NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Because all our other favorite Democratic canidates were kicked out. Well, actually mine's on the Veep ticket. :D


That good enough? Because we have no other choice BUT to choose Kerry?

Voltron? What does Voltron have to do with Kerry? Or am I showing my political ignorance now? :confused:

They're so desperate for change that they'll vote for almost anyone, even an @$$hole like Kerry.

Please note that I said almost.

i'm not sure if i would pick kerry as president if he were running in an election where both main canditates where starting fresh, alas that is not the case.....this election is sort-of like learning to ride a bicycle; if you keep trying to ride by doing the same thing, and you keep falling down and hurting yourself, isn't it worth it to try a new approach?

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.
That is like asking why a bird flies. "Why do liberals vote stupidly?" You can't exactly answer that. **not that liberals can ever give a strait answer anyways**

And can you tell me why you want to vote Bush without mentioning terrorism, september 11th, vietnam, iraq, kerry, or "the economy is strong"?

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.

And can you tell me why you want to vote Bush without mentioning terrorism, september 11th, vietnam, iraq, kerry, or "the economy is strong"?

I take it you don't have a reason to support Kerry.

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

I would imagine democracy could not function under any other principle.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Kerry went to Vietnam for four months and had questionable service. The current Commander-in-Chief spent a few years flying around in a screaming metal death trap.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.

I like the ide of a politician in office who got a close-up view of the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successor.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Bush won. Get over it.

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

We were attacked.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Communist. Don't make such vague accusations.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.

Now that's a cheap shot.

You have not given me a reason to support Kerry.

Because all our other favorite Democratic canidates were kicked out. Well, actually mine's on the Veep ticket. :D


That good enough? Because we have no other choice BUT to choose Kerry?
meh

We were attacked.

By Iraq? :confused:

Because all our other favorite Democratic canidates were kicked out. Well, actually mine's on the Veep ticket. :D
Ditto.

No, actually, I think Kerry has the right ideas about the direction the country needs to go. No telling if he'll follow through on them, but then, what politican does?

By Iraq? :confused:
When did Iraq attack the US? :eek:

Kerry went to Vietnam for four months and had questionable service. The current Commander-in-Chief spent a few years flying around in a screaming metal death trap.


Questionable though his service was, people remember seeing him there, he is a decorated veteran. The Incumbent still has yet to prove he DID serve, at all. But he "Can't find the paperwork"...


I like the ide of a politician in office who got a close-up view of the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successor.


So, you like the idea of a Republican, then? Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Bush won. Get over it.


I am over it. It is nothing to me. I'm not even an American.
The thing is, from overseas, the last American election was a mockery.

But, if you think that abuse of power by the 'winner' (since, basically, the person who got 'elected' overrode the process of recounting and appeal) is good, and if you want to reward nepotism, feel free.


We were attacked.


"We"? You personally were attacked? Or do you mean 9-11? You do KNOW that the hijackers weren't Iraqi's, don't you?

And they invented the WMDs...

And they had been butchering Kurds since there has BEEN an Iraq, so you can't claim it was a response to a humanitarian crisis...

Communist. Don't make such vague accusations.


Erm... how does that make me a communist?

It is true that Bush lowered the proportional taxation for the wealthiest people in America. Kerry has stated that he would reverse that injustice.

How does paying attention to economy make me a communist?

Now that's a cheap shot.


Not really - Kerry has made it a manifesto point to try to keep jobs in America. Under Bush, well look at the news reports about record CEO wages in the wake of the job exodus.

You have not given me a reason to support Kerry.

You won't support Kerry anyway. Your statements show your flag to be firmly planted in Republican territory.

I was just giving reasons why someone MIGHT.

dp

I think Kerry is a wise man and he will work well with the international community, not bully or alienate it. He promises a return to the days when America was synonymous with good diplomacy. Kerry understands the necessity of international co-operation to make progress against terrorism.

He speaks several languages. He's a man of the world who doesn't just see things in black and white.

Kerry does not seem to have hidden agendas, such as plans to invade countries before even getting into office.

That is like asking why a bird flies. "Why do liberals vote stupidly?" You can't exactly answer that. **not that liberals can ever give a strait answer anyways**
Ann Coulter? Is that you?

I take it you don't have a reason to support Kerry.

Kerry went to Vietnam for four months and had questionable service. The current Commander-in-Chief spent a few years flying around in a screaming metal death trap.

I like the idea of a politician in office who got a close-up view of the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successor.

We were attacked.

Communist. Don't make such vague accusations.

Now that's a cheap shot.

You have not given me a reason to support Kerry.
I take it you don't have a reason to support Bush, besides the fact that he's not Kerry, since you started this thread.

At least Kerry had some sort of service to question, unlike the current Commander-in-Chief's non-existent record.

A close-up view? Wasn't he a little busy crashing businesses in the 80s?

You weren't attacked by Iraq.

Is communist a code word for "evil" or something?

I don't know about that one. Bush has not shown any intention to dismantle NAFTA, but he didn't start it; that was Clinton.

Yea, I agree. Anyone but Bush.

Damn Iowa though, it started a landslide so that later nearly everyone voted for Kerry in the cacasus/primaries.

Three Words: Kerry sucks Less

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
Proof? Several liberal thinkers have stated that Bush was able to win the first time because of all of the voters who couldn't figure out how to use the voting machines/ballads. They assumed that they would have all been for Gore. So, Democrats, your party depends on stupid americans to vote for them. I would never vote for a party who requires most americans to be stupid to win elections.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.

I absolutely hate it when peoples' views of communism is what Senator McCarthy fed the American public during the Cold War. What is wrong with communism? It's an economic system, and a perfect one might I add. There's nothing wrong with the idea or supporting it.

Bush supporters like to say "why do liberals support Kerry? Give me some reasons why you like him without bringing Bush into it?" But if you reverse the question, "why do you support Bush?" they back out. I haven't heard a single good reason to support Bush other than rhetoric spewed at the Republican National Convention. Facts speak for themselves. Bush has driven the economy into the ground, supported corporations by allowing them to ship jobs overseas, started a war with 2 sovereign nations over false pretenses of WMDs (where are they!?), and sold the American public out in general by widening the difference between the poor and the rich among being a liar.

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

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

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

The truth is I really don't care much for Kerry, but that fact won't stop me from voting for him if it's one step closer to getting Bush out of office. Just like the 2000 election, there is no "good" candidate, just one that is slightly better on the bad scale than the other. It's not like we are going to vote for Bush simply because we have no good reason to support Kerry, that's not how this works. This election is based on 2 sides: the ones that want to keep Bush in office, and the ones that want him out.

...why do you support John Kerry? ...I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush.... Dubya,
A-N-Y-O-N-E-B-U-T BUSH. :)
you dont wanna see the word Bush?
Move to mars

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.


Can you please be a little more vague about that? How about some numbers? And who's "the wealthy"? Al Sharpton at least gave some. He said the top 1% should be paying about 15% of all the taxes. Is that enough?

Of course, Al didn't check his numbers before hand. The IRS says that the top 1% already pay 34% of all income taxes!

So how much is enough? Will it ever be enough or will it always be more, more, more?

Kerry because of Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, and Voltron.

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
Proof? Several liberal thinkers have stated that Bush was able to win the first time because of all of the voters who couldn't figure out how to use the voting machines/ballads. They assumed that they would have all been for Gore. So, Democrats, your party depends on stupid americans to vote for them. I would never vote for a party who requires most americans to be stupid to win elections.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.

Wow that's not reactionary or stereotypical either. :rolleyes: Can you tell me exactly how Democrats have any connection with child molesters or terrorists?

The election in Florida was due to an illegal scrub of 58,000 voters that shared a surname or even a birthday with the 8000 felons originally supposed to be scrubbed from the list. Not to mention voter rolls and ballots were handled by a Republican-chaired private corporation for the first time in history. Gore lost by a margin of 600 votes in Florida. It had nothing to do with machines, even though many of them were faulty and could not record votes accurately.

It's just like a Republican to make empty accusations.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid

I won't even address that.

> Failures at life

If you mean people who were born into the wrong families, then yes.

> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals

In my world, none of those are negative in any way.

> Child molesters

You know, the stereotypical child molestor is a christian. Like Bush.

> Fanatic feminists

Yeah, how dare they demand equal social status when us men are clearly superior?

> Terrorists

Yes, terrorists usually vote.

> Pacifists

Terrorists AND pacifists? Quite an agenda they must have to appeal to both of those..

> Communists and socialists

Liberalism and socialism is not, has never been, and will never be the same thing. Socialism and liberalism are two completely different things and it is not possible to combine them.

With respect to Gronde, Republicans tend to appeal to:
> Idiots that can't think for themselves
> Rednecks
> Rednecks who like guns
> Inbred trailer park hicks
> Guys who have a hard-on for war
> Trust fund babies
> anti-environmentalists
> Religious radicals
> anti-abortionists/anti-homosexuals who are just a bit too nosy into other peoples' business

See how ridiculous that sounds? You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Wow that's not reactionary or stereotypical either. :rolleyes: Can you tell me exactly how Democrats have any connection with child molesters or terrorists?

The election in Florida was due to an illegal scrub of 58,000 voters that shared a surname or even a birthday with the 8000 felons originally supposed to be scrubbed from the list. Not to mention voter rolls and ballots were handled by a Republican-chaired private corporation for the first time in history. Gore lost by a margin of 600 votes in Florida. It had nothing to do with machines, even though many of them were faulty and could not record votes accurately.

It's just like a Republican to make empty accusations.

When did I make an accusation? It's just like a democrat to disessemble my statement and change it to what you want it to meen.

Anywho, if I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for kerry.
Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.

Child molester: I probobly should have just said "criminal who hasn't been convicted yet" because democrats are much more for criminal rights than republicans. Criminals do not deserve rights, they deserve to be shot. (Don't even get me started on liberals and gun laws)

Conservatives your horrible tyrannical reign is over

Homosexual Marriages are gonna happen and your gonna cry
Abortion rights, I am a man but i HAVE NO BUISNESS telling a woman what to do with her body.
And lets see... Iraq mistake, republicans miliking september 11th dry and waht else...

When was Kerry's service questionable?
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

According to them he wasn't. Where are your sources?

One thing about Republicans joking Kerry hurt himself: He still gets a purple one.

Purple hearts :In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

Kerry doesn't sink to his opponent's negative levels or his attacks. Instead he keeps with the positive. Was I only one counting how many things Kerry's opponent said in his speech against Kerry. It was way more than negative than positive. And this was after Kerry's opponent said they would stop attacking Kerry.

Kerry cares more about middle and poor classes than wealthy classes. Kerry's oppoent wants to outsource jobs because he thinks you'll just find another one.
Kerry wants America to not steal you job to another country. He wants to do a system where a company is rewarded for making jobs in its own country and not outsourcing.

He wants to make allies with those Kerry's opponent has disenfranchised. If his attempt fails at least he tried unlike Kerry's opponent where its his way or go away.
He wants to talk to the UN to restore US & Un's credibility. He might have to reform UN and redo it but at least he will try unlike Kerry's opponent.

Kerry wants to protect the environment because our people live longer the more the environment is going good.
He believes in the power of science. If there are reports of dangers of Global warming he will look at the reports rather than disdard them as mindless drivel.

If 9/11 happened with Kerry as President he would have attacked Afganistan and made sure it was a restored/safe nation before attacking another one armed only with flimsy intelligence. And even if he thought he had good intelligence he would double nay triple check its source and credibility.
Restoring America to be the greatest nation on the planet deserves/needs a president like that!

When did I make an accusation? It's just like a democrat to disessemble my statement and change it to what you want it to meen.

Anywho, if I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for kerry.
Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.

Child molester: I probobly should have just said "criminal who hasn't been convicted yet" because democrats are much more for criminal rights than republicans. Criminals do not deserve rights, they deserve to be shot. (Don't even get me started on liberals and gun laws)

Are you really this stupid? You accused democrats of "[appealing] to: [appended list]." You also accused the democratic party of "[depending] on stupid americans to vote for them." Good lord. Have you picked up a dictionary recently? Look up "accusation."

Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.
If I were a terrorist, I'd quit if Kerry won the election. With him in office I could at least hope for a change.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.
OK. Can' talk about current administration and its corruption to discredit them. :headbang: Got it.

OK. Your going to love this. I spent a long time on it, and I know how you conservatives HATE being proven wrong. And before I start, Ralph Nader has every right to run for President. Whether or not that makes him an egotistical jacka$$ has yet to be seen; I would have voted for Ross Perot over George I (but Bubba would have gotten 1st pick!)

1) John Kerry served admirably in the military; with a PUBLIC RECORD that states he EARNED three purple hearts. I feel that, in a time of war, the United States would be best served by a man with military experience. As to the fact that his military service was short, I say this. John Kerry was in the military and knows how it works; he was in charge of a Swift Boat. However, his service to the Anti-War movement after he came left the military shows that he still has value for human lives and thinks that war should be avoided at all costs.

2) According to economic laws, as established over the years and proven by the actual motions of the economies of the world, tax cuts and increased government spending should boost GDP and stimulate the economy. You can deduce this by thinking: OK. We get a tax cut, we have more money, let's spend it on what we need. The stores where the money is being spent will need to hire new employees, unemployment will go down. The economy, over time, will get better.
STOP
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WENT DOWN IN AUGUST, AND THAT MEANS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING A GOOD JOB. WHEN PEOPLE STOP LOOKING FOR JOBS, THEY ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED PART OF THE WORK FORCE. PEOPLE NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS ANYMORE CAUSED MOST OF THE FALL IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATINGS. DON'T MESS WITH ME, I KNOW MY STUFF. :cool:
2 con't) The current administration, using fear tactics and propoganda against the left, has caused people to sit on their tax cuts, if they were wealthy enough to get one. Tom Ridge, my home state's former governor, is probably the worst example of this politcally motivated fear-spewing. This is what is holding the economy back: PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO LIVE.

3) Back to Kerry. Shall we attack the flip-flopping? I think we shall. *Note: This is only my opinions, I have no facts here.* ;) After four years of lies, and stubborn morons in the government, I want someone who can change their points of view. That is what I believe the flip-flopping is all about. And, as for higher taxes, its REALLY fine with me (and I am old enough to have a job, so I understand how much taxes suck). We need to pay down the national debt, and we need to reduce our defecits. No amount of tax cuts for the rich is going to do that. As for John Kerry's idea to raise taxes on the wealthier, the numbers say from 35% to about 40% for those making over $200,000. Let's do math.
Say there are 300,000,000 people in the United States (I am using round numbers here :) ) 2% make over $200,000. (About 600,000 people. Under the current system, each person making that much pays roughly $70,000 in taxes. Really sucks for them. Under Kerry raises, those people will pay $80,000. WHOA WHOA WHOA. $10,000 extra dollars, how could these poor people live? I guess Jenny won't have Daddy and Mommy but her a new car this year. Give me a break. I am truely sorry for those who will have to pay extra, but if 600,000 people pay $10,000 extra in taxes, that is already $6,000,000,000 extra. That's a lot. And that's not including spending cutbacks proposed by Kerry.

4) John Kerry has been a Senator for many years. He has served on Senate Commitees and helped figure out what happened to the POWs in some small South Asian nation. Without launching into specifics, I feel this means that John Kerry is the type of people (as is John Edwards, as illustrated by his impressive career as a TRIAL LAWYER) that does something until he is finished with it. Before that seems stupid, let me rephrase. John Kerry sticks with something until the job is done, until it is resolved, and until it is better. I read a NewsWeeks (maybe Time?) article recently that described John Kerry's first political race (and loss) and how he is still held in low regard in that place. His mistakes made their show me that he knows how to run a campaign and knows what does and doesn't work when appealing to people (he has learned from screwing up). He isn't a 'go-it-alone' type person who would alienate potential friends and allies.

5) Of all of the Democratic nominees, I think this is my order of voting in the primaries, if I could have. Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Carol Moselly-Braun, Bob Ghrahm. I wouldn't have voted for Al Sharpton if someone held a gun to my head. When John Kerry came on the Tonight Show on a motorcycle, I thought it was a cheap ploy to grab attention, and you know what, it was. But, going on Arsenio and playing the sax was a cheap trick for Clinton, and it made him look much better. Kerry knows how to have fun, but not at the expense of business. Going windsurfing, snowboarding, all cool things, as long as you don't let it get in the way of work. Our current President let's playtime get in the way of worktime. When a ranch in East Bumblef*#$, Texas is called 'the Western White House', something is wrong.

6) Gay Rights. I'm a liberal, I had to throw it in. Our current administration is trying to right discrimination into the Constitution. Now, I know that some people are morally opposed to gay marriage and such, and that's fine for them, or is it? :confused: Consider this, some people have a moral problem with blacks and Latinos having the same rights as whitey. Some people have a moral problem with women coming 'out of the kitchen'. We call these people bigots, Klansman, and Republicans. JK! But, as of 70 years ago, blacks were not equal to whites, and as of 150 years ago and sooner than that, women were not equal to men. So, to the people who have a 'moral problem' with gays, are you any better than Klansman? I know that this will be an issue for a long time, but be open about it. Leaving it up to states is the better alternative. As a side note, I think if states want to illegalize marriages between two loving people who happen to be of the same sex (I'm sorry this topic really gets me pissed) then they should NEVER EVER make it permanent. Because some day, they will realize that these PEOPLE are just that. I support John Kerry because he supports other people, no matter what their orientation. AND I like the Vice-President a LITTLE bit better because he supports state's rights (about time he stood up a little for his poor daughter). :fluffle: :fluffle:

7) When something doesn't work, you fix it. Plain and simple, this government isn't working. Let's fix it. The current administration (I almost said Bush and Cheney, the horribly corrupt ex-Halliburton head Fuhrer, glad I caught myself. :D ) has had four years to get going on this, and I don't think they have done enough to earn another term. OOOHHHH. And if I hear freedom one more time from the f*&#ing Republicans (or Democrats), I think I am going to go ape $hit. :sniper:

So, I know someone already did this, and maybe you responded, I didn't read the whole thread. Tell me why Bush and Cheney WITHOUT using:
- Rich
- Corrupt
- Redneck
- Moron
- Illiterate
- Ineffective Tax-Cuts
- Freedom
- Spreading Democracy
- Alienating our Country
- Arrogant
- Oblivious
- Dodging Vietnam
- Daddy's Boy
- Slacker

(can you do it?)

8) What qualifies George Bush for the Office of the Presidency? Don't metion.
- Texas Rangers
- Arbusto
- Enron
- Katherine Harris and Good Ole' Jeb (who disenfranchised many illegally and handed this guy the Oval Office)
- John Ashcroft (who lost a race in Missouri to a dead man)
- Colin Powell (the only Republican in this administation I respect, but alas he has no gonads)
- Discrimination = Good
-Thank you if you read all this. At the top, I told you I spent a while. This wasn't that long cause I REALLY got to spewing after a while. It felt good. I could keep going but I think I'll develop carpel-tunnel or something. Plus I'm in college. I shouldn't be being political and junk now. It's Friday night.

IF bush wins i will cry, and join the civil disobedience that is being planned in citys if that happens because it will show the stupidty of some people. to quote a republican

"do you change a horse at midstream?"

Democrat: " you do if its drowning"

GO DEMOCRATS GO KERRY GO AMERICA

Seeing as terrorist know we would vote for Kerry's opponent if they attacked, they want Kerry's opponent in office. After all the administration has repeatily told us they are expecting to attack.

I'm actually gonna follow the directions posted at the beginning of this thread. I don't seriously think this will change Paxania's mind, but there's always the chance this will help convince an undecided voter reading through this thread to vote for Kerry. The best way to find out why I support John Kerry is to read his campaign platform at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/, but simply providing the link only provokes the supporters of a certain candidate whose name I'm not supposed to say in this thread to make posts saying that they went to Kerry's site and didn't find any policy directions. So I copy/pasted some of them. Have fun.




"...with child care costs rising two times faster than inflation, the Kerry-Edwards plan will increase the Child Care Tax Credit and make it available to stay-at-home parents and parents with lower incomes."

"As president, John Kerry will eliminate the massive administrative backlog and delay that has left many families unnecessarily divided for a decade or more. Our nation's immigration system must be able to more quickly reunite husbands with wives, parents with children. Legal permanent residents seeking to reunify with spouses and children must be provided a fair and efficient process to do so."

"Constitutional Line-Item Veto Power. This will allow the president to sign a bill while singling out specific spending items and tax expenditures for disapproval. Those items would then return to Congress for an expedited up-or-down vote, forcing members of Congress to approve new pork-barrel spending on an individual basis."

"Budget Caps to ensure that spending does not exceed inflation. As president, John Kerry will propose a budget that funds its priorities without allowing spending to grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending."

"The Kerry-Edwards discretionary spending proposals will be paid for by freezing or cutting non-priority programs, which will save a substantial amount over the next ten years. In addition, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use offsets to fund proposals. Some examples:
Extend Superfund (saves $17 billion over ten years)
Collect royalties for mineral rights on Federal lands (saves $1 billion over ten years)
Cut electricity use by the Federal government by 20 percent in 10 years (saves $14 billion over ten years)
Cut subsidies to high-income corporate farmers
Freeze the Federal travel budget (saves $10 billion over ten years)
Reduce the number of contractors employed by the Federal government by 100,000 (saves $50 billion over ten years). The Federal government employed 5.6 million contractors in 1999 - more than three times the number of civil servants. The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce the number of contractors by 100,000."

"...push the McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission to eliminate unnecessary corporate welfare and use the savings to reduce the deficit."

"The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide direct assistance to our police officers and firefighters to ensure that they have the communications systems, protective gear, and manpower they need to protect our communities. It will also modernize our emergency warning system to provide localized warnings, treat the fighters on the frontlines as partners, and provide all Americans with the information they need. To improve our ability to respond to a biological attack, John Kerry will put one individual in charge of our anti-bioterror efforts, set national benchmarks for state and local preparedness, and harness America's bioscience genius to increase drug and vaccine development."

"As president, John Kerry will:
Identify high-priority chemical plants where a terrorist attack could cause massive loss of life;
Require adequate physical security around these plants, such as adequate security force, adequate fencing, and adequate surveillance;
Require the use of less dangerous chemicals and technologies whenever that is practicable; and,
Implement these requirements on a basis that allows companies to assess their vulnerabilities on an individualized basis, to implement their own plans to meet those vulnerabilities in light of local circumstances, and requires government enforcement and action only when industry fails to move first."

"Like any other business development, clean energy technologies and projects need capital to get off the ground. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that we can improve access to financing for clean energy and will work with the investor community to find ways to encourage additional investment.
John Kerry and John Edwards will increase funding available to research renewable energy, offering the prospect of both technical advances and the development of an enhanced supply chain."

Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.

Child molester: I probobly should have just said "criminal who hasn't been convicted yet" because democrats are much more for criminal rights than republicans. Criminals do not deserve rights, they deserve to be shot. (Don't even get me started on liberals and gun laws)

The only way you would know if you could "run a cell much more easily" is if Kerry does get elected. Right now, you're speculating, not to mention, how the hell would you know what a terrorist would be thinking? Are you one? Do you have a few terrorist friends?

The criminal aspect is absolutely demeaning. You must have missed the memo. The firing squad was abolished more than 80 years ago in most states. Also, the correlation between capital punishment and crime is a pretty high one. You want to know why most of the EU have one of the lowest crime rates in the world? It's because they don't practice capital punishment. Crime in Texas has been on the rise, correlating with an increase in executions. The fact that they are criminals does not mean the state has to stoop to their level. Is that what you want? To become a caveman again?

Crime in Texas is on the rise? Where are you getting your info?


With respect to Gronde, Republicans tend to appeal to:
> Idiots that can't think for themselves


That is more true towards democrats. . .


> Rednecks


I suppose that would depend on your definition of "redneck".


> Rednecks who like guns


You mean: "people who want to insure that they can keep their second ammedment rights"?


> Inbred trailer park hicks


Correction: they would vote for a democrat because a democrat would take money away from the evil rich man and make the trailer park hics feel better about themselves, even though they don't benifit.


> Guys who have a hard-on for war


And those who want to protect our freedoms and security. I suppose they would have a hard-on for war right about now as well.



> anti-environmentalists


Don't forget the evil capitalists.


> Religious radicals


No, mainly christian radicals. I don't think a muslem radical would vote for bush. :p


> anti-abortionists/anti-homosexuals who are just a bit too nosy into other peoples' business


And those that are not nosy, but have morals.


And yet, no one has adressed the real issue of my post; democrats play on peoples stupidity.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

How can you not mention those words? They are half the reason why you would vote for Kerry! The other half is because he is a decent guy who stands for decent rights, and we could actually trust him, rather then your current commander in cheif.

Can you please be a little more vague about that? How about some numbers? And who's "the wealthy"? Al Sharpton at least gave some. He said the top 1% should be paying about 15% of all the taxes. Is that enough?

Of course, Al didn't check his numbers before hand. The IRS says that the top 1% already pay 34% of all income taxes!

So how much is enough? Will it ever be enough or will it always be more, more, more?

And that 34% is down 3% from under the Clinton administration.

And that top 1% have 17% of the wealth.

And they average just under $300,000 per annum, in comparison to $28,500 per annum - which is the average wage of the top 50% cut-off.

Look at those numbers... the average is nearly $30,000 and 1% of people are making $300,000 - this means MOST people must be earning far under $30,000.

So - who has cash to spare? The person living at well under $30,000, or the person earning an AVERAGE of $300,000.

When you consider that the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, and most are on substantially lower wages than the top 1% (as I said above, most must be well under $30,000) - the top 1% are STILL getting away disproportionately light.

That is more true towards democrats. . .



I suppose that would depend on your definition of "redneck".



You mean: "people who want to insure that they can keep their second ammedment rights"?



Correction: they would vote for a democrat because a democrat would take money away from the evil rich man and make the trailer park hics feel better about themselves, even though they don't benifit.



And those who want to protect our freedoms and security. I suppose they would have a hard-on for war right about now as well.




Don't forget the evil capitalists.



No, mainly christian radicals. I don't think a muslem radical would vote for bush. :p



And those that are not nosy, but have morals.


And yet, no one has adressed the real issue of my post; democrats play on peoples stupidity.

Did you not even read the very last line of that post? It was saying that stereotypes are idiotic. Looks like the joke's on you!

If I were a terrorist, I'd quit if Kerry won the election. With him in office I could at least hope for a change.

Oh, I am sorry, I left you out.

Muslems have been killing non-muslems for hundreds of years. They are not trying to change anything except to make the whole world muslem.

Oh, I am sorry, I left you out.

Muslems have been killing non-muslems for hundreds of years. They are not trying to change anything except to make the whole world muslem.

Did someone forget the Holy Wars? When white Christians from the north came down and invaded Islamic territory? They don't want to make the whole world muslim, where did you ever get that idea? They just want foreign invaders out of their land! Is that so unreasonable? Or do you want to push your good, Christian ideals upon them and make them Christian? The Islamic people aren't sending out missions like the Christians. If anything, the Christian movement wants to make the entire world Christian, which is in fact, what they want. Plus, learn to spell "muslim."

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.
So, we have this president. He feels like blowing the living shit out of some desert country with no defenses. Despite the fact that some other country just to the North of South Korea told us that it had WMD. Question: Why the hell should we keep him in office? :confused:

Oh, I am sorry, I left you out.

Muslems have been killing non-muslems for hundreds of years. They are not trying to change anything except to make the whole world muslem.
If you don't know how to spell Muslim you damn well shouldn't talk about their foreign policy. :mp5:

Sorry about spelling. Lol. You must be running out of real ammunition if you are now picking apart my spelling.

Anyways.

Yes, I read the last line of every (I think, there was enough of them) post you made. You never disproved the democrats consider democratic voters stupid.

Anyways, I am not even a christian, so what are you getting at? Look at Pakistan and India? Muslims have been fighting "infidels" for hundreds of years. And that was no where near "their" land.

Anyways, I would love to stay and argue indefinantly, but I have a job to go to. (Yes, I got a job, instead of blaming the evil republicans for my unimployment while sitting on the couch eating chips) Sorry, that was hostile. :p
Cya. Been fun.

What is wrong with communism? It's an economic system, and a perfect one might I add. There's nothing wrong with the idea or supporting it.

Actually there is a tremendous amount wrong with communism.

1. It distributes everything to everyone equally, that means that the ditch digger makes as much as the brain surgeon and cancer researcher and someone sitting on welfare would make as much as anyone else. Thats unfair, the system needs to reward people based on the value of their service.

2. It can never be implemented. Every attempted implementation of Communism has resulted in a dictatorship because people always have a will to power. Someone always wants to be in charge.

3. It leads to stagnation. In a communist environment there is no desire to one up your neighbor because no matter what you do you're going to get the exact same thing. Communism leaves no desire for innovation.

Of course its perfect on paper, but then again, so is Nazism.

Kensium, I couldn't agree with you more!

Well, if you've ever read the Communist Manifesto, you'd know that it isn't implemented right off the bat, it takes hundreds of years of slow transitions, first into socialism, and then eventually into communism, all the while socializing your children into helping each other for nothing. This effect can be seen in the isolated community of the Hutterites. None of them get paid, they are purely subsistent by themselves and have no problems helping a neighbor out for nothing in return, a true communist society. It can be done, it just has to be a worldwide effort.

Also, in its purest state, communism is ultimately anarchistic, with society being responsible for their own.

Actually there is a tremendous amount wrong with communism.

1. It distributes everything to everyone equally, that means that the ditch digger makes as much as the brain surgeon and cancer researcher and someone sitting on welfare would make as much as anyone else. Thats unfair, the system needs to reward people based on the value of their service.

2. It can never be implemented. Every attempted implementation of Communism has resulted in a dictatorship because people always have a will to power. Someone always wants to be in charge.

3. It leads to stagnation. In a communist environment there is no desire to one up your neighbor because no matter what you do you're going to get the exact same thing. Communism leaves no desire for innovation.

Of course its perfect on paper, but then again, so is Nazism.
You need a Ethics class. You should say Morally bad not wrong.

1. It distributes everything to everyone equally, that means that the ditch digger makes as much as the brain surgeon and cancer researcher and someone sitting on welfare would make as much as anyone else. Thats unfair, the system needs to reward people based on the value of their service.
Unfair how? in a communism the value of their services are equal so it is fair.
Now you could have said something along lines of: a man really talented wouldn't make more on average than a man reallky bad at his job. But since you did'nt bring it up can't be used.

2. It can never be implemented. Every attempted implementation of Communism has resulted in a dictatorship because people always have a will to power. Someone always wants to be in charge.
It has yet to be implemented. Every attempt has been thwarted by curropt greed of power. When it is implemented by Heavenly Father,when his son returns to earth, it will work. By the way Heaven is like that so eh.


3. It leads to stagnation. In a communist environment there is no desire to one up your neighbor because no matter what you do you're going to get the exact same thing. Communism leaves no desire for innovation.
Love of your country? patriotism? What you only love your country when its helping you be better than others? You sir, are no Christian, and are in need of Charity(love of others). I hope you don't mind my saying obvious.

Of course its perfect on paper, but then again, so is Nazism.
When was Nazism good on paper? Show me ideals of Nazism before your words can even be considered.

A reason that I would NOT vote for a democrat is because the entire party thinks of its voters as complete idiots and failures at life.
Proof? Several liberal thinkers have stated that Bush was able to win the first time because of all of the voters who couldn't figure out how to use the voting machines/ballads. They assumed that they would have all been for Gore. So, Democrats, your party depends on stupid americans to vote for them. I would never vote for a party who requires most americans to be stupid to win elections.

So, democrats try to apeal to:
> The stupid
> Failures at life
> Tree huggers
> Pro abortionists
> Homosexuals
> Child molesters
> Fanatic feminists
> Terrorists
> Pacifists
> Communists and socialists

I certainly hope that the majority of our population isn't on this list. I hope our country hasn't fallen so far.
Alright, I'm absolutely convinced that you must be Ann Coulter.

Its funny we as liberals and conservatives debate the merits of Bush and Kerry. Take Vietnam for example, I will pretend to be conservative for a second, and say that what if Kerry only served 4 months in Vietnam and what if some of those medals he got werent deserved.

But than just ask, why are we conservatives attacking Kerry, b/c he only served 4 months and b/c he didnt deserve his medals??

Why dont we conservatives like the idea that Kerry actually VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam, instead of getting deferements like Dick Cheney or going into the Champagne National Guard in Texas

Wouldnt it be better to vote for a Volunteer than a Draft Dodger?


Dick Cheney got more deferements than anybody else in Wyoming. 5 deferments as reported on www.bbc.uk/uspolitics/cheneyvietnam.html

wow he had 5 excuses to not go to Vietnam, Bill Clinton only had 1. Cause Bill was on a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford, what did Dick Cheney do that time? He worked for an oil company controlled by a family friend.

Sorry about spelling. Lol. You must be running out of real ammunition if you are now picking apart my spelling.

Anyways.

Yes, I read the last line of every (I think, there was enough of them) post you made. You never disproved the democrats consider democratic voters stupid.

Anyways, I am not even a christian, so what are you getting at? Look at Pakistan and India? Muslims have been fighting "infidels" for hundreds of years. And that was no where near "their" land.

Anyways, I would love to stay and argue indefinantly, but I have a job to go to. (Yes, I got a job, instead of blaming the evil republicans for my unimployment while sitting on the couch eating chips) Sorry, that was hostile. :p
Cya. Been fun.

You DO know that the Muslims are the minority in India, and that the total population of Pakistan is about the same as the Muslim population of India?

If anything... the India-Pakistan conflict is Muslims resisting another religion...

And, since India and Pakistan only seperated in August of 1947, with the withdrawl of the British rule. The lines were drawn up SPECIFICALLY to create tension - by dividing the former India sub-continent into two zones based on majority religion.

Don't pretend to be an expert if you aren't.

And don't be so aggressive about it, if you have no argument.

Hollow vessels. Loudest noise.

I'd just like to say thank you to those people who answered this question in a serious manner, without getting into unnecessary arguments. Thank you for stating your opinions clearly. Thank you for backing them up with reasoning and sources. You've helped me along in my decision. Kerry sounds better than I thought now, especially when compaired to Bush. If Kerry does even 1/4 of what he says he's going to do, this country will be much better off. Bush has had four years, and I don't recall him doing much of anything that he said he was going to do. At least, not until it got closer to election time.

I will admit, however, that I don't keep a close eye on what's going on politically. People promise to do so many good things, and then never do them. It gets depressing after a while. What I mean to say is, perhaps Bush has done a few more of the things he said he'd do than I realise. But, it's still not enough. Even not watching the political shows or anything, I still pick up some things that are going on in the political world, both good and bad. Though, less good, more bad, it seems.

So, yes, the point of this post. Thank you.

OK. Can' talk about current administration and its corruption to discredit them. :headbang: Got it.

OK. Your going to love this. I spent a long time on it, and I know how you conservatives HATE being proven wrong. And before I start, Ralph Nader has every right to run for President. Whether or not that makes him an egotistical jacka$$ has yet to be seen; I would have voted for Ross Perot over George I (but Bubba would have gotten 1st pick!)

1) John Kerry served admirably in the military; with a PUBLIC RECORD that states he EARNED three purple hearts. I feel that, in a time of war, the United States would be best served by a man with military experience. As to the fact that his military service was short, I say this. John Kerry was in the military and knows how it works; he was in charge of a Swift Boat. However, his service to the Anti-War movement after he came left the military shows that he still has value for human lives and thinks that war should be avoided at all costs.

2) According to economic laws, as established over the years and proven by the actual motions of the economies of the world, tax cuts and increased government spending should boost GDP and stimulate the economy. You can deduce this by thinking: OK. We get a tax cut, we have more money, let's spend it on what we need. The stores where the money is being spent will need to hire new employees, unemployment will go down. The economy, over time, will get better.
STOP
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WENT DOWN IN AUGUST, AND THAT MEANS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING A GOOD JOB. WHEN PEOPLE STOP LOOKING FOR JOBS, THEY ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED PART OF THE WORK FORCE. PEOPLE NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS ANYMORE CAUSED MOST OF THE FALL IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATINGS. DON'T MESS WITH ME, I KNOW MY STUFF. :cool:
2 con't) The current administration, using fear tactics and propoganda against the left, has caused people to sit on their tax cuts, if they were wealthy enough to get one. Tom Ridge, my home state's former governor, is probably the worst example of this politcally motivated fear-spewing. This is what is holding the economy back: PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO LIVE.

3) Back to Kerry. Shall we attack the flip-flopping? I think we shall. *Note: This is only my opinions, I have no facts here.* ;) After four years of lies, and stubborn morons in the government, I want someone who can change their points of view. That is what I believe the flip-flopping is all about. And, as for higher taxes, its REALLY fine with me (and I am old enough to have a job, so I understand how much taxes suck). We need to pay down the national debt, and we need to reduce our defecits. No amount of tax cuts for the rich is going to do that. As for John Kerry's idea to raise taxes on the wealthier, the numbers say from 35% to about 40% for those making over $200,000. Let's do math.
Say there are 300,000,000 people in the United States (I am using round numbers here :) ) 2% make over $200,000. (About 600,000 people. Under the current system, each person making that much pays roughly $70,000 in taxes. Really sucks for them. Under Kerry raises, those people will pay $80,000. WHOA WHOA WHOA. $10,000 extra dollars, how could these poor people live? I guess Jenny won't have Daddy and Mommy but her a new car this year. Give me a break. I am truely sorry for those who will have to pay extra, but if 600,000 people pay $10,000 extra in taxes, that is already $6,000,000,000 extra. That's a lot. And that's not including spending cutbacks proposed by Kerry.

4) John Kerry has been a Senator for many years. He has served on Senate Commitees and helped figure out what happened to the POWs in some small South Asian nation. Without launching into specifics, I feel this means that John Kerry is the type of people (as is John Edwards, as illustrated by his impressive career as a TRIAL LAWYER) that does something until he is finished with it. Before that seems stupid, let me rephrase. John Kerry sticks with something until the job is done, until it is resolved, and until it is better. I read a NewsWeeks (maybe Time?) article recently that described John Kerry's first political race (and loss) and how he is still held in low regard in that place. His mistakes made their show me that he knows how to run a campaign and knows what does and doesn't work when appealing to people (he has learned from screwing up). He isn't a 'go-it-alone' type person who would alienate potential friends and allies.

5) Of all of the Democratic nominees, I think this is my order of voting in the primaries, if I could have. Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Carol Moselly-Braun, Bob Ghrahm. I wouldn't have voted for Al Sharpton if someone held a gun to my head. When John Kerry came on the Tonight Show on a motorcycle, I thought it was a cheap ploy to grab attention, and you know what, it was. But, going on Arsenio and playing the sax was a cheap trick for Clinton, and it made him look much better. Kerry knows how to have fun, but not at the expense of business. Going windsurfing, snowboarding, all cool things, as long as you don't let it get in the way of work. Our current President let's playtime get in the way of worktime. When a ranch in East Bumblef*#$, Texas is called 'the Western White House', something is wrong.

6) Gay Rights. I'm a liberal, I had to throw it in. Our current administration is trying to right discrimination into the Constitution. Now, I know that some people are morally opposed to gay marriage and such, and that's fine for them, or is it? :confused: Consider this, some people have a moral problem with blacks and Latinos having the same rights as whitey. Some people have a moral problem with women coming 'out of the kitchen'. We call these people bigots, Klansman, and Republicans. JK! But, as of 70 years ago, blacks were not equal to whites, and as of 150 years ago and sooner than that, women were not equal to men. So, to the people who have a 'moral problem' with gays, are you any better than Klansman? I know that this will be an issue for a long time, but be open about it. Leaving it up to states is the better alternative. As a side note, I think if states want to illegalize marriages between two loving people who happen to be of the same sex (I'm sorry this topic really gets me pissed) then they should NEVER EVER make it permanent. Because some day, they will realize that these PEOPLE are just that. I support John Kerry because he supports other people, no matter what their orientation. AND I like the Vice-President a LITTLE bit better because he supports state's rights (about time he stood up a little for his poor daughter). :fluffle: :fluffle:

7) When something doesn't work, you fix it. Plain and simple, this government isn't working. Let's fix it. The current administration (I almost said Bush and Cheney, the horribly corrupt ex-Halliburton head Fuhrer, glad I caught myself. :D ) has had four years to get going on this, and I don't think they have done enough to earn another term. OOOHHHH. And if I hear freedom one more time from the f*&#ing Republicans (or Democrats), I think I am going to go ape $hit. :sniper:

So, I know someone already did this, and maybe you responded, I didn't read the whole thread. Tell me why Bush and Cheney WITHOUT using:
- Rich
- Corrupt
- Redneck
- Moron
- Illiterate
- Ineffective Tax-Cuts
- Freedom
- Spreading Democracy
- Alienating our Country
- Arrogant
- Oblivious
- Dodging Vietnam
- Daddy's Boy
- Slacker

(can you do it?)

8) What qualifies George Bush for the Office of the Presidency? Don't metion.
- Texas Rangers
- Arbusto
- Enron
- Katherine Harris and Good Ole' Jeb (who disenfranchised many illegally and handed this guy the Oval Office)
- John Ashcroft (who lost a race in Missouri to a dead man)
- Colin Powell (the only Republican in this administation I respect, but alas he has no gonads)
- Discrimination = Good
-Thank you if you read all this. At the top, I told you I spent a while. This wasn't that long cause I REALLY got to spewing after a while. It felt good. I could keep going but I think I'll develop carpel-tunnel or something. Plus I'm in college. I shouldn't be being political and junk now. It's Friday night.
Congratulations!! You did a fine job following the rules...almost to a T. However, you did a great job stating that Kerry should be the man for the job and that above all, he has the human qualities necessary to get the job done!!

Excellent post!! :)

BTW, this line was sooooo apropriate:

"DON'T MESS WITH ME, I KNOW MY STUFF."

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.


whats wrong with bieng a war-monger?

I'm a war-monger (or so I have bee called).

My dream is to die on the battlefield laying in the pool of blood of my fallen enemies fighting for the freedom and the dignity of my country. I have nothing wrong if I die in war and I greatly honor those who have died. I envy thier death for it was a good one. (what makes me mad is that I can enlist in the armed forces cause some of my disabilities and I'm the last male carrying my family name). Sorry if I offended any of those who thier loved ones, I was not making a negative comment to yours but arther a positive one. They were fighting for what was right and thier death, though can never bring them back, has earned them such a honor in my heart and praise beyond praise from me.

with all that aside...I'm voting for Bush cause I think he has what it takes to govern the country for one more term in a world thats hateful, evil, and distubred. He won't back down from stupid European powers that all they do is sit on thier butts (save for england). He doesn't change his mind when things look wrong for him and doesn't flip flop (as much as kerry).

And bieng a Christian...I would like to see a Christian president leading a Christian Nation. Im done ranting :)

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Lol, that rhymes! :p

what/who is badnarik?

what/who is voltron?

what/who is badnarik?

what/who is voltron?

Michael Badnarik. The Libertarian Party's presidential candidate.

what/who is badnarik?
what/who is voltron?Badnarik is Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president. He's in 4th place in the polls. Voltron is a giant robot from an early 1980's anime of the same name. Pictures of it show up in part of an online game that criticizes George W Bush

Vote Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Bob Dole...
Zzzzz..

Did someone forget the Holy Wars? When white Christians from the north came down and invaded Islamic territory? They don't want to make the whole world muslim, where did you ever get that idea? They just want foreign invaders out of their land! Is that so unreasonable? Or do you want to push your good, Christian ideals upon them and make them Christian? The Islamic people aren't sending out missions like the Christians. If anything, the Christian movement wants to make the entire world Christian, which is in fact, what they want. Plus, learn to spell "muslim."

You are mistaken about Muslim motivations. The whole "foreign invaders" thing is a bunch of bunk used to justify their stance.

200+ years ago Muslim countries were killing and enslaving travelers on the Mediterranean sea (look up Tripoli sometime). When approaced diplomatically about some how ending these practices, they were met with the stance that it was their "Allah's given right to enslave and kill the infidels" for being non-muslim. Nothing about foreign invaders, only about killing non muslims.

Huge text doesn't make you sound smarter.

Bottom line on Vietnam: Silver Star with combat V

Someone's challenged me to argue in favor of Bush. Alright. Accomplishments:

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime have been deposed, and fifty million people have been freed from oppression as a result.

3/4 of Al Qaeda have been captured or killed and the Golden Chain is broken.

The unemployment rate is down to 5.5%.

No terrorist attack has been made on U.S. soil since September 11.

Our economy is steady and strong. GrowthDebt.com is a nice resource for economics, though it's mainly focused on the national debt and how it's not a problem.

1.3 million more Americans were below the poverty line last year. Considering that according to the Department of Labor, most of the "poor" own their own home, have air conditioning, a car, a color television and a satellite dish, that's pretty good.

Cheney has broken with the President on the subject of homosexual "rights." Wait a minute, I thought Cheney was the one pulling all the strings!

As for flip-flops, I highly recommend KerryOnIraq.com. I could regale you with flip-flopping tales, but I won't take the time.

FREEDOM!

George Bush was Governor of Texas for quite a few years. That's experience in the executive branch. Kerry has opposed the death penalty, even for terrorists, has opposed every major weapons system, wanted a nuclear freeze, and is recognised by the Communist North Vietnamese as having been important to their victory. He is the most liberal member of the Senate, with a rating of 93 on a 10 to 100 scale from the Americans for Democratic Action (against Ted Kennedy's 88), as I recall.

Dick Cheney headed a major corporation and served three tenures as Secretary of Defense. I think I trust him. John Edwards corrupted society as a trial lawyer (Las Vegas hotels fear lawyers more than Al Qaeda!) and has an incomplete Senate term.

john kerry is voltron and we must put him down. I say we launch nukes at him =D then when we are done killing him maybe aim them at random countires. I think Bush is just the person to do that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Welcome to the forums!

Someone's challenged me to argue in favor of Bush. Alright. Accomplishments:

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime have been deposed, and fifty million people have been freed from oppression as a result.
Iraq had no WMD and no links to Al-Queda. Why attack Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Afghanistan is sliding backwards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2997238.stm

Many of the country's farmers are dependent on opium for income - but now there are vast numbers of people in the country dependent on it as addicts.

3/4 of Al Qaeda have been captured or killed and the Golden Chain is broken.Link please?

The unemployment rate is down to 5.5%.
But do you know why? Bush is still on target to be the first president since Hoover with a net job loss while in office.

No terrorist attack has been made on U.S. soil since September 11.
However, there have been lots of warnings and the level remains high.

Terrorist attacks have increased since the invasion of Iraq and there have been 3 attacks against American interests in Saudi Arabia alone.

Our economy is steady and strong. GrowthDebt.com is a nice resource for economics, though it's mainly focused on the national debt and how it's not a problem.
The National Debt has increased by $1.5 Trillion since the current administration took office. The deficits are new records.

1.3 million more Americans were below the poverty line last year. Considering that according to the Department of Labor, most of the "poor" own their own home, have air conditioning, a car, a color television and a satellite dish, that's pretty good.
Link please.

Cheney has broken with the President on the subject of homosexual "rights." Wait a minute, I thought Cheney was the one pulling all the strings!
Well it is difficult to toe the party line when your Vice President has a lesbian daughter?

Yeah Bush has done a great job, if you are a wealthy American, and/or you don't have to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.
Kerry is not a neo-conservative
Kerry will fight for universal health care
Kerry will have real no kidding foreign policy
Kerry's plan for the economy makes sense
Kerry's plan for Iraq makes sense
Kerry will actually fight terrorism where it is rather than in a country that had nothing ties to it (of course we're all stuck in Iraq for the duration)
Kerry can string a series of words together to make a logical sentence and he can string sentences together to form paragraphs.
Kerry's choice for VP is not *edited* a ruthless, pathological liar
Kerry's dad didn't call atheists unamerican
Kerry has been endorsed by 10 Nobel Prize winning Economists
Kerry has been endorsed by 48 Nobel Prize winning Scientists
Kerry will not let polluters write the EPA regulations
Kerry will take steps toward reducing America's dependence on oil
Kerry will not let religious ideology rule the whitehouse
Kerry will support (and fund) real education reform
Kerry is not ultra-partisan or divisive
Kerry is not a flip-flopper like Bush is

Okay so that's what I came up with right off the top of my head.

Kerry is not a flip-flopper like Bush is
Now, you can argue that Bush is just the same flip-flopper Kerry is or perhaps even more, but to say that Kerry isn't is just silly.

Now, you can argue that Bush is just the same flip-flopper Kerry is or perhaps even more, but to say that Kerry isn't is just silly.
Examples? Sorry, I've been researching it, and I'm having a difficult time finding any real flip-flops by Kerry. It appears to me that this is simply the administration and the media claiming that up is down and then making it true through repitition.

But if you have examples (with context), that'd be great.

examples.
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
And if you're going to say that under the circumstances they're justified, then you have to allow Bush the same convenience..

KerryOnIraq.com is the best, in my opinion.

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
And if you're going to say that under the circumstances they're justified, then you have to allow Bush the same convenience..
If you'd like to go over them individually, I'm game. Quoting the very party line that has been spreading the misinformation doesn't impress. Grunwald's Slate article is particularly egregious in its lack of context.

I am a Republican who supports the president on almost every count OTHER than a few really big ones. He seems to have an obsession with social issues and a total lack of respect for his job which, in my opinion, should be to #1- protect us and #2- give us back our money. He is begging us all (republicans and others) to support his decision to kill 16K and spend 100-something billion because we were in immediate danger. No, it was WDM's. No, it was that ther was connections with Al-Qaeda. No, wait, it was to liberate Iraq. The fact is, he's made a horrible decision which has resulted in the loss of more lives than any war since Vietnam. He's also spent more money than any president in the history of the US. He's no Republican.
John Kerry, on the other hand, has a plan. He has never flip-flopped, and a solid investigation into every measure he has voted for would confirm this. He is a man of values; a man that stands for safety, heath, peace, and equality. He has the intelligence and first-hand experience to make decisions about sacrifices that our soldiers will have to make. George Bush, on the other hand, does not know what that sacrifice means.
To close, I will leave you with possible Bush flop:

“I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you ....but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you…..I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.”
George W. Bush
Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
October 11, 2000

If you'd like to go over them individually, I'm game. Quoting the very party line that has been spreading the misinformation doesn't impress. Grunwald's Slate article is particularly egregious in its lack of context.
Ok, go over them all individually, that would be good. Prove Kerry isn't a flip flopper - whether for good or bad reasons, he didn't flip-flop.

Ok, go over them all individually, that would be good. Prove Kerry isn't a flip flopper - whether for good or bad reasons, he didn't flip-flop.
I changed my mind (I can flip-flop, I'm not running for president) and decided to post some kerry isn't a flip-flopper sites because, hey, it's good enough for you, so it's good enough for me.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/yglesias-m-03-09.html
http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/05/631/
http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/05/632/

Incidentally, I said that Kerry doesn't flip-flop like Bush, not that he has never changed his position on an issue. Going through life never changing your position even if you learn new facts or if conditions change is stupid. Changing your opinion in a matter of months (or even hours) to cover your butt is a flip-flop. Bush does the latter, Kerry doesn't.

You brought it up, you make your case.
I posted the link, just look at the George Bush one - it has plenty of quotes along with the Senate voting records on it.

I posted the link, just look at the George Bush one - it has plenty of quotes along with the Senate voting records on it.
I updated my post, but not quickly enough...

President Bush said last night that Kerry voted against money for troops. Kerry said that he voted for it before he voted against it. He voted for it when it included rolling back the Bush tax cut for those making over 200K. He voted against it when it did not. He NEVER voted against money for troops, only against irresponsible government. Here's the names of the measures:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session (H.J.Res. 114) Vote #237 11 Oct 2002.

Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004) Vote #400 17 Oct. 2003.

On the other hand, Bush didn't support the establishment of another government bureau, but then he did:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=246
sounds like another Bush flip-flop

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative."Most"?? 'Fraid not! (http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html)

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.Being a fighter jet pilot for 4 years (which is longer than Jean Francois Kerry spent in the Navy) does NOT constitute serving time in the military?? Heck, basic flight training in the US Air Force is a year long, and that is 3 times longer than Jean Francois Kerry spent in Vietnam!

I know, you're going to say "but Bush was in the National Guard!" I guess you can tell my buddies in the National Guard who are right now deployed to Iraq that they aren't "really" in the military.

And you can forget about the AWOL "controversy." That dead horse has been beaten long enough and no one has been able to prove he was ever AWOL.

Some like the idea of a politician who isn't basically in office because of name-recognition.And just how do you think Hillary got elected senator for a state she had never lived in??

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..You know, all this BS could have been avoided if Algore had managed to win his own home state...

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.They like a straight-shooter even more...look at the polls. I know they are worthless right now and the only poll that matters will be conducted on Nov 2nd, but you can't deny what they seem to say...

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96.03 percent of taxes in this country. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls) 'Nuff said.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.Did you know that the Heinz company has most of its production overseas? I guess Jean Francois Kerry needs to practice what he preaches.

Iraq had no WMD and no links to Al-Queda. Why attack Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Iraq had WMD. This is a proven fact. He used them. There were links between Iraq and Al-Queda, just not Iraq and 9/11. Saddam was attempting to aquire fuel for nuclear weapons.

Afghanistan is sliding backwards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2997238.stm

Many of the country's farmers are dependent on opium for income - but now there are vast numbers of people in the country dependent on it as addicts.



Umm what does this have to do with anything? The fact that there is corruption going on? Show me a place where there isnt.


Link please?

http://207.46.167.100/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=701610346#endads
http://www.mid-day.com/news/world/2004/august/89656.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/030303_nw_terror_arrest.html

none of these say exactly 3/4, I believe that is an exageration, however it can not be argued that inroads have been made to disrupt the Al-Qaeda leadership/membership.

But do you know why? Bush is still on target to be the first president since Hoover with a net job loss while in office.

Again so? Unemployment under Clinton was 4.3%. Bush, inheriting a recession, which causes loss of jobs incase you didnt know, was able to help bring unemployment rate to 5.5%. I would like to see what he's capable of with another 4 more years.

However, there have been lots of warnings and the level remains high.

There can be warnings every second of every day for all Im concerned.. as long as there isnt another attack.

Terrorist attacks have increased since the invasion of Iraq and there have been 3 attacks against American interests in Saudi Arabia alone.

Let's see.. what's that phrase you like to use? Oh yes.. Links please.

The National Debt has increased by $1.5 Trillion since the current administration took office. The deficits are new records.

Deficits and Debt.. 2 different animals. However, I understand the point you are trying to make. This has to do with runaway spending tho. Kerry has already said he would increase spending thereby increasing the deficit.

Link please.

http://beta1.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/24/daily40.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/q204tab5.html

Well it is difficult to toe the party line when your Vice President has a lesbian daughter?

Yes it is.. but this brings into doubt the oft opined "Bush is a moron, Cheney is pulling the strings" argument.

Yeah Bush has done a great job, if you are a wealthy American, and/or you don't have to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I am neither a wealthy American, and I did infact have to fight/serve in the military under Bush. He's done a great job by me.

Incidentally, I said that Kerry doesn't flip-flop like Bush, not that he has never changed his position on an issue. Going through life never changing your position even if you learn new facts or if conditions change is stupid. Changing your opinion in a matter of months (or even hours) to cover your butt is a flip-flop. Bush does the latter, Kerry doesn't.
Making distinctions now? I guess thats alright. As soon as everyone admits that flip-flopping isn't bad and get to fact that every politician does it, that would be better. People can make excuses all they want, that things weren't flip flops, but rather verbal gaffes, and thus shouldn't be counted, that they now have new info and their positions should be changed accordingly, but things like this can be extended to almost every situation. For example one could say that, after careful review of the facts and the situation at hand, Bush and his administration eventually came to the conclusion that a new department would be the best thing to happen, just like one could say that in the beginning, Kerry didn't think that the Patriot act was a bad thing and in fact even said good things about it, but then after he really sat down and thought about it, he realized it was a bad thing and now is against it.

Heinz does business all over the world, and it has every right to open factories in any place it does business. Kerry owns 0% of Heinz, and his wife only heads a public-service foundation her first husband left. She sits on no boards, makes no decisions, nor can she, because she owns next to nothing. It really pisses me off when someone has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. If you believe Kerry owns Heinz, than let me clue you in on the newest secret: Panhandlia is going to bed with Donald Rumsfeld.

Did you know that the Heinz company has most of its production overseas? I guess Jean Francois Kerry needs to practice what he preaches.

While I agree with most of your post, I have to be fair and point out that those production companies have to be overseas, inorder to reach oversea markets. Most of the products Heinz produces in those factories are (somewhat) perishable and it just makes sense to be manufactured there.

Huge text doesn't make you sound smarter.

Bottom line on Vietnam: Silver Star with combat V


BTW, the Silver Star does not come with a Combat V for Valor. Part of the reason someone gets a Silver Star is Valor above and beyond the call of duty. That being said, Kerry's citation for the Silver Star was amended in 1986 to add the Combat V (just as he started the least productive 20 years in the Senate for any senator ever,) yet the Secretary of the Navy at the time doesn't recall ever seeing or approving that amendment...and he wouldn't have signed it if he had seen it, since the Combat V for Valor is not part of the Silver Star.

She sits on no boards, makes no decisions, nor can she, because she owns next to nothing.

I hope you mean owns next to nothing as in stock in Heinz company. Her personal net worth has been estimated in the range of $1billion-$3.2 billion

And she does still own Heinz stock, just not nearly enough to influence their decisions.

Making distinctions now? I guess thats alright. As soon as everyone admits that flip-flopping isn't bad and get to fact that every politician does it, that would be better. People can make excuses all they want, that things weren't flip flops, but rather verbal gaffes, and thus shouldn't be counted, that they now have new info and their positions should be changed accordingly, but things like this can be extended to almost every situation. For example one could say that, after careful review of the facts and the situation at hand, Bush and his administration eventually came to the conclusion that a new department would be the best thing to happen, just like one could say that in the beginning, Kerry didn't think that the Patriot act was a bad thing and in fact even said good things about it, but then after he really sat down and thought about it, he realized it was a bad thing and now is against it.

Here's the difference between Kerry and Bush on this matter, and you'll agree if you're honest with yourself, Kwangistar.

Bush's campaign was the one who called Kerry a flip-flopper. He had a game about it on his website. His campaign even selectively edited a video of a Kerry appearance on Hardball to make it look like Kerry was doing it during the primaries.

In other words--Bush started it, which means, if he's using it as an attack, then Bush must be a person who thinks flip-flopping is a bad thing. Therefore, it's hypocritical for Bush to attack Kerry for being a flip-flopper when he's at least as guilty of it personally as his opponent is.

You probably won't give this last bit any attention, Kwangistar, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Republicans are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Democrats of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.

did i say hijack! oh no, terrorists! we need to give up all of our civil rights in the name of national security!

While I agree with most of your post, I have to be fair and point out that those production companies have to be overseas, inorder to reach oversea markets. Most of the products Heinz produces in those factories are (somewhat) perishable and it just makes sense to be manufactured there.
Exactly!!! In order to achieve competitiveness in markets around the world, companies MUST maximize productivity and minimize costs! So, if the Heinz company (sorry, but Teresa and by extension Jean Francois ARE profiting from ketchup sales) can move operations overseas to maximize its producitivity and minimize its costs, why is it a sin for other corporations to do the same??

You probably won't give this last bit any attention, Kwangistar, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Republicans are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Democrats of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.

You probably wont give this last bit any attention, Incertonia, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Democrats are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Republicans of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.

I hope you mean owns next to nothing as in stock in Heinz company. Her personal net worth has been estimated in the range of $1billion-$3.2 billion

And she does still own Heinz stock, just not nearly enough to influence their decisions.

By next to nothing I mean that she holds less than 4% intrest. 4% of a piece of cake, for example, is most likely a fraction of a bite. I believe 4% isn't enough to make the sole decision to outsource. I believe 4% is next to nothing.

Here's the difference between Kerry and Bush on this matter, and you'll agree if you're honest with yourself, Kwangistar.

Bush's campaign was the one who called Kerry a flip-flopper. He had a game about it on his website. His campaign even selectively edited a video of a Kerry appearance on Hardball to make it look like Kerry was doing it during the primaries.

In other words--Bush started it, which means, if he's using it as an attack, then Bush must be a person who thinks flip-flopping is a bad thing. Therefore, it's hypocritical for Bush to attack Kerry for being a flip-flopper when he's at least as guilty of it personally as his opponent is.

You probably won't give this last bit any attention, Kwangistar, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Republicans are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Democrats of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.
I'd agree that Bush is a flip-flopper just like Kerry. I think its stupid of both sides to try and say "the other candidate flip flops while mine dosen't" and then give explanations as to why their candidate's flip-flips don't count, which is why I posted about it. I personally think that what most people consider flip-flops are to a certain extent good, if done for the right reasons, and I think both sides are guilty of those which aren't done for the right reasons.

i have been hearing stuff about how a woman should have the right to chose to have an abortion because it is HER body. But the thing is not much happens to HER body but what happens is the BABIES body gets torn apart. So it's not really her body it is the baby's body. And if she doesnt want to keep the baby like in a case of rape just put it up for adoption. Just because she doesnt want to live life for 9 months carrying a baby doesn't mean she has to murder the baby. And wasnt it kerry who said that he believes that life starts at conception BUT is pro abortionist... So basically he just said murder is not bad... :headbang: :rolleyes:

By next to nothing I mean that she holds less than 4% intrest. 4% of a piece of cake, for example, is most likely a fraction of a bite. I believe 4% isn't enough to make the sole decision to outsource. I believe 4% is next to nothing.

Ok, we agree on that.... wow.. that's a strange feeling

;)

You probably wont give this last bit any attention, Incertonia, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Democrats are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Republicans of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.

You've both captured the essence of two-party politics. We can now move on to politics 102! Or at least 2nd grade.

Many people like john kerry for the dog and pony show he puts on. He says he is against the rich running the country and paying less taxes..Yet he and his wife are worth over 800 million. He is also against corporate outsourcing to other countries...Yet his wife's corporation Heinz has only one branch in the United States..Did you know our ketchup and mustard is not made in the good 'ol US? He can never make up his mind and stay firm on a subject if he is pressured which is not a quality we need in our Commander in Chief. Kerry is more worried on how the rest of the world views us and trying to please most of europe. The President needs to care about the preservation of the United States. Not the appeasement of other countries. Not to mention that the man has a bad personallity. Did you notice that he started slipping in the polls when he got out to meet and greet the public...People saw upclose what kind of a person he was and started going for bush. Don't try and saw there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. He used them on his own people for pete's sake. That was most likely why none were found...He used them up already! Bush is doing why needs to be done to prevent another major attack on the US. If President Clinton had persued terrorists like bush and our armed forces are doing now, 9/11 would most likely not have happened..But what did clinton do?...If something did not go the right way he retreated...Just like in somolia..pulling our forces out. You need to commit to the fight if you want to win folks. No battle was ever won without the spilling of blood. Yes our troops are dying each day..Nothing will every bring them back...Nothing can erase the pain and anguish their families feel..They died serving their country, as heroes. They died with honor and courage...They joined of their own free will to defend and protect. How dare someone soil their legacy by saying their sacrafice was not worth anything. President Bush is not perfect..Not one living thing is..But he is a good leader who will get us through these troubled times. John Kerry is..in my opinion as there are those who disagree....not presidential material...Senator maybe...But not in the oval office.

You probably won't give this last bit any attention, Kwangistar, but I'll say it anyway. If you want to know exactly what the Republicans are guilty of on any given day, look at what they accuse the Democrats of doing. It's as clear an indicator as exists in the world of politics.
You know, it works just as well the other way, and there is plenty of proof of Dems accusing Republicans of things they (Dems) are doing. Case in point, attacks on patriotism...show me ONE proof that Max Cleland's patriotism was attacked at any point in 2002. Show me ONE proof of Jean Francois Kerry's patriotism being attacked or impugned during the RNC. Give me ONE proof of his military record being attacked during the RNC.

In fact, every speaker I saw during the RNC made it very clear that Kerry's military service was honorable and deserving of the utmost respect. What can not be defended is Kerry's SENATE record...close to 20 years of ZERO accomplishment. Name ONE bill he got through the Senate. He was absent from 76 percent of the Senate Intelligence Committee's meetings. He voted 98 times for tax increases.

4% of a piece of cake, for example, is most likely a fraction of a bite.

What kind of cakes are you eating? I, for one, make replicas of Elvis's wedding cake when I want cake.

Now I will try this again? The post was for Paxania, not you One Rule, so please allow him to reply?

Someone's challenged me to argue in favor of Bush. Alright. Accomplishments:

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime have been deposed, and fifty million people have been freed from oppression as a result.
Iraq had no WMD and no links to Al-Queda. Why attack Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Afghanistan is sliding backwards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2997238.stm

Many of the country's farmers are dependent on opium for income - but now there are vast numbers of people in the country dependent on it as addicts.

3/4 of Al Qaeda have been captured or killed and the Golden Chain is broken.Link please?

The unemployment rate is down to 5.5%.
But do you know why? Bush is still on target to be the first president since Hoover with a net job loss while in office.

No terrorist attack has been made on U.S. soil since September 11.
However, there have been lots of warnings and the level remains high.

Terrorist attacks have increased since the invasion of Iraq and there have been 3 attacks against American interests in Saudi Arabia alone.

Our economy is steady and strong. GrowthDebt.com is a nice resource for economics, though it's mainly focused on the national debt and how it's not a problem.
The National Debt has increased by $1.5 Trillion since the current administration took office. The deficits are new records.

1.3 million more Americans were below the poverty line last year. Considering that according to the Department of Labor, most of the "poor" own their own home, have air conditioning, a car, a color television and a satellite dish, that's pretty good.
Link please.

Cheney has broken with the President on the subject of homosexual "rights." Wait a minute, I thought Cheney was the one pulling all the strings!
Well it is difficult to toe the party line when your Vice President has a lesbian daughter?

Yeah Bush has done a great job, if you are a wealthy American, and/or you don't have to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

i have been hearing stuff about how a woman should have the right to chose to have an abortion because it is HER body. But the thing is not much happens to HER body but what happens is the BABIES body gets torn apart. So it's not really her body it is the baby's body. And if she doesnt want to keep the baby like in a case of rape just put it up for adoption. Just because she doesnt want to live life for 9 months carrying a baby doesn't mean she has to murder the baby. And wasnt it kerry who said that he believes that life starts at conception BUT is pro abortionist... So basically he just said murder is not bad... :headbang: :rolleyes:

The logical extension of your post would lead one to believe that you do not support the taking of ANY life. Is that correct.

What kind of cakes are you eating? I, for one, make replicas of Elvis's wedding cake when I want cake.

I may just be an idiot, but 4% is like, 1/25th. 1/25th of Elvis's wedding cake still is like, only like, a small piece of his cake.

I may just be an idiot, but 4% is like, 1/25th. 1/25th of Elvis's wedding cake still is like, only like, a small piece of his cake.

now i'm hungry

"Most"?? 'Fraid not! (http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html)

Being a fighter jet pilot for 4 years (which is longer than Jean Francois Kerry spent in the Navy) does NOT constitute serving time in the military?? Heck, basic flight training in the US Air Force is a year long, and that is 3 times longer than Jean Francois Kerry spent in Vietnam!

I know, you're going to say "but Bush was in the National Guard!" I guess you can tell my buddies in the National Guard who are right now deployed to Iraq that they aren't "really" in the military.

And you can forget about the AWOL "controversy." That dead horse has been beaten long enough and no one has been able to prove he was ever AWOL.

And just how do you think Hillary got elected senator for a state she had never lived in??

You know, all this BS could have been avoided if Algore had managed to win his own home state...

They like a straight-shooter even more...look at the polls. I know they are worthless right now and the only poll that matters will be conducted on Nov 2nd, but you can't deny what they seem to say...

The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96.03 percent of taxes in this country. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls) 'Nuff said.

Did you know that the Heinz company has most of its production overseas? I guess Jean Francois Kerry needs to practice what he preaches.
Wow, where to begin.

First off, Kerry spent 2 tours in Vietnam to George Bush's 0. Now to make the ridiculous assertion that Bush's NG time should be compared to Kerry's Vietnam time shows your absolute bias. Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966 and left in 1970, that is four (4) years of service in the military. John Kerry volunteered for an overseas assignment twice, George Bush marked the box that indicated that he did not want to go overseas. Bush earned his wings in July of 1970. From Jun 1970 to May of 1971 bush was credited with 46 days of flight duty (that includes a month of pilot training). From June 1971 to May 1972, Bush was credited with 22 flight duty days. Bush flew for the last time in April 1972, less than 3 years from when he got his wings. This is the service you claim is equivalent to getting a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts?

Oh but you have more. You are comparing national guard service now to national guard service during Vietnam. You are comparing apples to oranges. During the Vietnam war, national guard service was just one way of avoiding going to combat in Vietnam. Today, there is little doubt that if you are in the national guard, you will be deploying in some capacity to Iraq or Afghanistan. If you can't see how that is not the same, then your bias is absolutely unreachable.

The AWOL controversy hasn't ended because Bush hasn't released his records. But let's be frank. No one expected Bush to be around. After he got tired of flying in 1972, he decided to explore other opportunities. That is the kind of thing you could get away with in the NG at the time if you were the son of a VIP.

Misc Hillary Clinton bashing, next.
Misc Al Gore Bashing, next.

Polls change drastically. The polls seemed to say that Perot was going to win at one point during the 1992 election year. Like you said, polls are meaningless.

About the top 50% of wage earners paying 96.03% of taxes. One can find that exact same line on Rush Limbaugh's site. This study fails to mention what percentage of their income the top 10, 5, 2, and 1 percent pay in income tax. While the dollar amount is absolutely higher (and therefore a higher percentage of the total amount of income tax) the percentage of their income paid in taxes by the super-rich is actually LOWER than that of middle income families. So, again, you are being misleading.

Did you know that Neither John Kerry nor Teresa Heinz Kerry have a control over the Heinz company? Did you know that Kerry's policies will make it so that companies are rewarded for keeping jobs in the US rather than rewarding companies for outsourcing jobs?

Of course you didn't.

You know, it works just as well the other way, and there is plenty of proof of Dems accusing Republicans of things they (Dems) are doing. Case in point, attacks on patriotism...show me ONE proof that Max Cleland's patriotism was attacked at any point in 2002. Show me ONE proof of Jean Francois Kerry's patriotism being attacked or impugned during the RNC. Give me ONE proof of his military record being attacked during the RNC.

In fact, every speaker I saw during the RNC made it very clear that Kerry's military service was honorable and deserving of the utmost respect. What can not be defended is Kerry's SENATE record...close to 20 years of ZERO accomplishment. Name ONE bill he got through the Senate. He was absent from 76 percent of the Senate Intelligence Committee's meetings. He voted 98 times for tax increases.
Geeze, I didn't want to have to do this. The whole Kerry's Senate record is blank things is simply another lie of the right-wing media. Here, for the record are 57 bills sponsored by John Kerry that were passed by the Senate. You can of course do the research yourself at www.congress.org.

57 Bills and Resolutions John Kerry Sponsored


99th Congress (1)


S.CON.RES.62: A concurrent resolution expressing solidarity with the Sakharov family in their efforts to exercise their rights of freedom of expression, of travel, and of communication, as guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

SPONSOR: Sen. Kerry (introduced 09/12/85) RELATED BILLS: H.CON.RES.186

100th Congress (7)


1. S.CON.RES.99: A concurrent resolution condemning North Korea's support for terrorist activities.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 03/04/88 Measure passed Senate, amended.



2. S.RES.189: A resolution to commend the United States Coast Guard for its recent heroic action in the rescue of 37 Soviet crew members.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 04/10/87 Measure passed Senate.



3. S.RES.279: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding ethical conduct expected of Senate political committees.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 09/09/87 Measure passed Senate, roll call #236 (87-0).



4. S.J.RES.91: A joint resolution disapproving the certification by the President under section 481(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 04/07/87 Referred jointly to House Committees on Foreign Affairs; and Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.



5. S.J.RES.285: A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Haiti falls under the definition of "major drug-transit country" as stated in section 481(i)(5) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and therefore should be subject to the certification process mandated by section 481(h) of that Act.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 04/18/88 Referred to House Committees on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; and Foreign Affairs.



6. S.J.RES.369: A joint resolution to designate the period of September 17 through October 10, 1988, as "Coastweeks '88."

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 09/27/88 Referred to House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.



7. S.2365: A bill authorizing the release of 86 USIA films with respect to the Marshall Plan.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 09/20/88 Measure passed House, amended.

101st Congress (4)


1. S.RES.201 : A resolution to commend the courage and heroism of Walter Suskind, and unrecognized hero of World War II.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 10/31/1989) Cosponsors: (none)

Latest Major Action: 10/31/1989 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Voice Vote.



2. S.J.RES.158 : A joint resolution designating October 22 through 28, 1989, as "World Population Awareness Week".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/16/1989) Cosponsors: 27

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 10/25/1990 Signed by President.



3. S.J.RES.166 : A joint resolution to designate the period of September 16 through October 9, 1989, as "Coastweeks '89".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/22/1989) Cosponsors: 54

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 9/13/1989 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Census and Population.



4. S.2575 : A bill to urge the Secretary of State to negotiate a ban on mineral resource activities in Antarctica, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/3/1990) Cosponsors: 3

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 10/17/1990 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

102nd Congress (12)


1. S.CON.RES.26 : A concurrent resolution calling for the United States to support a new agreement among the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties which would provide comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica and would prohibit indefinitely commercial mineral development and related activities in Antarctica.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/11/1991) Cosponsors: 14

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 5/29/1991 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



2. S.RES.18 : A resolution to recognize the accomplishments of Lewis A. Shattuck.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/24/1991) Cosponsors: 2

Latest Major Action: 1/24/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Voice Vote.



3. S.RES.133 : A resolution to designate May 21, 1991, as "National Land Trust Appreciation Day", and to recognize the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Trustees of Reservations.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/22/1991) Cosponsors: (none)

Latest Major Action: 5/22/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Voice Vote.



4. S.RES.144 : A resolution to encourage the European Community to vote to ban driftnets for all European Community fishing fleets on July 8 and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/25/1991) Cosponsors: 9

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 6/28/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments and an amendment to the Title and an amended preamble by Voice Vote.



5. S.RES.185 : An original resolution to provide for expenses and supplemental authority of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/26/1991) Cosponsors: (none)

Committees: Senate POW/MIA Affairs; Senate Rules and Administration

Latest Major Action: 10/16/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.



6. S.RES.324 : A resolution relating to declassification of Documents, Files, and other materials pertaining to POWs and MIAs.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/2/1992) Cosponsors: 14

Committees: Senate POW/MIA Affairs

Latest Major Action: 7/2/1992 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 96-0. Record Vote No: 144.



7. S.J.RES.160 : A joint resolution designating the week beginning October 20, 1991, as "World Population Awareness Week".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/13/1991) Cosponsors: 53

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 10/30/1991 Signed by President.



8. S.J.RES.318 : A joint resolution designating November 13, 1992, as "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/18/1992) Cosponsors: 57

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 10/24/1992 Became Public Law No: 102-518.



9. S.J.RES.337 : A joint resolution designating September 18, 1992, as "National POW/MIA Recognition Day", and authorizing display of the National League of Families POW/MIA flag.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/15/1992) Cosponsors: 31

Committees: Senate Judiciary

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1992 Became Public Law No: 102-373.



10. S.1418 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 78 Center Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as the "Silvio O. Conte Federal Building", and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/27/1991) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1991 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.



11. S.1563 : A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/25/1991) Cosponsors: 13

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Senate Labor and Human Resources; House Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Latest Major Action: 12/4/1991 Signed by President.



12. S.3389 : A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit certain transactions with respect to managed accounts.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 10/8/1992) Cosponsors: (none)

Committees: House Energy and Commerce

Latest Major Action: 12/22/1992 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.

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

Renz
103rd Congress (5)


1. S.CON.RES.67 : A concurrent resolution to correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2333.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/26/1994) Cosponsors: (none)

Latest Major Action: 4/28/1994 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.



2. S.RES.183 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the action taken by the Government of France against United States seafood products is a totally unwarranted action that is having severe repercussions on United States seafood producers and, in general, the United States fishing industry.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/28/1994) Cosponsors: 7

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 3/8/1994 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Voice Vote.



3. S.1206 : A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham, Massachusetts, as the "Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/1/1993) Cosponsors: 4

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 4/14/1994 Became Public Law No: 103-234.



4. S.1636 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 11/8/1993) Cosponsors: 2

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 4/30/1994 Became Public Law No: 103-238.



5. S.2478 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act to enhance the business development opportunities of small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/29/1994) Cosponsors: 16

Committees: Senate Small Business; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 10/7/1994 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.

104th Congress (10)


1. S.212 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SHAMROCK V.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/12/1995) Cosponsors: 2

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



2. S.213 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/12/1995) Cosponsors: 2

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



3. S.653 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel AURA.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/30/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



4. S.654 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/30/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



5. S.655 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel MARANTHA.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/30/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



6. S.656 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel QUIETLY.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/30/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



7. S.1016 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel MAGIC CARPET.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/10/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



8. S.1017 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel CHRISSY.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/10/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



9. S.1281 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SARAH-CHRISTEN.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/28/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.



10. S.1282 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel TRIAD.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/28/1995) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 7/30/1996 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

105th Congress (1)


S.469

Title: A bill to designate a portion of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/18/1997) Cosponsors: 1

Related Bills: H.R.1110

Latest Major Action: 10/10/1998 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed without objection.

106th Congress (3)


1. S.791 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/14/1999) Cosponsors: 30

Committees: Senate Small Business

Latest Major Action: 12/9/1999 Became Public Law No: 106-165.



2. S.918 : A bill to authorize the Small Business Administration to provide financial and business development assistance to military reservists' small businesses, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/29/1999) Cosponsors: 51

Committees: Senate Small Business; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 7/29/1999 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.



3. S.1569 : A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/8/1999) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

Latest Major Action: 2/2/2000 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.

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

Renz
107th Congress (12)


1. S.CON.RES.7 : Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should establish an international education policy to further national security, foreign policy, and economic competitiveness, promote mutual understanding and cooperation among nations, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/1/2001) Cosponsors: 11

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House International Relations; House Education and the Workforce

Latest Major Action: 8/10/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.



2. S.RES.65 : A resolution honoring Neil L. Rudenstine, President of Harvard University.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/29/2001) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Latest Major Action: 4/26/2001 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.



3. S.RES.123 : A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to change the name of the Committee on Small Business to the "Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/29/2001) Cosponsors: 1

Latest Major Action: 6/29/2001 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent.



4. S.RES.180 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the policy of the United States at the 17th Regular Meeting of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas in Murcia, Spain.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 11/13/2001) Cosponsors: 3

Latest Major Action: 11/13/2001 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.



5. S.RES.216 : A resolution to honor Milton D. Stewart for his years of service in the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 3/5/2002) Cosponsors: 15

Latest Major Action: 3/5/2002 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.



6. S.RES.264 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that small business participation is vital to the defense of our Nation, and that Federal, State, and local governments should aggressively seek out and purchase innovative technologies and services from American small businesses to help in homeland defense and the fight against terrorism.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/8/2002) Cosponsors: 25

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Latest Major Action: 7/8/2002 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.



7. S.RES.302 : A resolution honoring Ted Williams and extending the condolences of the Senate on his death.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 7/9/2002) Cosponsors: 4

Latest Major Action: 7/9/2002 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.



8. S.174 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the microloan program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/24/2001) Cosponsors: 18

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/17/2002 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended).



9. S.295 : A bill to provide emergency relief to small businesses affected by significant increases in the prices of heating oil, natural gas, propane, and kerosene, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/8/2001) Cosponsors: 34

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business; House Agriculture

Latest Major Action: 5/17/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research.



10. S.856 : A bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/9/2001) Cosponsors: 13

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Latest Major Action: 9/14/2001 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

Note: For further action, see H.R. 1860, which became Public Law 107-50 on 10/15/2001.



11. S.1499 : A bill to provide assistance to small business concerns adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 10/4/2001) Cosponsors: 63

Committees: House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/9/2002 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.



12. S.2869 : A bill to facilitate the ability of certain spectrum auction winners to pursue alternative measures required in the public interest to meet the needs of wireless telecommunications consumers.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 8/1/2002) Cosponsors: 58

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Energy and Commerce

Latest Major Action: 11/22/2002 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

108th Congress (2)


1. S.300 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), in recognition of his many contributions to the Nation, and to express the sense of Congress that there should be a national day in recognition of Jackie Robinson.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/4/2003) Cosponsors: 69

Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Latest Major Action: 10/20/2003 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

Note: For further action, see H.R. 1900, which became Public Law 108-101 on 10/29/2003.



2. S.318 : A bill to provide emergency assistance to nonfarm-related small business concerns that have suffered substantial economic harm from drought.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/5/2003) Cosponsors: 19

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/1/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.

First off, Kerry spent 2 tours in Vietnam to George Bush's 0. Now to make the ridiculous assertion that Bush's NG time should be compared to Kerry's Vietnam time shows your absolute bias. Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966 and left in 1970, that is four (4) years of service in the military. John Kerry volunteered for an overseas assignment twice, George Bush marked the box that indicated that he did not want to go overseas. Bush earned his wings in July of 1970. From Jun 1970 to May of 1971 bush was credited with 46 days of flight duty (that includes a month of pilot training). From June 1971 to May 1972, Bush was credited with 22 flight duty days. Bush flew for the last time in April 1972, less than 3 years from when he got his wings. This is the service you claim is equivalent to getting a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts?

Oh but you have more. You are comparing national guard service now to national guard service during Vietnam. You are comparing apples to oranges. During the Vietnam war, national guard service was just one way of avoiding going to combat in Vietnam. Today, there is little doubt that if you are in the national guard, you will be deploying in some capacity to Iraq or Afghanistan. If you can't see how that is not the same, then your bias is absolutely unreachable.

The AWOL controversy hasn't ended because Bush hasn't released his records. But let's be frank. No one expected Bush to be around. After he got tired of flying in 1972, he decided to explore other opportunities. That is the kind of thing you could get away with in the NG at the time if you were the son of a VIP.

YES IT HAS AND HE HAS. We've already reached the bottom lin on Vietnam: Silver Star with combat V for valor. I, for one, trust 254 veterans, 90 of them having won at least one Purple Heart (most veterans left Vietnam wih two Purple Hearts, having turned down all the others) and one of them known to be a Medal of Honor winner over Kerry and a dozen vets on his payroll.

Polls change drastically. The polls seemed to say that Perot was going to win at one point during the 1992 election year. Like you said, polls are meaningless.

About the top 50% of wage earners paying 96.03% of taxes. One can find that exact same line on Rush Limbaugh's site. This study fails to mention what percentage of their income the top 10, 5, 2, and 1 percent pay in income tax. While the dollar amount is absolutely higher (and therefore a higher percentage of the total amount of income tax) the percentage of their income paid in taxes by the super-rich is actually LOWER than that of middle income families. So, again, you are being misleading.

Wow, Rush Limbaugh giving statistics! That's a new one! Anyway, the Democrats certainly aren't out for a flat tax, so you have no moral high ground. Bush promises to reform the tax code, and he has shown himself to be worthy of our trust (at least when it comes to campaign promises, if you want to challenge me on that).

Did you know that Neither John Kerry nor Teresa Heinz Kerry have a control over the Heinz company? Did you know that Kerry's policies will make it so that companies are rewarded for keeping jobs in the US rather than rewarding companies for outsourcing jobs?

Of course you didn't.

John Kerry wants to give tax breaks to companies that stay in the U.S. John Kerry also wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Who does he think runs these companies, paupers?

You know, it works just as well the other way, and there is plenty of proof of Dems accusing Republicans of things they (Dems) are doing. Case in point, attacks on patriotism...show me ONE proof that Max Cleland's patriotism was attacked at any point in 2002. Show me ONE proof of Jean Francois Kerry's patriotism being attacked or impugned during the RNC. Give me ONE proof of his military record being attacked during the RNC.

In fact, every speaker I saw during the RNC made it very clear that Kerry's military service was honorable and deserving of the utmost respect. What can not be defended is Kerry's SENATE record...close to 20 years of ZERO accomplishment. Name ONE bill he got through the Senate. He was absent from 76 percent of the Senate Intelligence Committee's meetings. He voted 98 times for tax increases.
I know you are frothing at the mouth with your absolute undying hatred for John Kerry. It would be hard not to after sitting through the 4 day hate fest RNC. Hopefully we will elect John Kerry for President so he can return some civility and decency back to this nation. Maybe one day even you can be happy again.

Don't ever do that again.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Because, he won the first two primaries, and the american public(This happens with the Conservatives toom don't try to deny it) says, "Hay! He Muust be a Winnar!" and vote for him successively, as a result, Missouri pretty much decides who gets to run for president, isn't that sad? Thus, neither John McCain or Wes Clark are running for president

"The logical extension of your post would lead one to believe that you do not support the taking of ANY life. Is that correct."

Well not the needless killing of any life. If it is in a just war like WW2 i dont mind killing. 9/11 was a needless killing of innocent life so thats why i don't mind the war in afganistan. Iraq is another story. It was good that we got saddam out of power but the nuclear weapons excuse is kinda sketchy. I think that was because he wanted a war with iraq like dear ol' dad. I think neither of the candidates are any good but i would rather have bush than kerry.

i dont mind killing.
...there's your problem...

(I'll admit that I quoted you out of context- but it proved my point even in context)
It's ok to kill if it is justified, is what you are saying.
To you, war is sometimes justified.
To women whom would like the right to choose, abortion is sometimes justified.
Not because it is good. They do not want killing like you don't want killing.
Women want the right to choose in the instance of a scared-shitless partner or a broken-condom or a forgotten pill.
Nobody wants to encourage "killing;" the fact is that women have an unfair advantage in that they have to hope and pray that any man that they have sex with (regardless of relationship stage) will support her child in the instance of a mistake. Men do not have to do this; if he impregnates a woman, he can rid himself of the responsibility. Women should not be left with double.
Like war, which sometimes means making hard decisions about life and death, abortion is a fact of life. It needs to be allowed, at least as long as men aren't held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

YES IT HAS AND HE HAS. We've already reached the bottom lin on Vietnam: Silver Star with combat V for valor. I, for one, trust 254 veterans, 90 of them having won at least one Purple Heart (most veterans left Vietnam wih two Purple Hearts, having turned down all the others) and one of them known to be a Medal of Honor winner over Kerry and a dozen vets on his payroll.



Wow, Rush Limbaugh giving statistics! That's a new one! Anyway, the Democrats certainly aren't out for a flat tax, so you have no moral high ground. Bush promises to reform the tax code, and he has shown himself to be worthy of our trust (at least when it comes to campaign promises, if you want to challenge me on that).



John Kerry wants to give tax breaks to companies that stay in the U.S. John Kerry also wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Who does he think runs these companies, paupers?
At least one of the 254 veterans' name was used without his permission. Story here (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc). If they're willing to put in names without permission to bolster their case, what else are they willing to do?

*UPDATE* Please read that article and respond to it. Upon closer re-read, I see that there are at least 3 people who are mad that their names were used without permission and there could be a whole lot more. Do you still think that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group is really trustworthy knowing that they have stooped to such low depths?

Yes, Rush Limbaugh misleads his audience with damning-sounding meaningless statistics all the time. The Dems want a fair tax and a flat tax is not fair. And in the words of Bush: "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway" (http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=243903&nid=25).

How does giving tax incentives to corporations who keep jobs in the US have anything to do with raising income taxes on the wealthy? Tax incentives for corporations would not be the same as cutting taxes for the rich.

Because, he won the first two primaries, and the american public(This happens with the Conservatives toom don't try to deny it) says, "Hay! He Muust be a Winnar!" and vote for him successively, as a result, Missouri pretty much decides who gets to run for president, isn't that sad? Thus, neither John McCain or Wes Clark are running for president
It wasn't the American people, it was the democrat sheeple who need to beat bush to feel better about themselves. After losing the senate, the congress, the governorships, and the white house, they need affirmation, and the only way to get it is to unite behind Lurch.

It wasn't the American people, it was the democrat sheeple who need to beat bush to feel better about themselves. After losing the senate, the congress, the governorships, and the white house, they need affirmation, and the only way to get it is to unite behind Lurch.
Feel free to respond to my above post even though it was to someone else.

Feel free to respond to my above post even though it was to someone else.
You gonna start throwing around names again when you don't like the answers?

IGNORE

Kerry Fled

You gonna start throwing around names again when you don't like the answers?

IGNORE

Kerry Fled
That depends.

Nevermind, I've moved the question into its own thread, so you can feel free to answer it or give your typical non-answer there.

How is murdering an innocent baby justified because the woman doesn't want to have it? I am pretty sure a baby doesn't want it's body being torn limb from limb or however the hell they do it these days. Would you have liked it if your mom had you aborted?

Say if your mom was given two choices by some psychopathic killer" 1) Take this expirament pill that will make her fat for 9-12 months( I know, hypothetical and more science-fictiony and weird) or 2) kill you. which one would YOU rather happen?
^ ^ ^
i know, bad example. Wanted to make up a situation where your mom had to choose between killing you or becoming a little fat for a year while being at your age. And about the psychopathic killer and weird pills, it kinda hard to think up of something else.

Note: i am not a psychopath................... or am i? :eek: :mp5:

and about the woman who can't support the baby.... ADOPTION!! i said that. She doesn't have to take care of it and she kept a baby from being slaughtered.

The left doesn't care that a baby is partialy delivered before it's skull is crushed. They don't care if it cries out in pain. They only care about themselves, and murdereing scum bags watching TV in their cells.

Paxania? Will you be responding to Post # 65 or # 97? The One Rule tried to answer for you but he was way of the mark, so I thought you should give the response, or do you just post stuff here and not back it up with facts or at least make an attempt?

I give sources whenever possible, but don't tell me to provide sources when you have one link to a BBC article.

I give sources whenever possible, but don't tell me to provide sources when you have one link to a BBC article.
You made a whole list of reasons to support Bush. Then I asked you for a link to support your claims, isn't this normal? If you make the assertion, then it is up to you to back it up?

Paxania? Will you be responding to Post # 65 or # 97? The One Rule tried to answer for you but he was way of the mark, so I thought you should give the response, or do you just post stuff here and not back it up with facts or at least make an attempt?

you made a post on an open forum, I answered it. Why didnt you respond to my post, but rather tell me I couldnt answer it as it wasnt meant for me?

I attempted to respond to your questions, and provide what links I could. I would appreciate your response.

(Link, please... I still love that.. using it all the time now)

Link, please.

you made a post on an open forum, I answered it. Why didnt you respond to my post, but rather tell me I couldnt answer it as it wasnt meant for me?

I attempted to respond to your questions, and provide what links I could. I would appreciate your response.

(Link, please... I still love that.. using it all the time now)

Link, please.
Firstly, I was responding to another poster, who made assertions without backing them up.

Secondly, how could you possibly answer the personal questions that I asked that poster?

Thirdly, you missed the mark completely in your reply.

and about the woman who can't support the baby.... ADOPTION!! i said that. She doesn't have to take care of it and she kept a baby from being slaughtered.

Rightfully said!!

I'm living proof on how Abortion is WRONG. My biological mother wanted so badly to have me aborted cause she didnt want to drag me around cause I was a burden. But my adoptive uncle (who was her professor) persuaded her not to have an abortion and told her of how his sister and husband (my adoptive mother and father) couldnt have kids and had trouble in finding a kid through adoption so BOOM! I'm born (not aborted thank God) and now I'm living a happy, successful life because my biological mother decided not to abort me...it's sad how most of the other babies couldn't have the same dream cause...thier mothers don't feel like dragging them around and they are a burden.

tis is a shame.

You gonna start throwing around names again when you don't like the answers?

IGNORE

Kerry Fled
Notice how Freinds of bill never defends his "Kerry Fled" thing?

I will tell you the NUMBER ONE reason that liberals vote for Kerry because............................................................. hes not Bush.

I will tell you the NUMBER ONE reason that liberals vote for Kerry because............................................................. hes not Bush.
Your right, he won't make us fight in a war against a natio that has never harmed us like Bush.
He won't steal money from Social Security and call it a "surplus" like Bush
He won't say something should be a state issue and then turn it into a Constitutional/national issue like Bush
He won't disenfranchise our allies because they won't join a war we have no business fighting like Bush.
He wouldn't forget about afganistan to fight another war we have no business fighting like Bush.
He wouldn't forget the poor by taking money from medicare or social security like Bush.
He wouldn't take away our right to privacy with Patriot Act like Bush
He wouldn't give no bid contracts because that is not the competitive spirit like Bush did.

Your right he isn't bush and I'm glad. Aren't you?

Firstly, I was responding to another poster, who made assertions without backing them up.

Secondly, how could you possibly answer the personal questions that I asked that poster?

Thirdly, you missed the mark completely in your reply.

You've said I missed the mark twice now, please elaborate. For my edification if nothing else.

If my mum had me aborted, I wouldn't care about it.

Can anyone see why?

I think that Bush should win. As it would give me a tremendous giggle at the shocking stupidity of a nation. I would then not go to study in America, but hey.

I think that Bush should win. As it would give me a tremendous giggle at the shocking stupidity of a nation. I would then not go to study in America, but hey.
And it would give many of us a grin at seeing Euros and other lefties cringe at 4 more years of Bush.

I think it will be funnier when 'pro-freedom' Americans vote for a man who wishes to strip them of their civil rights, who get so wound up about something as inoffensive as gay marriage, who is screwing over America's economy etc...

This leftist would not cringe at another four years of Bush. He would just feel an immense sense of pity for a nation deluded into voting for such a shit into office.

And bieng a Christian...I would like to see a Christian president leading a Christian Nation. Im done ranting :)
Kerry is a Christian too... he's a Catholic. BTW, America isn't technically a "Christian Nation" even if a lot of christians live there. It's sad that you're swayed because a ccandidate wears his religion on his sleeve for political gain. Bush says he's christian, but so many of his positions directly contradict Christ. For example, his death penalty, his warmongering, his "defense of marriage" BS, etc.

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime have been deposed, and fifty million people have been freed from oppression as a result.

No terrorist attack has been made on U.S. soil since September 11.

1.3 million more Americans were below the poverty line last year. Considering that according to the Department of Labor, most of the "poor" own their own home, have air conditioning, a car, a color television and a satellite dish, that's pretty good.

I'm sorry to say that Afghanistan's government is a joke, it's powerless. The people of Afghanistan still live in fear from the local warlord, Northern Alliance, or Taliban leader/terrorist.
It was good to get rid of Hussein. However, the new Iraq government is becoming increasingly authoritarian, though they are still better than the Afghan "government".

Granted, Bush has done the job there, but before 9/11, his administration's counter-terrorism policy was pretty much non-existent.

How is this a good thing? Yes, the poverty line in America is high by international standards, but how is it good that more people live under it?

There are more people under it, but that does not necessarily mean people have gone down.

There are more people under it, but that does not necessarily mean people have gone down.
Well, if the line doesn't move, and more people are now beneath it, then how do you suggest they got there? Did they magically pop out of your ass?

The left doesn't care that a baby is partialy delivered before it's skull is crushed. They don't care if it cries out in pain. They only care about themselves, and murdereing scum bags watching TV in their cells.
Wow, that was a malicious one. I must answer it.

First, I am with you on your anti-abortion stance. Abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.

But you tar the entire left with that brush. I'm left wing (note: that doesn't mean Democrat), and it's a pretty high charge to make that we only care about ourselves and criminals.

If we are so devoid of compassion, why is it socialists that push hardest for assistance to the poor? Why do we advocate worker's rights? Socialism is based in compassion for the underdogs. Damn, we sure are a bunch of selfish bastards.

I hate the hypocrisy of the conservative right. They are selfish. Life is only valuable to you before it's born. After the baby is born, it's mother must be just "lazy" if she needs welfare. Conservatives are anti-minimum wage and generally anti-poor.

In conclusion, Republicans are evil. ;)

I support Kerry because he's not Bush. I don't like him that much, but he's the better of the two.

And yes, I said Bush. How could you expect us not to?

Kerry is a Christian too... he's a Catholic. BTW, America isn't technically a "Christian Nation" even if a lot of christians live there. It's sad that you're swayed because a ccandidate wears his religion on his sleeve for political gain. Bush says he's christian, but so many of his positions directly contradict Christ. For example, his death penalty, his warmongering, his "defense of marriage" BS, etc.

Fine let me define what I meant....bieng led by God. I dont think Kerry i sbieng led by God personally. I dont how deep he is wseeing how he acts and how he does things, I'm guessing not.

and also for Bush and his "positions directly contradict Christ." If you mean saying that Bush is for the death penalty yet it's not Christian, thats a wrong statement. In the Bible it says those you have done wrong, they will be paid back by the sword. Paul the Apostle says that "if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers." (Romans 13:4) The "Authority" refers to the state, which is empowered to put evildoers to the "sword." Paul asserts that the state’s retribution of capital punishment is the retribution of God.

as for the war mongering, God says we must respect our government and follow whatever they do cause God gives them the ability to choose. So by Bush going to war, God allowed this to happen. Thiers also a distinction of killing someone during war and murdering someone. War isnt murder. God also allowed and told people like Jacob and Joshua to go kill your enemies so you're people will be at peace.

as for the "defense of marriage" I'm guessing that you mean defending th eposition of marriage soley to man and wife is wrong and unChristian and the union between 2 members of the same sex is ok? Ignore this if I missed the mark but clearly in the Bible God defines homosexuality as a adomination and sinful. Heck, God destroyed two citys: Sodom and Gomorah with a pillar of fire because they delved into homosexual acts. Same-Sex Marriages is defiently not Christian.

sorry if I missed the mark on those but you're statement "Bush says he's christian, but so many of his positions directly contradict Christ. For example, his death penalty, his warmongering, his "defense of marriage" BS, etc" was fairly vague. I didnt know if you meant by Bush supporting those things, he's contradictoring Christ's teachings.

Remember Christ said "I have not come to abolish the old law but came to fulfil it so the old testmaent teachings are not void.

...and also for Bush and his "positions directly contradict Christ." If you mean saying that Bush is for the death penalty yet it's not Christian, thats a wrong statement. In the Bible it says those you have done wrong, they will be paid back by the sword. Paul the Apostle says that "if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers." (Romans 13:4) The "Authority" refers to the state, which is empowered to put evildoers to the "sword." Paul asserts that the state’s retribution of capital punishment is the retribution of God.

as for the war mongering, God says we must respect our government and follow whatever they do cause God gives them the ability to choose. So by Bush going to war, God allowed this to happen. Thiers also a distinction of killing someone during war and murdering someone. War isnt murder. God also allowed and told people like Jacob and Joshua to go kill your enemies so you're people will be at peace...

"Thou shalt not kill" That is, unless you think it's okay to?

And whatever the government does is okay because God gave it the choice, and so whatever it does is allowed (and implicitly sanctioned) by him? So... they can do what they want outside of moral grounds because God says so?

Fine let me define what I meant....bieng led by God. I dont think Kerry is being led by God personally. I dont how deep he is seeing how he acts and how he does things, I'm guessing not.

Paul asserts that the state’s retribution of capital punishment is the retribution of God.

So by Bush going to war, God allowed this to happen. Thiers also a distinction of killing someone during war and murdering someone. War isnt murder. God also allowed and told people like Jacob and Joshua to go kill your enemies so you're people will be at peace.

as for the "defense of marriage" I'm guessing that you mean defending th eposition of marriage soley to man and wife is wrong and unChristian and the union between 2 members of the same sex is ok?
Do you really believe that God told Bush to invade Iraq? (Remember that "God wants this war" statement?) It's quite obvious that it was a slick bit of political speak to get religious people on board. Either that or Bush is just crazy and hears voices in his head. Why does he have a direct line of comunication with God where others do not?

I think Paul was a psycho. He hated women and gays. So he fits perfectly with support for the death penalty. What about Christ? If he supported it, surely he must be one of the few people to both support it and die from it.

If your enemy hits your cheek, turn the other one.

Christ never mentioned homosexuality. The church's hate for it comes from Paul.

I notice that most of your justification for these positions comes from the Old Testament. Why not the New Testament, after all you are a Christian, not a Jew, aren't you?

yeah Im a Christian and accepted Christ yet the old testament is still valid.

Rightfully said!!

I'm living proof on how Abortion is WRONG. My biological mother wanted so badly to have me aborted cause she didnt want to drag me around cause I was a burden. But my adoptive uncle (who was her professor) persuaded her not to have an abortion and told her of how his sister and husband (my adoptive mother and father) couldnt have kids and had trouble in finding a kid through adoption so BOOM! I'm born (not aborted thank God) and now I'm living a happy, successful life because my biological mother decided not to abort me...it's sad how most of the other babies couldn't have the same dream cause...thier mothers don't feel like dragging them around and they are a burden.

tis is a shame.

Yeah. my mom was also adopted and she turned out great. If she was aborted back then I also would not be alive.

No terrorist attack has been made on U.S. soil since September 11.


I am not sure quite how this can be so untrue... wasn't the 'Sniper' supposedly carrying out acts of terror?

Anthrax in post offices, 'chemicals' in mailing rooms...

What you mean, I assume, is that nobody has flown anything into anything recently.

Terror attacks aren't just about crashing planes. Every time someone sends a white powder to a politician, every time there's a bomb scare or the Alert level is raised, that's a terror action.

Our economy is steady and strong. GrowthDebt.com is a nice resource for economics, though it's mainly focused on the national debt and how it's not a problem.


Every country in the world has a strong economy if you ignore their debt.


1.3 million more Americans were below the poverty line last year. Considering that according to the Department of Labor, most of the "poor" own their own home, have air conditioning, a car, a color television and a satellite dish, that's pretty good.


Not even worth dignifying with a response.

George Bush was Governor of Texas for quite a few years.



Because he had family friends in the oil industry (who he is paying back right now...) who pushed him through. I'll bet the vested interests of oil never even became an issue.... unless you look at the special allowances Bush has given industry since he got into office... or look at his approach to resources.

Dick Cheney headed a major corporation and served three tenures as Secretary of Defense.

And, once he got into office, he has made a continued habit of giving governmental contracts to the major corporation he worked for, despite the fact they were not the lowest bidder, and despite repeatedly spending in excess of budgets.

I would hope that the American public would want politicians who took just a little more care to hide where their loyalties lie...

Why Kerry?

I would imagine it is because most people view Kerry as better than the alternative.

Some like the idea of a commander-in-chief who has actaully served time in the military. People are funny like that.

Some like the idea of a politician who didn't get into office because of voter-irregularity... coincidentally in another state where the candidate has family in office..

Some people like the idea of a president who isn't a war-monger.

Some people like the idea who would tax the wealthy more than the poor, rather that less.

Some people like the idea of an american president who wants to keep jobs in america.

He only served 4 months in the millitary and it hyas been proven that he did not gain his purple hearts by being woundedin combat
They also proved that Gore would not have one Florida in every recount and Gore was only asking for recounts in heavily democratic counties.
As far as the war-mongering goes was FDR a war-mongerer foor wanting to go to war with Nazi Germany when the rest of the country wanted to be isolationist.
As far as giving tax cuts to the wealthy answer me this who can invest in the stock market a poor man with relativly nothing or a wealthy person. Secondly who can employ more people so they can earn a living.
Lastly Bush wants to keep jobs in the U.S. if you listened to his speach at the RNC.

"Most"?? 'Fraid not! (http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html)


Oh, one poll - held in the shadows of the Republican Party confrence, that is at odds with months of polls going the other way... clutching at straws?

And you can forget about the AWOL "controversy." That dead horse has been beaten long enough and no one has been able to prove he was ever AWOL.


If he actually served, all he has to do is show the documents.

Until then, he's the kid in the school-yard saying "I know, but I'm not telling you..."

In case you don't remember, nobody ever believed that kid...

Did you know that the Heinz company has most of its production overseas? I guess Jean Francois Kerry needs to practice what he preaches.

Kerry doesn't own Heinz. Hell, his wife doesn't even OWN Heinz.

You may as well face it... Kerry is getting in...

What are the chances that America won't vote for a Catholic, who has the initials JFK?

(Hell - that reason is at least as good as most of the arguments against him..)

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Because several people in high places are liar, liar, pants on fire. Though Kerry may not be totally honest, no one is, he's not as bad as SOME PEOPLE.

Oh, one poll - held in the shadows of the Republican Party confrence, that is at odds with months of polls going the other way... clutching at straws?
Actually, a Newsweek poll exhibited almost identical numbers as well.

He only served 4 months in the millitary and it hyas been proven that he did not gain his purple hearts by being woundedin combat
They also proved that Gore would not have one Florida in every recount and Gore was only asking for recounts in heavily democratic counties.
As far as the war-mongering goes was FDR a war-mongerer foor wanting to go to war with Nazi Germany when the rest of the country wanted to be isolationist.
As far as giving tax cuts to the wealthy answer me this who can invest in the stock market a poor man with relativly nothing or a wealthy person. Secondly who can employ more people so they can earn a living.
Lastly Bush wants to keep jobs in the U.S. if you listened to his speach at the RNC.

Actually, they overrode continued recounts.
Gore asked for recounts in states where the number of votes was close... you can see why, yes?
America didn't go to war with Germany. They ignored the humanitarian issues, and the suffering of their allies until the Japanese attacked. Then America joined the War against the axis powers - by which time the war was almost over.
Investing in the stock market? So - fat cat's should be allowed to get even fatter, because otherwise they can't put their money in stocks and become even fatter?

And finally... Bush says he wants to keep jobs in America at the RNC... after all this time of Kerry saying it... after all this time of letting industry move overseas quite happily? Pick one: Changing horse in the middle of the stream OR Monkey see, monkey do....

Gore asked for recounts in states where the number of votes was close... you can see why, yes?
You misunderstood him : He said Gore was only asking for recounts in the heavily Democratic counties of Florida, not closely contested states of the US.

You misunderstood him : He said Gore was only asking for recounts in the heavily Democratic counties of Florida, not closely contested states of the US.

You are correct.. I misread.

The fact remains, however, that Florida was so closely contested (even without the 'irregularities') that a few votes really could make the difference... and, given that the whole presidency was on the line, and time was very much of the essence, Gore chose to pick areas where he thought the most 'miscounted' democrat votes might be.

And finally... Bush says he wants to keep jobs in America at the RNC... after all this time of Kerry saying it... after all this time of letting industry move overseas quite happily? Pick one: Changing horse in the middle of the stream OR Monkey see, monkey do....[/QUOTE]

I am not going to trade my elephant for a jackass

And finally... Bush says he wants to keep jobs in America at the RNC... after all this time of Kerry saying it... after all this time of letting industry move overseas quite happily? Pick one: Changing horse in the middle of the stream OR Monkey see, monkey do....

I am not going to trade my elephant for a jackass[/QUOTE]

That's fine. If Bush get's in again, your elephant will probably lose it's job, anyway.

Please how will he lose his job if he does get elected again enlighten me.

Oh, one poll - held in the shadows of the Republican Party confrence, that is at odds with months of polls going the other way... clutching at straws?


If he actually served, all he has to do is show the documents.

Until then, he's the kid in the school-yard saying "I know, but I'm not telling you..."

Bush released all his military records. I wish I could say the same for John Kerry, however...

Much less Kerry's medical records

You've said I missed the mark twice now, please elaborate. For my edification if nothing else.
Ok for your edification.

Originally Posted by Paxania

Someone's challenged me to argue in favor of Bush. Alright. Accomplishments:The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime have been deposed, and fifty million people have been freed from oppression as a result.

My reply:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
Iraq had no WMD and no links to Al-Queda. Why attack Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose. Afghanistan is sliding backwards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2997238.stm

Many of the country's farmers are dependent on opium for income - but now there are vast numbers of people in the country dependent on it as addicts.

The point that I was trying to drive home was that things were no better in Afghanistan since the US took over, and that the economy was being driven by illegal drug exports, in this case opium.

Your reply:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule

Umm what does this have to do with anything? The fact that there is corruption going on? Show me a place where there isnt.

Your answer comes up short on the issue? I would have preferred Paxania's reply, so that he could defend his point. I call that missing the mark.

The further point that I was trying to drive, is that the situation in Afghanistan is certainly no accomplishment for Bush to seek re-election on, as claimed by Paxania.

The people are worse off period. So much for "liberation" brownie points.

You did this on several of the points raised by myself in regards to Paxania's sad attempt to justify the re-election of Bush. Personally, I don't think he could rationally back the points he raised in the first place.

Well i really do not want to vote for bush , kerry or nader i would rather have a ticket like mccain and gulliani(i think thats how its spelled) or lieberman and mccain or zell miller

Bush released all his military records. I wish I could say the same for John Kerry, however...
Where are Bush's missing records? The ones about him being AWOL? Could they be here?

http://www.awolbush.com/

So, while the news networks have sat on this explosive story for months, it's well documented that George W. Bush never showed up for National Guard duty for a period of approximately one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973. Despite all the talk about "honor and dignity," Bush seems to have a problem meeting his commitments.

"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty...can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said [Senator John] Kerry.

Lots of "official" documents here.

September 3 newsweek Poll:
Bush: 53% Kerry 43%

In comparing the two presidential candidates, more registered voters think
President Bush has strong leadership qualities than Kerry (65% vs. 47%), is
more honest and ethical (62% vs. 47%), says what he believes and not just what
people want to hear (66% vs. 42%), would trust him to make the right decisions
during an international crisis (57% vs. 44%), shares their values (54% vs.
42%), and is personally likeable (67% vs. 59%). In addition, more registered
voters think President Bush would do a better job than Sen. Kerry on various
issues: terrorism and homeland security (60% vs. 32%), the situation in Iraq
(55% vs. 37%), foreign policy (54% vs. 38%), taxes (52% vs. 38%), economy (49%
vs. 43%), education (48% vs. 42%), and gay marriage (44% vs. 36%). More
people say Sen. Kerry would do a better job than President Bush on healthcare,
including Medicare (45% vs. 43%) and the environment (50% vs. 36%).

Why Kerry? I don't know.

He is certainly not convincing people that he is the right choice.

If medicare and the environment are his only strong points when he is 10 points under an incumbant President he is just about doomed. ( anyone remember mondale or dukakis?)

Please how will he lose his job if he does get elected again enlighten me.

You were saying that bush was an elephant.. okay.

Not a real elephant, then...

Why not?

My reason:Bush has launched a "holy war" or "War on Terror" that infuriates muslims, and that i and my brother may have to fight, not to mention our children and their children. How many have to die? But i dont like Kerry much either.

My vote? Colin Powell. Or John MaCain. but they are not running so Kerry is who i vote for.

I guess nobody noticed my posts

I guess nobody noticed my posts
I noticed--they just weren't anything new, so they weren't really worth commenting on.

Bush released all his military records. I wish I could say the same for John Kerry, however...

Did he reveal why he was pictured wearing the Airforce Outstanding Unit Award?

Did he ever release pages from his flight log?

Or are we still talking pay slips...

He still hasn't explained how all those people he 'served' with somehow forgot him...

I noticed--they just weren't anything new, so they weren't really worth commenting on.

oh they were new. I lot has changed in the last few days in politics and you choose to ignore it at your own peril.

oh they were new. I lot has changed in the last few days in politics and you choose to ignore it at your own peril.Talk to me in a week and a half when the race is tied again. The methodology of both those polls (Time and Newsweek) is screwy--pushing leaners at this stage in a race when one of them is having a convention? Why not just push-poll and get it over with? At least Zogby, ARG and Rasmussen had the decency to leave the undecideds alone in their polls, even if they were polling during the convention itself (another issue altogether).

pardon me but:
day after the convention compared to election day:
1976: ford is down 26 points after his convention but only 4% on election day
1980:Reagan is up 12 points after his convention and 10% on election day
1984: Reagan is up 6 points at this time but wins by 18% on election day
1988: George Bush is down 6 points but ends up winning by 8 on election day.
1992: George Bush sr. was down 13 points right after his convention but only loses by 6 points on election day
1996: bob dole is down 10 points and loses by 9 on election day.
2000: this very day in 2000 George w. Bush was down by 5 points but things certainly evened out.
Now Bush is ahead....by some amount....

Republicans always either stay the same or increase in support from this point on. Always. Face the music.

You obviously don't study history as carefuly as I do.

pardon me but:
day after the convention compared to election day:
1976: ford is down 26 points after his convention but only 4% on election day
1980:Reagan is up 12 points after his convention and 10% on election day
1984: Reagan is up 6 points at this time but wins by 18% on election day
1988: George Bush is down 6 points but ends up winning by 8 on election day.
1992: George Bush sr. was down 13 points right after his convention but only loses by 6 points on election day
1996: bob dole is down 10 points and loses by 9 on election day.
2000: this very day in 2000 George w. Bush was down by 5 points but things certainly evened out.
Now Bush is ahead....by some amount....

Republicans always either stay the same or increase in support from this point on. Always. Face the music.

Always? So - Republicans have only been standing for office since 1976, then? Or, did you just mean always AFTER 1976. Or is there no data for pre-76? (In which case, you can't really support ALWAYS).

Of course... if Bush doesn't gain this time, he'll ruin your lovely little theory.

You obviously don't study history as carefuly (sic) as I do.


And you obviously don't study math as carefully as I do.

If you knew ANYTHING about statistics, or at least read the captions under most surveys and studies, you would realize that these things are only accurate within a percentage of plus or minus 4.5 percent (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less depending on the quality and quantity of the sample). What does this mean? It means that your 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 proofs are statistically within the range of error and do not prove that the Republicans gained any votes. This means they are statistically insignificant. In fact, it is quite possible that they actually lost votes from the post-convention time to the time of the national vote.

Of course, you might be right, but then again, you might not, and there's no way of proving either way. Still, the proof your theory stands on isn't strong. In the scientific community, your theory would be considered very weak.

Did you know that the Heinz company has most of its production overseas? I guess Jean Francois Kerry needs to practice what he preaches.

Just wanted to correct you on this: Kerry has NOTHING to do with Heinz. I mean, he doesn't run the company or anything. Its his wife, not Kerry, that you can pin that blame on.

But i do think it a bit ironic that Heinz does have alot of production overseas.

Here's a question for the liberals: why do you support John Kerry? What will he do that qualifies him for the Office of President of the United States? After this post, I do not want to see anyone using the words Bush, Badnarik, Dubya, Nader, Cheney, Halliburton, Vietnam, or Voltron.

Would you rather see monkey-faced Texas style Yee-Haw in office or Kerry. We dont love Kerry hes no dream, but he is a big improvement over Monkey-face. I would rather see Nadar in office though (I used the word Nadar but I dont think you mind it in that context.)

HEY LOOK EVERYONE IM THE PRESIDENT! YYYYEEEEEEEEE-HHHHAAAAAWW!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Since you asked, I like his intelligence, statesmanship, and voting record as my senator.

I'd be just fine with him as my President, much more comfortably than I ever was with Clinton, even.

Just wanted to correct you on this: Kerry has NOTHING to do with Heinz. I mean, he doesn't run the company or anything. Its his wife, not Kerry, that you can pin that blame on.

But i do think it a bit ironic that Heinz does have alot of production overseas.

Its a completely different thing, you see when people say Bush (sorry about that word, had to use it) deports jobs overseas they dont mean minimum wage jobs that Chineese children do such as sweatshops that would only exhist in China where people can pay their employees 2 cents an hour. Thats what it is to bottle Heinz Ketchup, its basically a 2 cent job. You cant pay people minimum wage to fill up ketchup bottles, the business would die. Bush deports jobs such as real manufacturing jobs that could feed families there not minimum wage. My uncle is a manufacturer and is an average middle class citizen who lives on the beach of Connecticut.

Basically what Im saying is Bush deports maybe 25 30 40 grand per year jobs. Kerry (who doesnt own Heinz) has a business that lets poor people make maybe a few hundred bucks peryear or something like that. IN AMERICA WE HAVE STANDARDS TOO HIGH TO NOT HAVE MINIMUM WAGE! Did anybody not get that?

Why not?

My reason:Bush has launched a "holy war" or "War on Terror" that infuriates muslims, and that i and my brother may have to fight, not to mention our children and their children. How many have to die? But i dont like Kerry much either.

My vote? Colin Powell. Or John MaCain. but they are not running so Kerry is who i vote for.

What is so good about Colin Powell? He is an idiot!

Just wanted to correct you on this: Kerry has NOTHING to do with Heinz. I mean, he doesn't run the company or anything. Its his wife, not Kerry, that you can pin that blame on.

But i do think it a bit ironic that Heinz does have alot of production overseas.
Kerry's wife does not own Heinz either, nor does she run it. She only has a small stake in the company.

he hasn't screwed up yet.

don't blame me...
i voted for kucinich

John Kerry, won't flip flop once in the seat of president. Also, he has been my senator for awhile now, and hasn't screwed us once, I trust him as president. I truely doubt, he could possibly screw up our economy as much as Bush did. also, he is not an idiot, and can possibly count past 10 unlike Mr. Bush. He is a much better choice, and anyone of any education, sees that Bush will ruin this country's image, and our economy even more.

Anywho, if I were a child molester or a terrorist, I would vote for kerry.
Terrorist: Kerry would not provide the same security. I would be able to run a cell much more easily with Kerry in office.


Why are terrorists voting in US elections and why and what evidence do you have that Kerry would do a worse job. Isn't this just your opinion and not based on fact?

What is so good about Colin Powell? He is an idiot!

Colin Powell...I have no problems with him.

John McCain seems to be cozying up to Dubya an awful lot. I can't help but think he's planning to run for prez the next chance he gets. Snuggle up now and It'll pay off later.

Colin Powell is a closet democrat, he's the only one with sense in that administration

Mainly, of course, because I agree with his issues.

To be more specific:

He doesn't want to give tax cuts to the rich, but tax cuts to those who don't outsource jobs, and to companies who give health insurance to their employees. These are main ones because thus: the rich people will have to suport the less fortunate. The health insurance plans of Kerry's opponent (since you said I can't say his name) is basically setting up an account. that doesn't help. Giving tax cuts to companies who give free health care will entice companies to offer free healthcare. thus healping the working man--which is good.

I guess a great way to sum it up, is he's more of a socialist

And to those of you who judge the word socialism without really knowing what it means, look it up!!!! It's NOT communism, it's NOT dictatorship. Canada's a free enterprise socialism. That's the way the U.S. should be :)

I have no faith in either of the candidates abilities to either improve the economy or resolve the situation in Iraq.

But I think it's ironic that a Republican, who it seems to me should want a smaller less intrusive government, wants to interfere with what I view as personal freedoms while babbling about sanctity.

I don't think restrictions should be put on stem cell research and I am in favor of a woman's right to choose. I support gay marriage.

I don't want Kerry to dump my tax money into useless social programs, but even less than that do I want my tax money going to fund Ashcroft's pathetic war on pornography.

I also am disturbed by the current president's ability to raise world tensions. It's funny, but five years ago I don't remember most of europe hating us. I do think the united nations is currently all but useless, but I think that should be solved by restructuring it instead of ignoring it. Bush doesn't seem to realize that he can't knock an oppressive regime out of power and suddenly expect the people to become pacifist oil-donors. It's like those seminars where people claim to have lifechanging experiences, then switch back to their old habits in a couple days. I am very worried about what might happen in the next four years and I wish I had a strong, intelligent, competant candidate to vote for, but I don't think I do. Kerry seems intelligent enough but I don't know what he's going to do when he gets into office and I don't think he does either.

Perhaps I can start today on a positive note.

Actually, all of Europe doesn't hate us. The socialists in France and Germany hate us, because we wont do what they want.

Lol, I sort of wish that the early/pre war rantings by liberals were right. I wish this was an oil war, at least then, our gas might be a little cheaper.

This election is almost like it's between the coalition of minority groups, and everyone else. (eg: Strait white people and christians. lol) With a few exceptions, it's less about the issues, but more about making the poor, oppressed, minority groups feel better about themselves and protect them from the rich, white, christian republicans. Lol.

Although: An interesting thing is, Kerry is worth far more than Bush is. Interesting isn't it? Bush gives money to charity funds extensively. Kerry hasn't, and Kerry is worth billions. That has to say something about a candidate. Granted, I could be wrong, but I have never heard/read about kerry donating money to actuall charity (he has taken enough donations though) and given how liberal the media is, I am sure that I would have heard about it if he did.

The problem with debating here, is that everyone who posts here already has a firm political oppinion. The war in Iraq, etc. . . won't change anyone's oppinion. All the "swing voters" don't debate here.

So: it is like this:

Democrats will be:
Pro choice
pro gay marrages
anti gun
anti-business


Republicans will be:
Pro life
pro gun rights
pro security
anti gay marrages
pro business

You guys can add to these if you want. Make sure they are accurate and non-oppinionated additions. I am trying to help undecided voters figure out what party they are.

Democrats will be:
Pro choice
pro gay marrages
anti gun
anti-business

:confused: What do you mean by anti-business? I know Kerry wants to reward companies that keep jobs here, instead of shipping them off to other countries, but I'm not sure how that would be anti-business. Oh, and what about anti-gun?

(By the way, I'm genuinely curious. I'm not attacking you on this.)

Perhaps I can start today on a positive note.
How is your post anywhere near positive?
This election is almost like it's between the coalition of minority groups, and everyone else. (eg: Strait white people and christians. lol) With a few exceptions, it's less about the issues, but more about making the poor, oppressed, minority groups feel better about themselves and protect them from the rich, white, christian republicans. Lol.
What kind of a bigoted statement is that? You mean to say that there are no gays, blacks, poor, or non-Christians in the Republican Party? Perhaps Colin Powell would kick your intolerant ass for that statement?

Although: An interesting thing is, Kerry is worth far more than Bush is. Interesting isn't it? Bush gives money to charity funds extensively. Kerry hasn't, and Kerry is worth billions. That has to say something about a candidate. Granted, I could be wrong, but I have never heard/read about kerry donating money to actuall charity (he has taken enough donations though) and given how liberal the media is, I am sure that I would have heard about it if he did.What you mean to say is that you really don't know what you are talking about?

The problem with debating here, is that everyone who posts here already has a firm political oppinion. The war in Iraq, etc. . . won't change anyone's oppinion. All the "swing voters" don't debate here.
Well you never know? After reading your post, there might be a gay, poor, black, or non-Christian Republican decide that perhaps the Democratic Party is more inclusive than your Republican Party?
You guys can add to these if you want. Make sure they are accurate and non-oppinionated additions. I am trying to help undecided voters figure out what party they are.You seem to like to contradict yourself huh? Any more "positives" that you would like to share with us today?

Would you rather see monkey-faced Texas style Yee-Haw in office or Kerry. We dont love Kerry hes no dream, but he is a big improvement over Monkey-face. I would rather see Nadar in office though (I used the word Nadar but I dont think you mind it in that context.)

HEY LOOK EVERYONE IM THE PRESIDENT! YYYYEEEEEEEEE-HHHHAAAAAWW!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

and yet all you can do is make fun of Bush. Just ignorant criticism that doesn't make any sense.

Wow, you are in rare form today CH.

How is your post anywhere near positive?

Well.. certainly more postive than yours, no?

What kind of a bigoted statement is that? You mean to say that there are no gays, blacks, poor, or non-Christians in the Republican Party? Perhaps Colin Powell would kick your intolerant ass for that statement?

What I understood him to say, and you choose to ignore on a daily basis, is that is that it's the Democrats who are shouting that the white straight republicans are out to get gays, blacks, poor, non christians. The Democrats have been playing race games, class warfare... not Republicans. Republicans welcome everyone into our party. Democrats welcome everyone but rich white straight guys... they'll take their money tho.

What you mean to say is that you really don't know what you are talking about?

Nope again, you're putting words (meaning) into his mouth. He said that there has been no reporting done on his charitable contributions. Concidering the liberal bent of mainstream media, and their desire to help Kerry/hurt Bush a reasonable person would assume that they would be all over reports like that.

Well you never know? After reading your post, there might be a gay, poor, black, or non-Christian Republican decide that perhaps the Democratic Party is more inclusive than your Republican Party?

More inclusive, only if it gives them ammunition to attack Republicans. If I had a dime for everytime a Democrat accused Republicans of trying to "keep the (insert random minority here) down, the Democrats would tax them all away from me because I would be rich.

You seem to like to contradict yourself huh? Any more "positives" that you would like to share with us today?

Contradict as in how? He was asking to add to the platforms for the party. You on the other hand, attempted to add nothing but rather tear down.

Keep up the good work, you are a great recuiter for the right.

Kerry seems intelligent enough but I don't know what he's going to do when he gets into office and I don't think he does either.Republican talking points can do that to a person. If you go here http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ and click on one of the issue categories, you can get to a general description of where he stands on the issues. Then click on one of the links on the right side of the screen near the links to speech texts to get to more detailed descriptions of his policy directions.



Although: An interesting thing is, Kerry is worth far more than Bush is. Interesting isn't it? Bush gives money to charity funds extensively. Kerry hasn't, and Kerry is worth billions. That has to say something about a candidate. Granted, I could be wrong, but I have never heard/read about kerry donating money to actuall charity (he has taken enough donations though) and given how liberal the media is, I am sure that I would have heard about it if he did.

Democrats will be:
Pro choice
pro gay marrages
anti gun
anti-business

Republicans will be:
Pro life
pro gun rights
pro security
anti gay marrages
pro businessnobody knows how much John Kerry donates to charity because he doesn't report it on his tax return. If he makes a $1000 donation, it isn't worth the time and paper to get $250 back through Schedule A. It is for most people, but keep in mind how much time it takes for him to earn another $250.

The Democratic Party is not pro-gay marriage. The distinction from the Republicans is that the Democratic Party is simply not anti-gay marriage. The issue is left for individual Democratic candidates to decide. Some support it and some oppose it. A Democratic candidate's stance on the issue isn't considered to agree or disagree with the party's stance.

Democrats have been more pro-security for a while. In 1998, Democrats supported disarming Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Fox. The Republicans opposed it and said it was just a conspiracy to direct attention away from Lewinsky. George W Bush opposed creating the 9/11 commission and fortunately did not get his way. George W Bush opposed increasing port security after 9/11 and unfortunately did get his way on that

Wow, you are in rare form today CH.

Well.. certainly more postive than yours, no?

What I understood him to say, and you choose to ignore on a daily basis, is that is that it's the Democrats who are shouting that the white straight republicans are out to get gays, blacks, poor, non christians. The Democrats have been playing race games, class warfare... not Republicans. Republicans welcome everyone into our party. Democrats welcome everyone but rich white straight guys... they'll take their money tho.

Nope again, you're putting words (meaning) into his mouth. He said that there has been no reporting done on his charitable contributions. Concidering the liberal bent of mainstream media, and their desire to help Kerry/hurt Bush a reasonable person would assume that they would be all over reports like that.

More inclusive, only if it gives them ammunition to attack Republicans. If I had a dime for everytime a Democrat accused Republicans of trying to "keep the (insert random minority here) down, the Democrats would tax them all away from me because I would be rich.

Contradict as in how? He was asking to add to the platforms for the party. You on the other hand, attempted to add nothing but rather tear down.

Keep up the good work, you are a great recuiter for the right.
Well you read it one way and I read it another.....c'est la vie!!

What I saw was a somewhat bigotted posting? The only thing I try to "tear down" is the walls of ignorance, injustice, and intolerance.

Perhaps that makes me a "negative" person?

"Questionable though his service was, people remember seeing him there, he is a decorated veteran. The Incumbent still has yet to prove he DID serve, at all. But he "Can't find the paperwork"..."

Okay - this isn't fair. Because there's no "proof" that he served does not equate to their being proof that he didn't. Besides, he's released all of his military records, unlike Kerry. But what's the point? It was 30 years ago - that means nothing now.

"I am over it. It is nothing to me. I'm not even an American.
The thing is, from overseas, the last American election was a mockery."

That's because you didn't get proper coverage. The last election wasn't a mockery at all - in fact, it was a triumph of the rule of law. The Supreme Court simply ruled that the Florida Supreme Court must follow Florida law in the tabulation of the ballots. The Florida Supreme Court was trying to create it's own way of tabulating the results, despite the fact that there was already a valid law on the books.

The only thing to mock about that election was the apparent stupidity of Florida voters.

"But, if you think that abuse of power by the 'winner' (since, basically, the person who got 'elected' overrode the process of recounting and appeal) is good, and if you want to reward nepotism, feel free."

This is crap too - Jeb Bush had no control over the recounting of the ballots. It wasn't his job. There were so many lawyers down there, there was no way anything could have been rigged. I know - I was there. There was no "overriding the process of recounting and appeal". The law was followed to the letter.

" "We"? You personally were attacked? Or do you mean 9-11? You do KNOW that the hijackers weren't Iraqi's, don't you?

And they invented the WMDs...

And they had been butchering Kurds since there has BEEN an Iraq, so you can't claim it was a response to a humanitarian crisis..."

The US was attacked by terrorists on 9/11. No they weren't Iraqi. But the result was the doctrine that any state the harbors terrorists became a threat to the US. And that was the policy that we carried out in Iraq.

AND - Kerry voted for the use of force in Iraq. So this really isn't something you can attack the president on.

"Erm... how does that make me a communist?"

It doesn't really make you a communist. What it makes you is ignorant of the US Tax Code (which I wouldn't expect you to know, as you're not a US citizen, and hell - even most of our citizens don't get it). Most small businesses file as individual tax payers. So when you "tax the wealthy", you're killing small businesses. And most job creation in America is done by small businesses. In addition, your comment about the poor paying more is also wrong, because under Bush the tax bracket where you pay no taxes at all was expanded. More people who could qualify under the definition of being "poor" don't pay any taxes at all now - more than before Bush was elected.

"It is true that Bush lowered the proportional taxation for the wealthiest people in America. Kerry has stated that he would reverse that injustice."

How is giving everyone in the country a tax cut an injustice? It sounds like fairness to me - why do I deserve a 10% tax decrease at the expense of someone else?

"Not really - Kerry has made it a manifesto point to try to keep jobs in America. Under Bush, well look at the news reports about record CEO wages in the wake of the job exodus."

CEO salaries isn't something the President has a direct influence on. The individual companies themselves and their boards of directors do that. And while Kerry is going to try hard to keep jobs in America (which I support), he also needs to recognize that we simply can't keep up with the slave wages and unfair labor practices in places like China and the rest of Asia. We need to evolve, and start retraining our folks, rather than force companies to stay here. Basically, Kerry is saying he's going to be an even bigger friend to big business than Bush is - because massive tax breaks and payouts are the only things that will keep those businesses here.

Bottom line, Bush, unlike Kerry, has outlined what he wants to do for the next four years. When Kerry comes up with an agenda that goes into more depth than he has, maybe he'll convince me.

Brian, I applaud your post. It is very well informed and for that I thank you.

I agree that Bush has outlined his plans for the next 4 years whereas Kerry hasn't or if he has, hasn't gone into details has Bush.

Keep up the good work.

I agree that Bush has outlined his plans for the next 4 years whereas Kerry hasn't or if he has, hasn't gone into details has Bush.I end up making almost the same post twice on the same page. If you go here http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ and click on one of the issue categories, you can get to a general description of where he stands on the issues. Then click on one of the links on the right side of the screen near the links to speech texts to get to more detailed descriptions of his policy directions.

I end up making almost the same post twice on the same page. If you go here http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ and click on one of the issue categories, you can get to a general description of where he stands on the issues. Then click on one of the links on the right side of the screen near the links to speech texts to get to more detailed descriptions of his policy directions.

I guess you did not here his speech. No details on how he will go about it. With Bush, you got how he will go about it. Bush went into more details. Its fine to put something on a website HOWEVER, people want to HEAR IT FROM THE CANDIDATE. Something Kerry hasn't quite gotten yet.

ok, I was TRYING to be positive. Oh well, Brian has way more good ammo than me, so i'll leave it to him. lol. Good job.

Its a completely different thing, you see when people say Bush (sorry about that word, had to use it) deports jobs overseas they dont mean minimum wage jobs that Chineese children do such as sweatshops that would only exhist in China where people can pay their employees 2 cents an hour. Thats what it is to bottle Heinz Ketchup, its basically a 2 cent job. You cant pay people minimum wage to fill up ketchup bottles, the business would die. Bush deports jobs such as real manufacturing jobs that could feed families there not minimum wage. My uncle is a manufacturer and is an average middle class citizen who lives on the beach of Connecticut.

Basically what Im saying is Bush deports maybe 25 30 40 grand per year jobs. Kerry (who doesnt own Heinz) has a business that lets poor people make maybe a few hundred bucks peryear or something like that. IN AMERICA WE HAVE STANDARDS TOO HIGH TO NOT HAVE MINIMUM WAGE! Did anybody not get that?
I just want to be clear about what you said here. Are you claiming that John Kerry is telling the Heinz corporation to outsource their factory business to China where children are paid $.02 per hour to fill catsup bottles?

Where to begin.

How about this, neither John Kerry nor Teresa Heinz Kerry has any control over the operations of the Heinz Corporation. Teresa holds about 4% of the stock in the Heinz Corporation. That 4% represents a fortune for sure, but not enough of a percent to have any controlling interest.

And then there's this from http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp:

Moreover, the Heinz Company's operations are not an example of the type of outsourcing that is currently a hot political issue (i.e., sending out work to offshore companies to provide services which a company might otherwise have employed its own staff to perform). Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas. (It makes little sense from either an economic or a freshness standpoint to be shipping fruits and vegetables and/or finished food products halfway around the world rather than producing them locally.) One wouldn't expect, for example, every can and bottle of Coca-Cola sold anywhere in the world — whether it be Australia, China, or Portugal — to be produced by U.S. bottlers.)

As the H.J. Heinz Company notes, well over half its sales come from foreign markets, and it therefore operates overseas facilities to serve those markets:

Currently, 60% of the sales of the H.J. Heinz Company are outside the United States and to accommodate those customers by providing facilities closer to those markets, the company maintains a number of overseas facilities that provide products for consumers in those markets. This allows Heinz to pack the freshest ingredients, tailor its recipes to local tastes and deliver the finished products in a timely and efficient manner. In the United States, Heinz makes its flagship ketchup in factories in Fremont, Ohio; Muscatine, Iowa; and Stockton, California.

You know, maybe the most hilarious thing here is that you appear to actually think that the Heinz Corp. is being run by John Kerry who has dictated that 5 year olds fill America's Heinz Katsup bottles for basically slave wages. Think people. Think! Seriously, don't let yourself be lead around by the neck by the right-wing media.

I guess you did not here his speech. No details on how he will go about it. With Bush, you got how he will go about it. Bush went into more details. Its fine to put something on a website HOWEVER, people want to HEAR IT FROM THE CANDIDATE. Something Kerry hasn't quite gotten yet.People hear details from Kerry on the campaign trail all the time--just ebcause Fox News doesn't cover it doesn't mean Kerry's not discussing it. But more importantly, where did Bush go into detail about policy matters in his speech? The fact is that major public speeches like the ones Kerry and Bush gave at their respective conventions are not the places where policy discussions happen--they are by definition generalized, feel good speeches without a lot of substance.

But take up Pantylvania's challenge if you want to be honest about this debate--check out the differences between the detail on policy initiatives on Kerry's website and Bush's website. Kerry's has more detail--Bush's is full of platitudes.

People hear details from Kerry on the campaign trail all the time--just ebcause Fox News doesn't cover it doesn't mean Kerry's not discussing it. But more importantly, where did Bush go into detail about policy matters in his speech? The fact is that major public speeches like the ones Kerry and Bush gave at their respective conventions are not the places where policy discussions happen--they are by definition generalized, feel good speeches without a lot of substance.

But take up Pantylvania's challenge if you want to be honest about this debate--check out the differences between the detail on policy initiatives on Kerry's website and Bush's website. Kerry's has more detail--Bush's is full of platitudes.

Check out what the NTUF people have to say regarding Kerry's spending plans!

People hear details from Kerry on the campaign trail all the time--just ebcause Fox News doesn't cover it doesn't mean Kerry's not discussing it. But more importantly, where did Bush go into detail about policy matters in his speech? The fact is that major public speeches like the ones Kerry and Bush gave at their respective conventions are not the places where policy discussions happen--they are by definition generalized, feel good speeches without a lot of substance.

But take up Pantylvania's challenge if you want to be honest about this debate--check out the differences between the detail on policy initiatives on Kerry's website and Bush's website. Kerry's has more detail--Bush's is full of platitudes.
i could have sworn the guy who started tis said he didn't want to hear the word "bush"

I use "Dubya" myself.

i could have sworn the guy who started tis said he didn't want to hear the word "bush"
That was 14 pages ago--he/she can get over it. :D

That was 14 pages ago--he/she can get over it. :D

LOL!! :D

Check out what the NTUF people have to say regarding Kerry's spending plans!
Reading thier "about" section. as well as thier "Messages," "Accomplishments," and "Quotes" (or endorsemtents, I forgot what it's called, but it leads off with a Ronald Reagan quote), they don't seem as non-partisan as you've led and, more importantly, riding a specific agenda and goal-lower taxes. The fact that they are in arms about a candidate who will raise taxes on some is not a suprise, but it is hardly a report that has no agenda.

That was 14 pages ago--he/she can get over it. :D
lol i thought it was his page if it weren't him you'd have to rant at other people somewhere else lol but he should get over it

They're so desperate for change that they'll vote for almost anyone, even an @$$hole like Kerry.

Please note that I said almost.
I say:
They're so desperate for change that they'll vote for almost anyone, even an @$$hole like Bush.

Please note that I said [i]almost.
Note that i dont say almost, Bush jr sits in office....

I say:
They're so desperate for change that they'll vote for almost anyone, even an @$$hole like Bush.
That would make sense, if Bush wasn't in office.

Anyone but Bush! Best reason for voting ever.

Anyone but Bush! Best reason for voting ever.

Dont know what government class you had to come to that conclusion. Most pundits agree that is the WORST reason to vote for someone.

Kerry is an idiot who if elected and i mean if, he will screw up more than you can guess. I can't stand that liberal democratic idiot.

www.voteyoursport.com

Dont know what government class you had to come to that conclusion. Most pundits agree that is the WORST reason to vote for someone.
Most pundits couldn't find their asses with both hands and a road map.

I never though voting "against" someone was a reason for voting. There are so many candidates. why vote against someone?

I never though voting "against" someone was a reason for voting. There are so many candidates. whay vote against someone?Because sometimes--and I emphasize the sometimes here--you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. You have to avoid letting the perfect become the enemy of the "it'll do." Kerry'll do. He's not the greatest candidate, but he'll do. Bush won't.

why two evils? why must it be Bush or kerry? There are all sorts of parties to vote for on the ballot.

If you dont like kerry or Bush why vote for one of them? vote for one of the many third party candidates.

If for no other reason, vote against Kerry just because of the fact that he lied about the troops, voted against supporting them, and is a war criminal.

an admited war criminal at that.

If you dont like kerry or Bush why vote for one of them? vote for one of the many third party candidates.Because in this instance, having Bush for four more years will endanger the very nature of the US. I don't feel I have the luxury of voting for some mythical "best candidate" in this situation. I have to vote against the man who has endangered the country I love, and that means voting for the one person with a legitimate shot at beating him--John Kerry.

The reaons why these people who say "lesser of two evils" will not vote for a third party candidate is because nobody else does. They "can't win. so ,because other people throw away their independent thought that might lead them to vote outside of the two major parties they feel obligated to do the same.

Because in this instance, having Bush for four more years will endanger the very nature of the US. I don't feel I have the luxury of voting for some mythical "best candidate" in this situation. I have to vote against the man who has endangered the country I love, and that means voting for the one person with a legitimate shot at beating him--John Kerry.


You are right. Removing a brutal dictator using an all volunteer army and one of the largest coalitions in the history of warfare Bush endangered America.

The reaons why these people who say "lesser of two evils" will not vote for a third party candidate is because nobody else does. They "can't win. so ,because other people throw away their independent thought that might lead them to vote outside of the two major parties they feel obligated to do the same.Not true--I've voted for minor party candidates in the past. Might surprise you to hear that I voted for Harry Browne (Lib) in 1996, and I voted Green in last years mayoral race in San Francisco. But there are times--and this year is one of those times--where I really feel, even though I live in a "safe" state, where I have to vote against someone, and that someone is George W. Bush.

You are right. Removing a brutal dictator using an all volunteer army and one of the largest coalitions in the history of warfare Bush endangered America.
Sure did, because it overextended our military and ignored the real threat--al Qaeda and radical Islamists. I really don't feel like getting into this kind of argument again. If you like Bush, fine for you. I don't--he's a menace and he's incompetent and nothing you say will change my mind on that. I've lived it firsthand and even a gun to my head couldn't convince me to vote for him.

let's be truthfull here. You are not concerned with where who you vote for stands on the issues. You are concerned with two things:
1) can win the election
2) is not Bush

While I respect you , I am glad I do not have the same situation or priorities.

Sure did, because it overextended our military and ignored the real threat--al Qaeda and radical Islamists. I really don't feel like getting into this kind of argument again. If you like Bush, fine for you. I don't--he's a menace and he's incompetent and nothing you say will change my mind on that. I've lived it firsthand and even a gun to my head couldn't convince me to vote for him.
I guess there are some people that just can't be helped. :rolleyes:

let's be truthfull here. You are not concerned with where who you vote for stands on the issues. You are concerned with two things:
1) can win the election
2) is not Bush

While I respect you , I am glad I do not have the same situation or priorities.Oh I do care--if the only person who had a chance to beat Bush was, say, Hitler, then I'd probably just not vote and find a way to leave the country. Kerry's not my favorite candidate--in fact, out of the 10 Democrats who ran for the nomination, he was about 6th, ahead of only Sharpton, Lieberman, Kucinich and Gephardt (in no particular order). But any of those ten were closer to my point of view on most issues than Bush was. And they're closer than any of the other minor candidates as well.

So I do care about issues. The difference here is one more of passion. I don't love Kerry as a candidate, but I realllllllllllllllllly don't like Bush, so even if there were some magical third party candidate that really spoke to me, I wouldn't vote for him or her this time around because the potential effect is so horrifying to me.

So it is about what I said. Your concern that Bush loses over rides everything else. I don' think that is a good thing.

i would vote for kerry, because the economy tends to do a lot better when there is a democrat in office

So it is about what I said. Your concern that Bush loses over rides everything else. I don' think that is a good thing.
I could say the same thing about your support for Bush. Agree to disagree and leave it at that?

i would vote for kerry, because the economy tends to do a lot better when there is a democrat in office

Carter! Carter!!!!!!!

I could say the same thing about your support for Bush. Agree to disagree and leave it at that?

no. That would be incorrect. ok. Lets do it.

i would vote for kerry, because the economy tends to do a lot better when there is a democrat in office

actualy, no. Compare the numbers of unemployment, inflation, interest rates, ect. under clinton's first term to dubyas first term. You will see that your statement is wrong. However, for further proof consider the following:

JIMMY CARTER. compared to RONALD REAGAN


just look up the numbers. Come back when you are done. then we will talk.

actualy, no. Compare the numbers of unemployment, inflation, interest rates, ect. under clinton's first term to dubyas first term. You will see that your statement is wrong. However, for further proof consider the following:

JIMMY CARTER. compared to RONALD REAGAN


just look up the numbers. Cime back when you are done. then we will talk.
Go back farther and you'll see that Carter is an aberration, and hey, he had the OPEC embargo to deal with. In today's dollars, oil was about $88 a barrel during the latter part of Carter's term. Our economy today went into shudders when we hit $45 a barrel--try imagining what we'd be doing if oil were twice what it is today. Carter made economic mistakes, but it wasn't all his fault. (P.S. The end of the embargo also helped fuel some of the Reagan boom--more money in the economy instead of in oil products.)

But go back for the full century and you'll see that the economy has done better in general terms under Democrats than Republicans. Reagan, as a matter of fact, is the only Republican to have a better than average economy over that time span.

So it is about what I said. Your concern that Bush loses over rides everything else. I don' think that is a good thing.
I suppose that you are hearing what you want to hear, this is really a lame trick. The idea is to get people to admit that they do not 100% agree with the guy up against Bush. The tacit implication is that if you are not in 100% agreement with that candidate your default vote would then somehow go for Bush, which doesn't make any logical sense once it's said out loud. What people are saying is-if the Bush was better than the candidate running against him, we'd vote Bush, but that is simply not the case. A low opinion of Bush opens the field, but doesn't change anything. It's a simple equation, if I agree with 40% of what Kerry says and (caveat) 39% of what Bush says, my vote goes for Kerry.

So yeah, you're going to find things about Kerry that some of the people voting for Kerry don't agree with. You're going to find more that Bush does that they don't agree with, and that's how their vote is going to be decided. Romance of the third party aside, this is a binary race and you know it. Shaming someones vote seems to me a sign that you're candidate isn't standing too well on his own. We are not safer, we are not better off, and while it's adorable that Bush has come up with things he wants to do if he's reelected, he hasn't done well in my estimation with the time he has had.

So nice try, but I'm not shamed out of my vote. I'm voting for the guy I think will do the better job even if he's not the guy who will do a perfect job. That's why we have two other branches.

what figures are you using to come to that conclusion icertonia?

I was not shaming anyone. But now I might have to. I do not agree with everything Bush says. I do not dislike everything Kerry says. NObody can agree 100% of the time. But the assumption that this is a binary race is what makes it a binary race. And that is the problem. I just happen to think that if you do not strongly support either major candidate on their own merits you should look beyond them. No need for getting so irate at me! Rattling off your opinions and then saying nice try to me ( what was I trying)? with no information to give or new thoughts to add is just not cool. I really wish you would tone it down and stop looking at me as some sort of bad guy. I just added my thoughts to the thread and here you think I need to be lectured at because of some scheme you thought I had or propaganda you assumed I wanted to spread.

what figures are you using to come to that conclusion icertonia?
Here's one. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/) It deals with market reactions over the last 72 years. The information about oil prices during the Carter administration came from a column by Paul Krugman during the week of Reagan's funeral--sorry, the NY Times archives cost money so I can't provide a link. I'll find the rest and send it along.

The stock market is part of the economy. Oil is not the economy.They are not the economy though. That is measured through unemployment data and inflation rate data. In fact those other things are minor parts of it. But that's ok, I will assume you did not just make it up. I will assume you are right. So , in that case, how will Kerry be helping the economy be better than it is right now?

Actually, Eisenhower's economy was the best since the Depression - and he was a Republican.

But to carry a specious argument out even further, hell - the industrial revolution took place during Republican administrations...from Lincoln to Wilson (excepting Grover Cleveland). So that must mean Republicans are good at inventing new industries?

Bush's poor economy was inherited - its generally accepted now that the recession of pre-9/11 began during the last few months of the Clinton presidency, as the WorldCom/Enron and the other accounting scandals broke and the dot.com bubble burst. It was exacerbated by 9/11.

The economy is cyclical...other than changing tax laws and a few other regulatory tools, there really isn't much a President or Congress can do to affect the economy directly. Alan Greenspan has more sway than they do - the Fed's decisions on lending rates and the money supply are much more powerful tools.

As for the anybody-but-Bush crowd, most of the people I know who dislike the president really don't have legitimate reasons behind it. They either dislike Donald Rumsfeld, or they hate John Ashcroft, or they throw up the boogeymen of the Patriot Act or try and claim that the War in Iraq was just created to get revenge on Saddam for "dissing" Bush 41, or any other myriad of questionable reasons.

For most voters, the question boils down to three things: likeability, trust, and vision. If voters like you, trust you and approve of your vision, they'll vote for you. Bush, no matter any of his other qualities, exudes likeability. He's the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. He's friendly, outgoing, smiles a lot and seems like a good guy. To me, he seems trustworthy - although I know many people buy into the "he lied to get us into the war" (it's never that simple, particuarly when you're dealing with intelligence) and disagree. And he's got a good vision for America - I particularly liked what he outlined in the convention speech. And his wife is great (I've met her twice).

Kerry, on the other hand, does not seem like the kind of guy I could sit down and watch a ballgame with. He rarely smiles, and when he does, it doesn't look natural at all. He seems like your stereotypical rich, liberal Northeasterner, which is a shame because I hate when people reinforce stereotypes. I have not met him, (met Edwards - voted for him in the primary) but he has not gained my trust yet, and although I don't give the Swiftboat ads my complete trust, there has been enough dirt thrown up about his war record that there is room for doubt there. And since he chose that record to run on, he must feel that is where he is strongest. As for his vision for America, I've not really heard it yet. I know snippets - he's for keeping jobs here, he would've gone into Iraq but he would have done it "differently", he'd fight the war on terror, but he'd do it "differently"...I'm not hearing anything that makes me sit up and think "Wow - this is good stuff".

That's why I'm planning to vote for Bush unless something crazy happens between now and November.

I was not shaming anyone. But now I might have to. I do not agree with everything Bush says. I do not dislike everything Kerry says. NObody can agree 100% of the time. But the assumption that this is a binary race is what makes it a binary race. And that is the problem. I just happen to think that if you do not strongly support either major candidate on their own merits you should look beyond them. No need for getting so irate at me! Rattling off your opinions and then saying nice try to me ( what was I trying)? with no information to give or new thoughts to add is just not cool. I really wish you would tone it down and stop looking at me as some sort of bad guy. I just added my thoughts to the thread and here you think I need to be lectured at because of some scheme you thought I had or propaganda you assumed I wanted to spread.
The 'nice try' is more of a blanket statement aimed at the Bushites that have angled this notion. We've had our romance with the third party, and that's pretty clear. I myself voted for Nader on the very idea of not being self-selecting. The reality is that we are not ready, enough people aren't there and this is too important. There is not a candidate running right now who is better or more likely to win then Kerry (both together, no predictions). Either way, the vote is the same. Kerry. Not Bush. It's less dangerous than yes Bush.

I mean, hiking rich people's taxes ( which will cover 1/3 of his new spending) is not somthing I see helping anyone. Also, speaking of your earlier comment, are you aware that until the Lyndon JOhnson administration the democrats believed in supply side economics! the system the Republicans use today. No wonder the economies were good under their watch!

Actually, Eisenhower's economy was the best since the Depression - and he was a Republican.

But to carry a specious argument out even further, hell - the industrial revolution took place during Republican administrations...from Lincoln to Wilson (excepting Grover Cleveland). So that must mean Republicans are good at inventing new industries?

Bush's poor economy was inherited - its generally accepted now that the recession of pre-9/11 began during the last few months of the Clinton presidency, as the WorldCom/Enron and the other accounting scandals broke and the dot.com bubble burst. It was exacerbated by 9/11.

The economy is cyclical...other than changing tax laws and a few other regulatory tools, there really isn't much a President or Congress can do to affect the economy directly. Alan Greenspan has more sway than they do - the Fed's decisions on lending rates and the money supply are much more powerful tools.

As for the anybody-but-Bush crowd, most of the people I know who dislike the president really don't have legitimate reasons behind it. They either dislike Donald Rumsfeld, or they hate John Ashcroft, or they throw up the boogeymen of the Patriot Act or try and claim that the War in Iraq was just created to get revenge on Saddam for "dissing" Bush 41, or any other myriad of questionable reasons.

For most voters, the question boils down to three things: likeability, trust, and vision. If voters like you, trust you and approve of your vision, they'll vote for you. Bush, no matter any of his other qualities, exudes likeability. He's the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. He's friendly, outgoing, smiles a lot and seems like a good guy. To me, he seems trustworthy - although I know many people buy into the "he lied to get us into the war" (it's never that simple, particuarly when you're dealing with intelligence) and disagree. And he's got a good vision for America - I particularly liked what he outlined in the convention speech. And his wife is great (I've met her twice).

Kerry, on the other hand, does not seem like the kind of guy I could sit down and watch a ballgame with. He rarely smiles, and when he does, it doesn't look natural at all. He seems like your stereotypical rich, liberal Northeasterner, which is a shame because I hate when people reinforce stereotypes. I have not met him, (met Edwards - voted for him in the primary) but he has not gained my trust yet, and although I don't give the Swiftboat ads my complete trust, there has been enough dirt thrown up about his war record that there is room for doubt there. And since he chose that record to run on, he must feel that is where he is strongest. As for his vision for America, I've not really heard it yet. I know snippets - he's for keeping jobs here, he would've gone into Iraq but he would have done it "differently", he'd fight the war on terror, but he'd do it "differently"...I'm not hearing anything that makes me sit up and think "Wow - this is good stuff".

That's why I'm planning to vote for Bush unless something crazy happens between now and November.


quoted it just so everyone might see it a second time

The 'nice try' is more of a blanket statement aimed at the Bushites that have angled this notion. We've had our romance with the third party, and that's pretty clear. I myself voted for Nader on the very idea of not being self-selecting. The reality is that we are not ready, enough people aren't there and this is too important. There is not a candidate running right now who is better or more likely to win then Kerry (both together, no predictions). Either way, the vote is the same. Kerry. Not Bush. It's less dangerous than yes Bush.

So you we not writing to me (as I assumed) ? I doubt it. I still ask....what will Kerry do differently and specificly?

I have to leave but let me say one more time:

Voting for a guy because he isnt another feelow is no sound form of government.

So, in that case, how will Kerry be helping the economy be better than it is right now?mostly through spending cuts
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

I see another post showed up just before I started typing this reply. Brians room, you can find more than the snippets if you go to that same link and look through Kerry's platform (click "more issues" on the left, click on an issue category, and then click on a link to more detailed plans on the right)

So you we not writing to me (as I assumed) ? I doubt it. I still ask....what will Kerry do differently and specificly?
Yes I was writting to you and all that have postulated your scenerio, and no I'm not chasing your tail on this. I called what I saw. You want to say it's not what you meant, go ahead. My point stands.

This stuff. (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html) RIF.

On the topic of voting for third parties...

...it's not always a bad idea, especially if there is something in it for the third party. Ross Perot's candidacy ensured the Reform party legitimacy for quite a while, despite the fact that they've since squandered it.

A vote for Nader in 2000 was not a stupid thing. If he had managed to get a high enough percentage in enough states, he could have qualfied the green party for matching funds in the next election, which is a pretty hefty chunk of change (Bush and Kerry received 79 million each in matching funds, if I recall correctly). You can argue that the voters for Nader in 2000 cost Gore the election, and this may be true ... at least in Florida. In other states, such as Massachusetts or Texas it wouldn't have mattered as much.

But in the 2004 election, there's really no reason to vote for a third party candidate. None of them are being taken seriously and none of them are in a position where their getting votes could help break the party into the big time.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing national and state polls that have Nader included, because he's only officially qualfied for the ballot in Nevada (but may have access to it on the Reform party ticket in 7 others). He's a non-factor, but he keeps getting thrown in there to screw up the polling.

I have to leave but let me say one more time:

Voting for a guy because he isnt another feelow is no sound form of government.
Work to break down the two party system. Until then, still voting for Kerry.

mostly through spending cuts
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

I see another post showed up just before I started typing this reply. Brians room, you can find more than the snippets if you go to that same link and look through Kerry's platform (click "more issues" on the left, click on an issue category, and then click on a link to more detailed plans on the right)

And this is my last post for a few hours!

As I've stated before, its one thing to put it on a website. Its another thing to say it publicly. Maybe he should start speaking about what he has planned that he has on his website and maybe he might do better in the polls. People want to hear it STRAIGHT from the Candidates Mouth. Bush outlined what he will do if he is re-elected for a 2nd term. Kerry has not stated what he would do if he is elected to replace him.

I have to leave but let me say one more time:

Voting for a guy because he isnt another feelow is no sound form of government.

how about voting for a guy because he is not THE other fellow, fellow who is either insanely corrupt, self-righteous and has a horrible contempt for human life, or who is just stupoid.

And this is my last post for a few hours!

As I've stated before, its one thing to put it on a website. Its another thing to say it publicly. Maybe he should start speaking about what he has planned that he has on his website and maybe he might do better in the polls. People want to hear it STRAIGHT from the Candidates Mouth. Bush outlined what he will do if he is re-elected for a 2nd term. Kerry has not stated what he would do if he is elected to replace him.I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree, and I almost agree because Kerry actually has said a little bit of it. I post the links to Kerry's campaign platform when someone says that Kerry doesn't have a plan for [insert issue] and when someone asks where Kerry stands on [insert issue]