. The fact that the Neo-cons honestly beleived the democracy that would eventuate from all this would be a secular, pro-business one (ala, Europe, Taiwan etc) basically sums up a disturbing lack of forsight.

The fact that people are honestly advocating another 4 years of Neo-con myopicy is perhaps the most disturbing fact of them all (Rumsfeld, Wolfie and Slim Cheney).

Like Clinton, the Neo-cons are NOT going part of Kerry's planned cabinet (damn librul).

That's just it isn't, is Iraq going to be better off?

Iraq's Shi'ite muslim (reasonably conservative/fundamentalist) majority is going to be given a vote: now, what one factor during the invasion and during Saddam was a constant and a stable element of this group's lives? Religion (even though the government under Saddam was effectively secular).

So in a country that is as chaotic as Iraq is and has been, what is a religious majority likely to vote for? A religious party that is going to promise stablity- fundamentalist relgion rarely changes by it's very nature- and unity for a majority which has not had it's relgious views in power ever in the countries history(most likely, although I am basing this on facts as current, this is still speculation).

The answer then is, we may end up with a more moderate version of Saudia Arabia/Iran, or we could get another goddamn Taliban. The fact that the Neo-cons honestly beleived the democracy that would eventuate from all this would be a secular, pro-business one (ala, Europe, Taiwan etc) basically sums up a disturbing lack of forsight.

The fact that people are honestly advocating another 4 years of Neo-con myopicy is perhaps the most disturbing fact of them all (Rumsfeld, Wolfie and Slim Cheney).

Like Clinton, the Neo-cons are NOT going part of Kerry's planned cabinet (damn librul).

this all depends on how their governemtn gets formed wihtin the next few months. If sufficient checks and balances, and a consitution is written that doesnt allow for another fascist type of regime to take charge easily, then maybe it wont turn out so bad.You have to think, that the leadership will have 3 vice presidents. a turk, a shiite and a sunni. thats a check and a balance in itself, they wont allow the other party to get rich off the others, like was the case with saddam.

4. Kerry, unlike many Senators, chooses his battles. The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless.

This might sound good and all, but it violates the very reason he's in the Senate in the first place. The people of Mass. elected him to represent them. If Kerry considers a piece of legislation "worthless" then it's his duty to vote against it. If he considers 80% of votes not worth bothering with, then what the heck is he doing in there? What does he get paid for? It's to make the voices of Mass. heard in the US Senate. By not voting, he is not doing his job.

Besides.. research is what staffers are for. Dont be so naive to think he does all his own research.

It's really really interesting how over half of this thread is simply that Texas1 guy and undecidedterritory slapping each other on the backs and carrying on, and then have the audacity to criticize those 'damn pinko-commie libruls' for not bothering to comment on it.

The only thing I really have the time or inclination to bother with in this is the point about Kerry 'supporting the war'. He has clearly stated on many occasions (TIME magazine interview being one) that he voted to give the 'President' authority to go to war, not a mandate to go to war. Furthermore, his intention (again clearly stated, if necessary ask and I will provide a link or reference) was to give him authority as a last resort.

The fact is, Bush's neo-cons have been planning a war in Iraq, based on whatever grounds is convenient for YEARS. Don't beleive me? go to: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm: a conservative think tank which very clearly states it's contention that what can only be described as Imperialism (aka: "global American Leadership") is the best way to proceed.

Other examples of "global american leadership"- Support of Isreal, Vietnam War....
Perhaps it is this aggressive, 'reaganite' policy that has actually been pissing off all but the meekest of allies of the US (Conservatives in UK included here), rather than some irrational desire for every non-us person to try to kill the US as some actually beleive.

Normally, one would dismiss such ridiculous, myopic policies as those presented on PNAC as just the ravings of some loony jingoistic fringe-group. Think again, scroll down on the page I presented and look at the signatories: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (clot)

As for French/Russian interests in Iraq pre-invasion: As far as I know this is correct, however, one should also balance this agianst the MASSIVE profits that Halliburton (of which I beleive Cheney has at least $45 million in stock options due to his previous position in the company) has reaped from this little enterprize. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is also possible that the French actually looked at the flimsy evidence presented (Challabi, for christ's sake?) and actually called the administration's bluff. Or perhaps, god help us, there may have been individuals around the world, even countries who recognised that the US's abysmal knowledge of the region (particularly that of the Military regarding Middle Eastern culture) would lead to the thousands of Iraqi CIVILIANs dead (conservative estimate based on a compliation of media reports: www.iraqbodycount.org). After all, what the f*ck did you think an invasion would lead to?

Edit: just out of spite, I think I'll use my favourite Rumsfeld quote answer my last question- "we will be hailed by the Iraqi's as liberators". Yeah, just as we were in Vietnam you twit.

Oh, and as for 'flip flops', let's take a look at the biggest one of all :http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

All of your Kerry stuff comes from the post-war period. If you look at what he actually said when they voted on "authorization" many senators knew it was a go ahead for war. Kerry drops hints like this in his campaign speech when he said, "50 years of peace following WW2." When asked about the many wars in those fifty years he said without congressional oversight. (He must have forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution)
Kerry mentions many times that he would vote for that same authorization bill. Even now even after he knows that Bush was going in. All of Kerry's critiques say that war in Iraq would help us in the region. Mcain and many like him said, "BWCs and nuclear weapons being delivered to America consisted a threat to the United States." When asked about this in an interview Kerry claimed that to be one of many threats Saddam posed to the United States.

Lets also look at it from a Gore vrs. Bush arena. When Bush and Gore had their debates in 2000 Gore was for nation building. Gore with Clinton had gone into Yugoslavia and Somalia (before running) and he still stood by nation building. I believe Gore would have found Iraq to be just like the other situations considering him and Clinton feared Saddam while in office. In the late 90's Clinton bombed Iraq in an operation called, "Desert Fox." So lets not paint the whole Iraq issue as a conservative one.

Apart from that I believe Iraq did on the majority believe in US power especially after the hand over. Have you noticed that most of the rebellion is limited to Baghdad and Najaf?
And that those patriotic Iraqis are killing their own people in droves? Vietnam was a diff. story Bao Dai was a cruel puppet that did not even share the same religion or ideology as South Vietnam. Comparing everything to Vietnam shows how ignorant you are on Iraq.

Btw Halliburton has been used by the US military in rebuilding contracts for many years. It was used exclusively through the Clinton era. Also no bright line. No research go watch some more Xenophobic rants from Michael Moore the lefts favorite anti-semite.

Being quite a bit farther to the left than he is, I am not exactly a member of the Kerry fan club. So, my answers may not satisfy strong Kerry supporters any more than they please Bush fans. But, I think I'll add my two cents anyway.




To be honest, I think you may be right -- or pretty damn close to it. Like I said, I'm no Kerry fan, so I'm not that interested. I probably won't like what happens either way.

However, I don't think it matters to most Kerry supporters, not because they are ignorant, but because they believe that Bush has made huge mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere (if not outright lying about them). And what Kerry supporters are terribly afraid of is that Bush will continue to make such mistakes, and that these will be very costly.

Moreover, most Kerry supporters realize that his options are severely limited in the Iraq situation.

In other words, Bush got us there, and maybe Kerry can do better, maybe not. But, Kerry supporters are willing to bet that Kerry is less likely to do worse.

Now, you will complain that this is "just" bush-bashing. But, you have to admit that it's reasonable Bush-bashing, if you believe that Bush's policies have been mistakes (or outright lies). But that comes down to a matter of what information you trust, etc... It has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the argument once that decision has been made.



Answer one: His information changed. A perfectly reasonable answer... the only way to critique it would be to show that his information, in fact, never changed.

Answer two: Bills are complicated things, to which any number of add-ons might be attached that the public never really hears about. Admittedly, to see if this is the case on particular bills on which Kerry "flip-flopped," one would have to read the full text and see if anything substantive changed. I have not done this. Personally, I think the most responsible thing your average voter can do, without spending the hours required to review all relevant legislation, is find some organizations whose basic philosophy and goals they agree with, and see what they think of the candidate. Most of them monitor votes very closely, and they will tell you how strong a candidate really is on the issues that matter to you. (I admit I have not done this either, being that I will probably write-in a vote for "none of the above." If invite you to show that kind of substantive flip-flopping.)

Answer three: What's wrong with flip-flopping, as long as the shift mirrors a shift in public opinion (especially in one's home state, for a Senator)? The Founders designed this government to be responsive because representatives depend on people to stay in power... and they should therefore be expected to vote the way "we" want them to. Show me a Federalist Paper that says representatives should actually believe in the things they vote for. (This was actually more of an issue for anti-federalists who wanted representatives from all classes.)



First, if you believe that Bush lied, then most of the Senate was apparently fooled by him. You cannot simply single out Kerry as if trust was his downfall. So, the issue comes back to whether or not Bush lied.

Secondly, someone has already mentioned that, while Kerry may have expressed concerns about Saddam and WMD, he did not suggest going to war over it. This seems like a pretty accurate statement to me.

Thirdly, perhaps you should read up on the history that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. role in provoking the war suggests that we wanted Saddam out before we identified him as a "threat to the region." In other words, national security concerns were not strong enough even then before Saddam's military was beaten and his economy destroyed. But you believe since then he became more of a threat?



I can't. In fact, I'll even agree with you that it doesn't look good. Of course, I agree with other posters here that not every bill requires a vote, and some votes may be determined before they are even cast. But that only goes so far. This, I think, is a perfectly valid criticism of Kerry.

Of course, one has to ask how it stands up to Bush's liberal vacation record.



Prices may go up. The economic theory conservatives apply to the issue is far too simple. They think that more $$$ in otherwise poor pockets equals increased demand, and increased demand means higher prices. Only the last part is necessarily true (and even there, temporarily higher prices may encourage new producers to enter the market, so that it all basically balances out in the long run).

First, as someone has already pointed out, we are dealing with an extremely high debt level. Under these conditions, more money in a persons pocket could very well go toward paying off credit cards, which will not directly affect prices of consumer goods.

Secondly, price changes are not likely to affect all sectors of the economy equally. At any given time, each person is getting by at a different income level, and is capable of buying only a limited number of the things they want. Some things, like staple foods, pretty much everyone buys already, and their consumption of such goods is not likely to increase dramatically with a pay raise. As you get further away from "necessaries," people are able to afford less. Thus with an increase in the minimum wage, you are not going to see a price increase in the most basic goods, which is what conservatives implicitly threaten when they say such increases never do any good. What you may see is a price increase on entertainment, finer foods, and so on...

So "what good have you done"? Plenty. Staple products retain a stable price, so the lowest paid workers can afford things they didn't have before... which, of course, acts as a stimulus to production, as noted above. Even if the prices of some goods increase to the point that the lowest paid workers again cannot afford them, you provide an economic stimulus that does not give up valuable government revenue.



I guess it depends on whether or not you want to take him at his word. He says now that he only wants to increase taxes on the wealthy... and honestly, that's fine with me. Its impact on demand, at any rate, will be marginal.



Well, he can always spend a whole lot... create some work to be done. But, it's complicated either way. I will admit that "creating jobs" is usually an empty political promise, and is probably so in this case. If there were a simple formula for creating jobs, even Bush could have done better.

:mp5:

Thanks for giving your 2 cents. We may not be on the same side of the flow but I appreciate someone else looking deeper into things that YAY BUSH. Or yay Kerry.

Secondly let me elaborate that I am not a hardcore Bush supporter. I sympathize with him however because of his causes in abortion and Iraq. I like many democrats of the Wilsonian era have been disenfranchised and have to fall somewhere in between both parties. Why is it the democrats cease to believe in democracy? These people drafted democratic peace theory under the Truman Doctrine I just don't understand it.

This might sound good and all, but it violates the very reason he's in the Senate in the first place. The people of Mass. elected him to represent them. If Kerry considers a piece of legislation "worthless" then it's his duty to vote against it. If he considers 80% of votes not worth bothering with, then what the heck is he doing in there? What does he get paid for? It's to make the voices of Mass. heard in the US Senate. By not voting, he is not doing his job.

Besides.. research is what staffers are for. Dont be so naive to think he does all his own research.

I find his lack of attendance to intelligence comittee hearings more damning than voting on general things.

In response to the person who said for every Kerry flip flop, Bush has two flip flops... ummmm... well whoever you are you better be good. I have a list of 39 documented Kerry Flip Flops.... so I challenge you to come up with a list of 78 flip flops of George W. Bush.

Normally I would put up the list of all 39 documented flip flops, but that would take a while.... unless a lot of people request it, then I may post it or do something like that.

Kerry worries me because I think he is just going to go with whatever is popular at the moment and he wont stand his ground, like Bush has on the war or terror and the war in Iraq. I also happen to be an Econ major and by looking at what he "promises" to do, I personally believe he is going to put the economy into another deep recession.

Thats kind of how I stand Godrinth. Except for the flip-flopping issue this is used against nearly every Senator running for presidential election.

sicne this thread is filled with ignorance, either purposeful or coincidental, it deserves a stupid reply since intelligent debate and reasoning will be attacked with smoke and mirrors


When Kerry gets elected he will eat a baby and appoint Mr T secretary of homeland security and sean connery to be cia director

Okay. Just do a GIS for "Bush flip-flops"

Don't ignore a site just because it's liberal. Try reading it, and then if you find something you can actually point to as factually incorrect, then you are free to ignore it. Otherwise, don't try the, "it's a lie because it's on a liberal website." trick.

Conservatives/Republicans/Neo-Cons have an amazing ability to simply look through information that contradicts their views as if it didn't exist.

I think liberal's arguments are diluted, because as liberals, we have many different perspectives and priorities. As liberals, we tend to "walk to the beat of a differerent drum," by definition, so our message isn't as laser precise as the conservative's. Also, we tend to look at both (or the several) sides of an issue, and that is somehow perceived as a flip-flop, or as being less strong in our convictions. Well, at least that's how the conservatives like to define it.

I get sick of the conservative back-patting and exclamations of "they have nothing!" even AFTER we liberals post a long response. It gets wearing, so eventually we give up, and just start calling those conservatives responsible names like "knuckle-dragging heartless bastards" and "fascist puppets" and "Mr T." Okay, maybe not that last one.

Yes, I know I've made some generalizations here, and I know liberals are guilty of such behavior as well (gasp, I just weakened my position!)

Okay. Just do a GIS for "Bush flip-flops"

Don't ignore a site just because it's liberal. Try reading it, and then if you find something you can actually point to as factually incorrect, then you are free to ignore it. Otherwise, don't try the, "it's a lie because it's on a liberal website." trick.

Conservatives/Republicans/Neo-Cons have an amazing ability to simply look through information that contradicts their views as if it didn't exist.

I think liberal's arguments are diluted, because as liberals, we have many different perspectives and priorities. As liberals, we tend to "walk to the beat of a differerent drum," by definition, so our message isn't as laser precise as the conservative's. Also, we tend to look at both (or the several) sides of an issue, and that is somehow perceived as a flip-flop, or as being less strong in our convictions. Well, at least that's how the conservatives like to define it.

I get sick of the conservative back-patting and exclamations of "they have nothing!" even AFTER we liberals post a long response. It gets wearing, so eventually we give up, and just start calling those conservatives responsible names like "knuckle-dragging heartless bastards" and "fascist puppets" and "Mr T." Okay, maybe not that last one.

Yes, I know I've made some generalizations here, and I know liberals are guilty of such behavior as well (gasp, I just weakened my position!)

I don't think either party looks at the other side. I mean I have yet to talk to a democrat about abortion without them getting red and the face and calling me a nazi. Yes I think you do use generalizations. There are plenty of moderates in both parties such as Chuck Hagel, Ben Nelson (both of which are my senators), McCain and Zel Miller.
I think what people fail to realize is that the answers are not going to come from on party. I admire Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Harding. But that does not mean that Clinton and Truman can not also be admired. Democracy is not about picking the right party it is about making ethical decisions on whose platform you can live with. If you are looking close enough you will find things you hate in both parties.
Rep- Death Penalty, merging of mass media
Dem- Abortion, socialized medicine
But despite what you think the majority of these people are out to help you. I may have made fun of both Kerry and Bush I truly believe that they both love America.

Btw the republicans are much more liberal in some areas then democrats. Namely on the economy they are very liberal (with the exception of Bill Clinton who is hardly democrat.)

sicne this thread is filled with ignorance, either purposeful or coincidental, it deserves a stupid reply since intelligent debate and reasoning will be attacked with smoke and mirrors


When Kerry gets elected he will eat a baby and appoint Mr T secretary of homeland security and sean connery to be cia director

When you learn to capitalize and make sound sentences. Then and only then will I listen to your snap judgements of ignorance.
I don't see any reason to your post at all.

Hey liberal socialists (democrats)..
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!1!!! This is hilarious. He thinks the Democrats are left-wing.

increases taxes on the rich ( which would only pay for 1/3 of his spending increases)
At least he will be able to pay for some of his spending increases, unlike Bush. Deficit anyone?

At least he will be able to pay for some of his spending increases, unlike Bush. Deficit anyone?

Kind of like FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Carter. Amazing how all of those deficits turned out... You also fail to realize that the US has been running a balance of payments deficit for nearly a hundred years.
The government spending deficit may have turned surplus under Clinton but we were far in the hole on balance of payments deficits.

It frightens me to think of how Mr. kerry would run the country. The social policy of Jimmy Carter with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. God help us.

:eek:

All of your Kerry stuff comes from the post-war period. If you look at what he actually said when they voted on "authorization" many senators knew it was a go ahead for war. Kerry drops hints like this in his campaign speech when he said, "50 years of peace following WW2." When asked about the many wars in those fifty years he said without congressional oversight. (He must have forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution).

...ummm, care to back that one up with examples/evidence?

Kerry mentions many times that he would vote for that same authorization bill. Even now even after he knows that Bush was going in. All of Kerry's critiques say that war in Iraq would help us in the region.

Authorization part: aside from from the fact that you have acknowledged that the bill was "authorization" and not a "mandate" (the two are very different see), the fact that Kerry would 'authorize' the president to use war doesn't change just because the facts are now foudn to be different, he felt even now that Bush, at the time, required the authorization to go to war as that was the evidence he had (before the post-war revelation that WMDs were not actually in iraq). Think about this one for a bit?

Mcain and many like him said, "BWCs and nuclear weapons being delivered to America consisted a threat to the United States." When asked about this in an interview Kerry claimed that to be one of many threats Saddam posed to the United States..

Yeah, he said this before the war, based on the intelligence that also (according to conservatives here), misled bush as well. Everyone was saying so, because that is what the intelligence agencies were saying. What's your point?

Lets also look at it from a Gore vrs. Bush arena. When Bush and Gore had their debates in 2000 Gore was for nation building. Gore with Clinton had gone into Yugoslavia and Somalia (before running) and he still stood by nation building. I believe Gore would have found Iraq to be just like the other situations considering him and Clinton feared Saddam while in office. In the late 90's Clinton bombed Iraq in an operation called, "Desert Fox." So lets not paint the whole Iraq issue as a conservative one..

Difference between Clinton's actions and Bush's pro-neo con ones: proposed occupation of Iraq by US forces, based on no overt threat at the time of writing (PNAC letter by Cheney and co was written in 1997). I'm not sure the point of Desert Fox was, but there is a clear difference between the bombing of a few installations, and the deliberate manipulation of a potential threat of WMD's in Iraq as a way of furthering a long-time goal (replacement of a more pro-US regime in the area in order to increase US hegemony in the region through the use of a more stable ally than Saudi Arabia)


Apart from that I believe Iraq did on the majority believe in US power especially after the hand over. Have you noticed that most of the rebellion is limited to Baghdad and Najaf?
And that those patriotic Iraqis are killing their own people in droves? Vietnam was a diff. story Bao Dai was a cruel puppet that did not even share the same religion or ideology as South Vietnam. Comparing everything to Vietnam shows how ignorant you are on Iraq.

The first statement is 1) your belief (based on what is another question) and 2) wrong, the most intense bit of late has been in these areas (and Fallujah etc), but definately NOT limited to it.

Actually I would contend that you are clearly not up to speed on any parallels between Iraq and Nam, allow me to demonstrate.

1) No clear enemy : Who the F*ck do we consider a terrorist/dissident in iraq (parallel: VC in Nam was exactly the same, no clear uniform or other identification overall for US troops to make a correct decision on). They do not walk around with "I'm an anti-american fighter" on their chest, and this has allowed them to launch surprise attacks.

2) As far as we know (based on polls of a few thousand people from various areas and backgrounds and logic-based conjecture), the perception of even the peaceful majority of the Iraqis is that the US should go, as soon as possible. That's the best case scenario. On the other hand however, clearly many of the anti-US fighters see the US as an imperialist force in Iraq (whether it is or not), and even those in the US administation

In fact, just check out this link (for others just use Google for gods sake, there are about 21.000 results) for a whole lot of other parallels

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-04.htm

2) Never said flip flopping was an issue. Actually read my post and you would know that.

Umm...Actually you did. If you read your first post you would see 6 lines down this:
2. Explain his flip-flops
So I did. There's only been one: voting against the $87 Billion, and as someone else pointed out maybe he was in support of the war considering the information that was being presented at the time, but then became against the way it was being run, and as new information showed the initial info was vastly exaggerrated and carefully selected.. Which is why he voted for the war but months later against the $87 Billion.

He also supported the $87 billion when a draft of the bill included a (slight) rollback of the Bush tax cuts to pay for it. When the responsibility went away, so did Kerry's support. Not hard to understand, really.

When Kerry gets elected he will eat a baby and appoint Mr T secretary of homeland security and sean connery to be cia director
Mr T secretary of homeland security and Jesse Ventura head of the FBI. That'll rock!

It frightens me to think of how Mr. kerry would run the country. The social policy of Jimmy Carter with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. God help us.
Foreign policy of Clinton: So like what? Brokering a peace deal between the IRA and Britain after 30 years of intense fighting and bombing? Or what about brokering a deal between Israel and Palestine after 50 years of intense fighting and bombing?
Heaven forbid the US gets a President more interested in peaceful solutions to conflicts, eh? :rolleyes:

He also supported the $87 billion when a draft of the bill included a (slight) rollback of the Bush tax cuts to pay for it. When the responsibility went away, so did Kerry's support. Not hard to understand, really.
Ohh, so that's why he says he first voted for it, then against it! Thank you, that's a point our right-wing friends never quite manage to bring up.

Iraq had violated UN resolutions, violated the gulf war cease fire ( the only nation doing that to us in the world) american, British, Russian, And UN intelligence said he had dangerous weapons. Hardly "random". I know you are anti-war, but random is not the word. Perhaps misinformed, perhaps even a mistake, but not random.

OK Let's invade Israel - they are in breach of more UN resolutions than Iraq was.

u cant listen to Kerry, his fellow swift boat patrol said he self-inflicted wounds on him to get purple hearts...talk about dishonor...

Even if these attacks were true, which they have been proven not to be by a little thing called military documents, the fact remailns that John Kerry did volunteer and serve in actual combat in Vietnam. GW did not. He could not even bother to fly outdated training planes in the Air National Guard for as long as he was supposed to. Kerry's recoerds are open to examination. GW's are sealed. We get to see some fuzzy copies of paystubs which prove nothing. Even if Kerry exxagerated some claims, which I agree he may have, the fact that his service is Vietnam is being questioned and used as an issue by the GOP front group Swiftboaters is a joke considering the "record" of Bush.

Note, I am not saying I support Kerry. Both candidates suck, one more than another. Extremists on both sides need to wake up and see that it is the Republicrats, two different sides of what is essentially the same corporate controlled government coin that are F'ing us all in one way or another.

As for the president affecting the economy, Congress has just as much influence of the path of the Economy as the President.

Kerry's recoerds are open to examination. GW's are sealed.
You got that backwards, buddy. Bush's records have been released. It's Kerry who's still holding back.

now, i haven't had a chance to read all of the posts, but concerning the topic of mr. kerry, how can you respect someone whose entire campaign is centered around the phrase "i'm not HIM" *points to bush with a look of disgust*

it is childish and unacceptable.

u cant listen to Kerry, his fellow swift boat patrol said he self-inflicted wounds on him to get purple hearts...talk about dishonor...

Uh, the swift boat vets against Kerry have largely been discredited. I realize that won't stop people from using it because the uninformed would probably still believe it. However, on this form most of the posters who post to the political threads tend to be informed on some level, more so usually then the average voter. So I wouldn't use the discredted swift boat vets against Kerry as my argument if I was you. Just a word of advice.. ;)

Uh, the swift boat vets against Kerry have largely been discredited. I realize that won't stop people from using it because the uninformed would probably still believe it. However, on this form most of the posters who post to the political threads tend to be informed on some level, more so usually then the average voter. So I wouldn't use the discredted swift boat vets against Kerry as my argument if I was you. Just a word of advice.. ;)


lol yeah it's that damned liberal media lying thru their teeth to save their neo liberal socialist hero Kerry because of the vast left wing conspiracy

Uh, the swift boat vets against Kerry have largely been discredited. I realize that won't stop people from using it because the uninformed would probably still believe it. However, on this form most of the posters who post to the political threads tend to be informed on some level, more so usually then the average voter. So I wouldn't use the discredted swift boat vets against Kerry as my argument if I was you. Just a word of advice.. ;)


The only people who have discredited it are largely the DNC and the elite media. And in my opinon, it is a lot harder to get 254 people to lie(the number of swift boat veterens for truth) than 14(the number supporting Kerry. The only thing I remember being discredited is Kerry's 30 year claim of spending Christmas in Cambodia, and at least one of his purple heart claims, in which the Democrats own website said something like Kerry wounds may have been caused by an accident or something like that.

u cant listen to Kerry, his fellow swift boat patrol said he self-inflicted wounds on him to get purple hearts...talk about dishonor...

Oh yeah right, Kerry just goes around digging a knife into his leg or whatever to win a medal. And recently the Navy has shown records that his boat was underfire.

The only people who have discredited it are largely the DNC and the elite media. And in my opinon, it is a lot harder to get 254 people to lie(the number of swift boat veterens for truth) than 14(the number supporting Kerry. The only thing I remember being discredited is Kerry's 30 year claim of spending Christmas in Cambodia, and at least one of his purple heart claims, in which the Democrats own website said something like Kerry wounds may have been caused by an accident or something like that.

trolling for donuts are we?

The only people who have discredited it are largely the DNC and the elite media. And in my opinon, it is a lot harder to get 254 people to lie(the number of swift boat veterens for truth) than 14(the number supporting Kerry. The only thing I remember being discredited is Kerry's 30 year claim of spending Christmas in Cambodia, and at least one of his purple heart claims, in which the Democrats own website said something like Kerry wounds may have been caused by an accident or something like that.

Where Kerry spent x-mas 1968 is certainly quite irrelevant. If the "elite media" equals every respected paper and news outlet who has investigated their claims, believe as you wish.. just don't expect thinking people who actually believe the "elite media" over some vets who have held a 35 year grudge against Kerry for his anti-war heroism when he got back from 'Nam.

Thanks. It is a test. I would just like to hear one Kerry supporter give me
a logical breakdown on what they think they are getting from him. It really disturbs me that all I see posted is Bush bashing, and radical, biased, completely uninformed opinions and no facts to back up what they say. You notice the difference in postings from the right and the left. I would not condemn someone for a logical and rational Kerry response, but I have yet to hear one yet. And I am a political junkie.

I will do my best.
First off, to all those who say you can't vote AGAINST someone... you sure as hell can! I don't think Kerry is the ideal president, but I think he's a hell of a lot better than George W. Bush. As I've said before, I'll take flip-flops over someone whose policy I KNOW I'll disagree with.


1. Since Bush has burned all his bridges to international diplomacy, it'll require a changing of the guard to effect international cooperation in Iraq so that America isn't footing the entire bill in dollars and our young men and women's lives.
To whoever said that we had no international diplomacy to begin with... September 11 is a great example. All of a sudden, we had the support of most of the nations on the planet. We had the opportunity to affect real change, and we squandered it. Not only did we lose our legitimacy by pursuing a false target in the "War on Terrorism," we've actually cut terrorism funding from our budget since 9/11. The Clinton years were when the talk on anti-terrorism actually started, and the Bush administration dramatically scaled it back upon coming into office. For reference, please check out the 9/11 Comission Report- Bipartisan and free on the internet.

Just as a general worthless fact: George H.W. Bush once threw up on the Japanese Foreign Minister.


2. Name a flip-flop and I will explain it. I could give you 2 Bush flip-flops for every one of Kerry's.
"I support education- that's why I created the No Child Left Behind act, which left behind more children than ever before."
"Heating programs for low-income families? I'll approve the measure- then take back all the money and put it toward tax breaks for the wealthy."
"I support families- but only if they're heterosexual couples who have children without ever using contraception (which is legal in the U.S.)"
"I'll give an extra $15 billion to UN AIDS programs! Wait... we're already giving $15 billion? Eh... nevermind."


3. Kerry and others may have believed that Saddam had WMD's, but none of them thought the case was strong enough to justify the War...and they were right.
To the Bushies: Where are the WMDs, eh? We never HAD any information. We had photos of crop-dusting airplanes, which might have been used for chemical weapons. Or maybe just to dust crops. In 1961, JFK went to Charles deGaulle with top secret information that Russia was storing nuclear weapons in Cuba. DeGualle did not ask to see the information, saying that he knew the president would never lie to him. I wish we still had that kind of credibility. Instead, GW is trying to use the fact that a turkey farm in LIBYA was hiding mustard gas. Nice try, wrong continent. If we were really worried about WMDs, we'd go after North Korea, who we know has them. The US never would have attacked Iraq if they feared Iraq could retaliate with nuclear missiles.
FYI: Iraq DID have chemical and biological weapons. We gave them to them in the 1980s. And then we ordered them destroyed after Kuwait.
-"As Paul Freundlich put it at the start of the war: 'All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the U.N.'s ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the U.N.'s word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend it. Am I getting this right?' " (Ivans, Bushwhacked, 269)



4. Kerry, unlike many Senators, chooses his battles. The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless.
Kerry hasn't shown up for a lot of votes. Guess what? NEITHER HAVE MOST OTHER SENATORS. Kerry's record is more or less average. Hey tons of senators voted for the Patriot Act without ever having read it. FYI: Patriot Act II is coming up. It has the power to declare websites terrorist organizations. If you are labeled a terrorist (proof not required, just Ashcroft's stamp of approval), you automatically lose your citizenship (and with it, right to a trial, etc.)
Hey if Kerry didn't vote to rename French Fries "Freedom Fries," is it possible he had other things to do?
"Massholes" are some of the most brilliant people I know. Rock on for such a liberal state. And mad props for legalizing gay marriage.


5. The price of goods goes up with or without a minimum wage increase. American's actual buying power eroded seriously under Bush.
First off: raising the minimum wage doesn't help anything. Small businesses often can't afford to maintain their staff and stores, and jobs are actually lost (it's a simple supply-and-demand issue... supply of labor goes up [due to better pay], but demand goes down). I don't see this passing, due to a lot of debate over it. Remember that there IS a republican congress, whatever else happens. I do, however, support living wages for everybody, something that the Republicans have failed to even address.


6. What did the votes involve? Where were the taxes targeted? What else was on the particular bills? Bills are never simple, and they never involve a single issue.
I'm sorry if your 4th bigscreen TV has to be 6 inches smaller... it's going to pay someone else's heating bill this winter instead.
What the democratic senators realize is that whatever their position on Iraq, we're there and its our responsibility to clean up now. That's going to take money. Tough cookies. Guess where government money comes from? You. If you don't want to be paying for several more wars, vote democratic.
(Egypt is next on the agenda.. read the Project for a New American century's platform. It's eerie. Iraq was to be invaded pre-2000). Coincidentally... Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. But there are ways to oust a dictator without massive death and destruction. Chile. East Timor. India. Lessons: learn 'em, live 'em, love 'em.


7. The President creates jobs by sponsoring legislation that, by his judgement, will spur economic growth.
And when that doesn't work, by flat out hiring more federal workers (like in... the airline industry? United went bankrupt last week, by the way. My dad's plane broke down 3 times en route to Orlando from Philadelphia). Think FDR getting us out of the great depression.


8, The man will be less reckless, less unilateral, and will not stick so stubbornly to failed policies.
Amen. We're supposed to be a World Leader... not a World Ruler. The US needs to learn diplomacy again. We will not be stable nor safe for terrorist threat if we are seen as a global agressor. The case against gay marriage is biblically based (and loosley at that, I add). What happened to separation of church and state? If the Reps win in Texas (IF?), they will officially attempt to declare the United States a Christian Nation.

If you waver at all, remember this: For the first 4 years, George Bush still had to worry about reelection. I shudder to think what that means when it's no longer an issue for him...

Now back to reading a book written by a Republican on Democracy Promotion in the Third World through global captialism and nonviolent revolution. What, I'm bipartisan? Republicans can have good ideas, too. George W. Bush does not. John Ashcroft does not. Dick Cheney is the Devil. Colin Powell's not such a bad guy. Richard Clarke (wait, he's a Republican? Yea man... what the news leaves out...) is brilliant. But he resigned cuz Bush sucks.

Vote democratic. Really. It's for your own good, and the good of pretty much anybody else.

Where Kerry spent x-mas 1968 is certainly quite irrelevant. If the "elite media" equals every respected paper and news outlet who has investigated their claims, believe as you wish.. just don't expect thinking people who actually believe the "elite media" over some vets who have held a 35 year grudge against Kerry for his anti-war heroism when he got back from 'Nam.

Except that the memory of his being in Cambodia is "seared" into his memory. What other memories are "seared" in there that did not happen? ;)

1) No clear enemy : Who the F*ck do we consider a terrorist/dissident in iraq (parallel: VC in Nam was exactly the same, no clear uniform or other identification overall for US troops to make a correct decision on). They do not walk around with "I'm an anti-american fighter" on their chest, and this has allowed them to launch surprise attacks.


Actually this is funny. Know who the terrorists are in Iraq? The only Iraqis ever to support al Qaeda? The ones outside of Saddam's control. The ones that are still outside our control. Funny thing about that...

Too bad we created al Qaeda to begin with. They stem from an organization for Soviet-Afghan war veterans. Know who supplied to Afghans? That's right: us. Funny thing about us turning against our former allies (Actually, I have no problem with us being anti-Afghanistan and anti-Iraq, it's more the issue that we shouldn't have supported them the first time around either). Oh American and our love for anything that smells capitalist...

If we were really worried about WMDs, we'd go after North Korea, who we know has them. The US never would have attacked Iraq if they feared Iraq could retaliate with nuclear missiles.
FYI: Iraq DID have chemical and biological weapons. We gave them to them in the 1980s. And then we ordered them destroyed after Kuwait.
Exactly, the USA would have never attacked Iraq if they already had nuclear capabilities. Thats why we didn't go after North Korea. The whole point of a pre-emptive strike is to get rid of the problem before it becomes too serious. BTW, the USA did not give Iraq anywhere close to most of its weapons. About 1%, actually.

now, i haven't had a chance to read all of the posts, but concerning the topic of mr. kerry, how can you respect someone whose entire campaign is centered around the phrase "i'm not HIM" *points to bush with a look of disgust*

it is childish and unacceptable.

Actually, that's just the rest of us. Kerry has real ideas to solve what he sees as big issues (if that's in comparison to Bush's lack of logical domestic agenda, so be it). But Kerry himself rarely does the name calling thing. Bush does a LOT of it, on the other hand. I do a lot of it. But I feel justified in voting for "the other guy." I want my gay friends to get married. I want women to have the right to choose if they want children. I want 3 meals a day for our poor. And I know with Bush, not only will I not get them, we'll all take 3 steps away from the direction I'd like to see us go.

To be quite clear: I voted for Wes Clark in the primary. I don't love Kerry. I hate George Bush a lot more than I don't love John Kerry though, and that's enough for me.

Exactly, the USA would have never attacked Iraq if they already had nuclear capabilities. Thats why we didn't go after North Korea. The whole point of a pre-emptive strike is to get rid of the problem before it becomes too serious. BTW, the USA did not give Iraq anywhere close to most of its weapons. About 1%, actually.

Too bad preemptive strikes are illegal in the international arena. If only we'd bothered to enforce our sanctions.
Oh wait. The pipes we wouldnt allow shipped in were hte only way of restoring water purification to the country. And Iraq never tried to buy uranium from North Africa. Sorry, no evidence that Iraq was ever gonna have a program. And it's not OK for us to kick their asses just for thinking that someday they might.
Also too bad we haven't done a damn thing to deter North Korea's weapons program. We're content to ignore them and hope China (another major asian communist nation with nucs) will deter them from it.
Good luck, suckers. I'm moving to the moon.

<b>"Massholes" are some of the most brilliant people I know. </b>*Bows down to your awsomeness*

Massholes. Live it, Love it. Be proud. Wicked Pissah. (I've never used either of those words outside of making fun of Boston accents. Seriously.)

Too bad preemptive strikes are illegal in the international arena. If only we'd bothered to enforce our sanctions.
Oh wait. The pipes we wouldnt allow shipped in were hte only way of restoring water purification to the country. And Iraq never tried to buy uranium from North Africa. Sorry, no evidence that Iraq was ever gonna have a program. And it's not OK for us to kick their asses just for thinking that someday they might.
Also too bad we haven't done a damn thing to deter North Korea's weapons program. We're content to ignore them and hope China (another major asian communist nation with nucs) will deter them from it.
Good luck, suckers. I'm moving to the moon.
So what if they're illegal? I'd support violating international law millions of times to take out people like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosovic. North Korea's a tough situation. Currently we're trying to resolve the situation in 6-way talks (USA, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea) although its kind of tough given what they've been doing for the past decade.

So what if they're illegal? I'd support violating international law millions of times to take out people like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosovic. North Korea's a tough situation. Currently we're trying to resolve the situation in 6-way talks (USA, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea) although its kind of tough given what they've been doing for the past decade.

My point precisely. Yet I'm not advocating bombing the crap out of them before their weapons program takes of. I'm advocating talks, weapsons inspections etc. BEFORE the program comes about.
Exactly how many times did we just talk with Saddam before the war? Hell, we didn't listen to our own UN (Hans Blix says they have no weapsons... well we never liked him anyway).

So what if they're illegal? I'd support violating international law millions of times to take out people like Saddam Hussein or Slobadan Milosovic. North Korea's a tough situation. Currently we're trying to resolve the situation in 6-way talks (USA, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea) although its kind of tough given what they've been doing for the past decade.
Laws are there for a reason. They are there to take care of situations like this. They were there to send inspectors to Iraq, and we violated them, losing almost all of our respect in the international forum.

*Bows down to your awsomeness*

Massholes. Live it, Love it. Be proud. Wicked Pissah. (I've never used either of those words outside of making fun of Boston accents. Seriously.)

Hehehe I'm a Mass college student, from Delaware otherwise. My roommate's a Masshole. She's awesome. (Wellesley- I find it funny that some of the smartest people I know are also the most liberal...)

Laws are there for a reason. They are there to take care of situations like this. They were there to send inspectors to Iraq, and we violated them, losing almost all of our respect in the international forum.
We bypassed the UN to attack Yugoslavia, because we knew Russia would veto it on the security council. Shouldn't our respect have been lost six years ago?

[/B]

My point precisely. Yet I'm not advocating bombing the crap out of them before their weapons program takes of. I'm advocating talks, weapsons inspections etc. BEFORE the program comes about.
Exactly how many times did we just talk with Saddam before the war? Hell, we didn't listen to our own UN (Hans Blix says they have no weapsons... well we never liked him anyway).
Hans Blix also said they were in material breach (which was supposed to entail "serious consequences"). We'd been trying to deal with Saddam for 12 years before the war and it wasn't working.

Aw this is fun guys... glad I found you. Have to go work for the corporate whores that hired me though now, as much as I love to waste their overabundance of money by joining all kinds of new forums. I assuage my conscience (for working here in the first place, not for wasting their money) by volunteering for the Democrats once a week. 3.5 days left of this shithole... I'll be sure to check back later.

We bypassed the UN to attack Yugoslavia, because we knew Russia would veto it on the security council. Shouldn't our respect have been lost six years ago?

Well anyway I think the UN is a flawed system. Nobody should have a veto anymore, although there should be the 5 permanent members. Know how nobody ever goes after Israel cuz we'd veto it? Yea, same principle.

The UN should really be more of an active organization. It is inherently flawed in that nations are not required to join and non-member nations are not required to abide by UN rulings. But once again, the toothlessness of the UN is our fault as well. (plus the fault of the Cold War... just another forum for US-USSR arguments).

The first way to create a strong UN is to listen to it. See my previous post:
-"As Paul Freundlich put it at the start of the war: 'All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the U.N.'s ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the U.N.'s word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend it. Am I getting this right?' " (269)

When you learn to capitalize and make sound sentences. Then and only then will I listen to your snap judgements of ignorance.
I don't see any reason to your post at all.
you arn't the brightest bulb in the box are ya'?

The entire text to all the legislation proposed is too great for any one person to ingest, so Kerry chooses instead to fight the battles he believes in and he studies those pieces of legislation thouroughly. Most other votes are either not worth bothering with, since the votes are obvious before being cast, or are pieces of legislation that Kerry considers worthless. (This is apalling nonsense) Is this good representation? He is a lawyer. I am in law school, and I read everything I sign. I wonder how the people who voted for representation in the Senate would feel about that? How can he vote if he is not there. I challenge you two name two flip-flops of Bush.

I can give you twelve but I'll go a lor:



When GW ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1978 in Texas, he gave an interview to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal newspaper. Asked about his position on abortion he answered that he "opposes the pro-life amendment [which would outlaw abortion] and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." Sixteen years later, when he ran for governor in Texas in 1994, and in every campaign since, he has campaigned as an anti-abortion conservative.

When running for President and Larry King tried to buttonhole him on the issue of gay marriage, he sidestepped the question by reaffirming that it was State business - not Federal. Of course now he want to federalize it and even enshrine it into the Constitution..

On the eve of the 2000 election he sent Cheney to Nevada to reassure the residents that there was no way he would allow for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump to go ahead until there was clear scientific evidence that it would be safe. After the election he approved Yucca Mountain and informed the residents that the US Army had two decades of scientific evidence that satisfied him. That evidence was all public record before the election as the army had tried to sell the safety of Yucca Mountain to the locals. Why was he claiming it wasn't enough before they voted for him, but then was happy with it after the fact?

He was against and then for the 9-11 commision. He refused to extend it's mandate, and then did extend it. Claimed he wouldn't give testimony, then agreed to an hour, then stated he wouldn't watch the clock. Has tried to imply that the Congress got all the same information as he did when they had to decide whether to to war in Iraq or not, but for the 9-11 commission refused to hand over access to his daily intel briefs. (If they get all the same intel why should that matter?) Then he decided to allow some access to some of the briefs, but not by the whole commission.

Claims a deep concern about nuclear proliferation as an element of his War on Terror, and even painting the mushroom cloud image for the viewers during his State of the Union speech. He then clearly demonstrated his resolve on this issue when he gutted the 2002 budget for Nunn-Luger non-proliferation work in Russia - programs designed to ensure that old soviet nukes stay off the black market.

North Korea went from a part of the Axis of Evil to a "regional problem". He wanted them to disarm themselves of nuclear programs, and then dropped that demand entering the last round of negotiations.

Despite all the talk about cleaning up corporate america in the wake of Enron and Worldcom, GW slashed the SEC's budget by 27% - seriously hampering it's ability to fund investigations to go after corrupt businesses. But hey... at least they got Martha.

When proposing his tax cuts, Bush Stated "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." Now the US have record deficits, and he claims that the economy is in recovery, but that the deficits that weren't going to happen don't really matter. He also keeps flip-flopping on why the deficits exist. It was the recession, then it was 9-11, now it's the recession again....

Mr Tough Guy sure talks full of bluster towards somebody like Iraq - who he knew couldn't really hurt the US. It's our way and the heck with you. Remember when that spy plane got shot down over China and the Chineese insisted on an apology. Bush said "No way!". And then did cave and publicly said sorry.... twice!

During the election campaign of 2000, GW promised to push for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In 2001 Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking for the president, says that pledge "was a mistake." Since then he has relaxed the requirements for emmision controls on power plants.

Indeed, he presented himself as being very strong on environmental concerns, but has since done everything to open pristine wildlife to oil drilling, protect the forests by cutting them down, weakened the Clean Air Act, removed millions of acres of preserved wetlands from protection under the Clean Water Act and attempted to exempt mining waste from regulation as a pollutant under federal law. He has also sought to scale back long-standing requirements for environmental reviews and public participation applying to highway construction, offshore oil development, and logging in our national forests. With friends like these, the environment needs no enemies!

During the last election campaign he ridiculed the Clinton Administration for giving the perk to campaign contributers of a night at the White House in the Lincoln Bedroom. Of course, records show that in his first four years he has done exactly he same with over 200 of his friends too, and also extends that priviledge to opening up Camp David to contributers!

After pushing through the big omnibus bill to fund homeland security he had to admit that after rereading it the criticisms that most of the items in the bill weren't properly funded was true. He admitted this AFTER signing it into law and denying the assertions of underfunding by it's opponents. Shouldn't he read these things first?

He campaigned on the premise of a small, efficient government that "will enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...". In the first Bush-Gore debate he was very clear when he stated: "the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government". You now have the largest public service payroll in history.

He campaigned on good fiscal management. In fact, he promised to retire $2 Trillion of the national debt. He also promised not to spend the Social Security surplus. To quote "...Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren...". Now where did that surplus go?

He campaigned on the idea of an open government, and yet has fought all the way to the Supreme Court to have the names of those on his energy policy advisory board secret.

He reneged on a promise to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP);

He clearly stated that the US military was not a force to be used for nation building. Hello Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Haiti!

During the campaign, on ABC's This Week he stated that he would veto the McCain-Feingold Bill on campaign reform. He has since signed it into law.

He promised to work to end tarrifs and not erect new ones "...I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world." Instead Bush added new tariffs on steel, textiles, and (Canadian) lumber and revoked Caribbean trade privileges. He signed agricultural subsidies bill. He signed the Medicare Bill providing huge subsidies to
rich pharmaceutical companies. He is pushing a huge subsidy-laden Energy Bill for energy companies. and then he flip-flopped again and removed the steel tarrifs.

On education, he stated in the campaign that "...I believe in local control of schools..." and that "...I believe education is a national priority, but it's also a local responsibility. I want to give schools -- I want to give schools the resources and authority to chart their own path to excellence. My opponent thinks Washington knows best..." Of course, he then instituted federal control through the No Child Left Behind act, but then also underfunded it which has rather hampered schools "resources and authority to chart their own path to excellence"

Stated that "I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench.", but then gave a recess appointment to judge Pryor who fought against giving homosexuals civil rights, and called Roe v. Wade an "abomination". He was also alone among 50 attorneys general in challenging the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act - clear attempts to undercut the legislation.

In 1987 the United States joined with other countries in signing the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the use of certain harmful substances. Despite praising the treaty in 2002, the Bush administration has since undermined it by seeking exemptions for the U.S. agriculture industry from restrictions on the use of methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting pesticide.


I could go on.......

But I will give GW one thing. He has indeed been consistent on his view of Iraq. For those that claim that his interest in that country didn't really kick in until after 9-11, and that he didn't have plans to go after his from day one in office - I should say that I agree! His plans started before then. In fact, it was so much on his mind that he brought up Saddam in all three debates with Gore.


So how about them Flip flops? And that is only a good amount of them.

Does anyone remember that those "swift boat" vets only served in the same war as he did? They served with Kerry the same way that Snoopy served with the Red Baron.

Though I do like that most of your "points" were thinly veild personal attacks on liberals, it seems strange to me that you don't see yourself doing the same things "Liberals" do.

We go with what supports our party, as do you. Personally, I'd rather be anally raped by a horse than have Bush in office for another four years. Kerry isn't much better, but he sure as hell isn't bush.

What ever happened to shrubby's war on terror (Or terrah, for this president.)? His Saudi buddies sure as hell didn't make the cut for "axis of evil" with all the terrorists that they've got.

Let's take a look at Dubya's resume, huh?

George W. Bush

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted th! e U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my ! bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review

You're right! He's a great leader! Well, when it comes to the interest of the rich white homophobic semi-racists of america.

I think that getting Saddam out of Iraq was good, but we went into the war under the wrong reasons. I don't think either candidate is suited to be president, but Bush is the last person who should be allowed to run a country. Well, right after Micheal Jackson...

What will Kerry do? He will go back to the Senate and finish out his "career" there. :)

What will Kerry do? He will go back to the Senate and finish out his "career" there. :)
Where he opposes people like GWB.

The cost of war, by the way, is well over 1,000/sec.
costofwar.com
Sometimes I just stare at it and think "why, why, why?"