NationStates Jolt Archive

He clearly has a vision, if he were to be elected he promises to do a lot of good things. However, don't take my word for it!

Watch This (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9029.html)

*Disclaimer - I endorse John Kerry :cool:

Ne1 who believes what a politician says is naive. They are nothing but liars. That's what's so great about NS. It's a game largely filled w/ RP and so you could have your leader be somebody who is cool and rarely ever lies.

Yay, go Bush, ruin the US even more. Woohoo!!!

Phew, for a moment there I thought you were high or something Steph. :p

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.

The first sentence says it all "There's so many reason to defeat Bush." :rolleyes:

Plus using the daily show as a reference "ad nauseum" does not make their humor (yes, it is hilarious) any more truthful.

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.
Your point?

i endorse pedro. vote for pedro and all your wildest dreams will come true.

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.
Wrong. Besides, ideologies can't endorse people.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/56/


2. The CPUSA does not endorse any candidate for President in the 2004 election.

see sig

lol @ "Vote for George Bush, so he can finish the work he never began"

Can anyone out there tell me one thing that John Kerry did while he was a senator?

www.bushflash.com presents many arguments aginst bush. Like Grand Theft America (disenfranchining peples of their votes). ANyway, it shows the corruption of Bush.

He drove to work every other day?

He clearly has a vision, if he were to be elected he promises to do a lot of good things. However, don't take my word for it!


Okie, Stephistan ... you have been officially warned!

Don't ever scare me like that again. ;)

For a fleeting second, I thought we'd lost you to the dark side.

i endorse pedro. vote for pedro and all your wildest dreams will come true.

Hahaha... Love that movie.

Phew! I thought she'd gone balmy for a minute and started to endorse Bush...

I'm voting Castro/Chavez '04.

If you don't want to endorse Kerry why bash Bush? So i guess you really want Kerry along with all the other social countries out there. Why don't you just admit to being a Kerry Coolaid drinker who hides behind the CPUSA banner.

Can anyone out there tell me one thing that John Kerry did while he was a senator?
Do you mean sponsor solely? Co-sponsor? Or endorsed?

One thing he sponsored renaming a building in honor of semi important man...I'm not into history so i don't remember what the guy did but everyone agreed.(more than majority voted okay)

Many more things but still you are probably anti-Kerry anyway.

If you don't want to endorse Kerry why bash Bush? So i guess you really want Kerry along with all the other social countries out there. Why don't you just admit to being a Kerry Coolaid drinker who hides behind the CPUSA banner.


Kerry coolaid? does it taste nice? what does the banner look like?

Do you mean sponsor solely? Co-sponsor? Or endorsed?

One thing he sponsored renaming a building in honor of semi important man...I'm not into history so i don't remember what the guy did but everyone agreed.(more than majority voted okay)

Many more things but still you are probably anti-Kerry anyway.

Thats about all he did. He did not sponsor ONE substantial bill to enact the changes he says we now need. Now, before anyone says that by doing so he would have upstaged Kennedy as he was the senior Senator. Well, they are from the SAME party, so it is not like he would have been defeated. Mass. is a HUGE Democratic stronghold and has the tax rate to prove it. The same is true of California and New York. In fact ALL of the highest tax rate states and communities are heavy Democrat strongholds for some reason.

Do you mean sponsor solely? Co-sponsor? Or endorsed?

One thing he sponsored renaming a building in honor of semi important man...I'm not into history so i don't remember what the guy did but everyone agreed.(more than majority voted okay)

Many more things but still you are probably anti-Kerry anyway.

Any or all, where or how did John Kerry improve or expand the life of people of the US. He did get voted the most liberal senator. Thats an accomplishment.

Thats about all he did. He did not sponsor ONE substantial bill to enact the changes he says we now need. Now, before anyone says that by doing so he would have upstaged Kennedy as he was the senior Senator. Well, they are from the SAME party, so it is not like he would have been defeated. Mass. is a HUGE Democratic stronghold and has the tax rate to prove it. The same is true of California and New York. In fact ALL of the highest tax rate states and communities are heavy Democrat strongholds for some reason.

Well said. I see you have done your homework, now if the rest of the 50% would do some we could get on with the business of the country and not the election.

Can anyone out there tell me one thing that John Kerry did while he was a senator?

Just one? How about 57 ...

PAY ATTENTION AND STOP ASKING!!!

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.

Just one? How about 57 ...

PAY ATTENTION AND STOP ASKING!!!

57 Bills and Resolutions John Kerry Sponsored

99th Congress (1)

Now which of these are substantial and have ANYTHING to do with what he says we need to do NOW? He claims that healthcare is a mess and has been for YEARS. So which of these bills deal with healthcare? None of them do....therefore, when he was in a REAL position to make some changes....he renamed buildings and other mundane things. Face it, he did NOTHING of substance for 20 years.....

ok, thanks for giving us the list, now pick one that really means anything to you as a citizen. A list of sponsored bills, but did he start the process on anything or was he just riding on the coat tail of others. The real question is what has he done for the us in the past 19 years that he will carry on as president. Besides raise taxes and increase spending. We all know that we get to much of our money and we don't know how to spend it wisely so we let John Kerry spend it for us. like he would miss a few million of his.

Now which of these are substantial and have ANYTHING to do with what he says we need to do NOW? He claims that healthcare is a mess and has been for YEARS. So which of these bills deal with healthcare? None of them do....therefore, when he was in a REAL position to make some changes....he renamed buildings and other mundane things. Face it, he did NOTHING of substance for 20 years.....

Sure, there was some renaming of buildings in that list. But I also recall seeing quite a bit of environmental and small-business related legislation in there. There were also some recognitions of POWs and veterans who had previously gone unnoticed. Two of the claims I have heard lately are 1- Kerry is not worried about small businesses and 2- Kerry hates veterans. Hmmmm.....

Now which of these are substantial and have ANYTHING to do with what he says we need to do NOW? He claims that healthcare is a mess and has been for YEARS. So which of these bills deal with healthcare? None of them do....therefore, when he was in a REAL position to make some changes....he renamed buildings and other mundane things. Face it, he did NOTHING of substance for 20 years.....


See ... this is the problem ... they ask for 1 thing he did, I name 57 ... what's the reply? "Oh, well those just aren't that important".

Wanna compare Kerry's Senate record to Bush's Senate record? Oh ... that's right ...

Don't ask for something if you don't want the answer.

Also, "substance" is relative. I think S.CON.RES.62, a bill concerning Human Rights, is extremely significant. Maybe you don't.

S.J.RES.285 actually helped you neocons and your fake "War on Drugs", but you'd never acknowledge that Kerry did something for your side, would you?

S.1563 Oh no! Kerry wanted to help people go to college! :eek: :eek: He's the DEVIL!

S.RES.183 Oooh ... Kerry speaking out against the French! Guess he should have done something stupid like buy French wine just to pour it out or coined a term like "Freedom Fries" in order for ya'll to get it ...

S.CON.RES.7 Hey look! Kerry trying to do something for INTERNATIONAL security! Such an evil, petty man is he.

Come on, people. 99% of what goes through the Senate is useless drivel and you all know it. You can't blame it all on one single Senator.

Name your favorite Senator and I will gladly show you every single mundane, useless, and pointless bill they sponsored or co-sponsored.

Mass. is a HUGE Democratic stronghold and has the tax rate to prove it. The same is true of California and New York. In fact ALL of the highest tax rate states and communities are heavy Democrat strongholds for some reason.

Perhaps it's because they all have Republican governors. Ah well, that's pretty recent for California.

Maybe it's because those states are among those that traditionally receive less money from the federal government than they send to it. http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf

Sure, there was some renaming of buildings in that list. But I also recall seeing quite a bit of environmental and small-business related legislation in there. There were also some recognitions of POWs and veterans who had previously gone unnoticed. Two of the claims I have heard lately are 1- Kerry is not worried about small businesses and 2- Kerry hates veterans. Hmmmm.....

Yes, there is some other fluff in there. Now....of the bills he DID sponsor, which are of any SUBSTANCE? Not one of them....no, he did NOTHING but draw a paycheck for 20 years and he did not even show up for work a lot of the time to even vote. No, he claims that he has some plan to make things right, but when he was in a position to make REAL change he did nothing. Thats what he would do as President to....nothing.

Renaming buildings and other things is all fine and well....but it does nothing for the country or even his own district.

See ... this is the problem ... they ask for 1 thing he did, I name 57 ... what's the reply? "Oh, well those just aren't that important".

Wanna compare Kerry's Senate record to Bush's Senate record? Oh ... that's right ...

Don't ask for something if you don't want the answer.

Also, "substance" is relative. I think S.CON.RES.62, a bill concerning Human Rights, is extremely significant. Maybe you don't.

S.J.RES.285 actually helped you neocons and your fake "War on Drugs", but you'd never acknowledge that Kerry did something for your side, would you?

S.1563 Oh no! Kerry wanted to help people go to college! :eek: :eek: He's the DEVIL!

S.RES.183 Oooh ... Kerry speaking out against the French! Guess he should have done something stupid like buy French wine just to pour it out or coined a term like "Freedom Fries" in order for ya'll to get it ...

S.CON.RES.7 Hey look! Kerry trying to do something for INTERNATIONAL security! Such an evil, petty man is he.

Come on, people. 99% of what goes through the Senate is useless drivel and you all know it. You can't blame it all on one single Senator.

Name your favorite Senator and I will gladly show you every single mundane, useless, and pointless bill they sponsored or co-sponsored.

Thats why Kerry is NOT running on his Senate record....it is extremely weak.

Now which of these are substantial and have ANYTHING to do with what he says we need to do NOW? He claims that healthcare is a mess and has been for YEARS. So which of these bills deal with healthcare? None of them do....therefore, when he was in a REAL position to make some changes....he renamed buildings and other mundane things. Face it, he did NOTHING of substance for 20 years.....
He did manythings he runs on:
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.
-Civil rights, Kerry issue.

2) 1. S.CON.RES.99: A concurrent resolution condemning North Korea's support for terrorist activities.
- that he is against terrorist.

3) 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.
-love of his fellow man, they should be commended.

4) 3. S.RES.279: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding ethical conduct expected of Senate political committees.
-With Cheney's swearing one would think this is a big one!

5) 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.
-Protection of the environment and the Anaractic ecosystem.

6) 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.
-More envirnoment

7) 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.
-Banning those driftnets that capture many sea creatures. Terrible thing, was on simpsons.

8) 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.
- Showing his resolve against France trying to control US. Also showing how he would fight for the US against our allies if our interest are needed.

9) 1. S.791 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program.
-Shows he cares about woman rights.

10) 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.
-Protect Small business

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


As you see, he did at least 11 substantial things. The rest can be argued not great but decent.

Perhaps it's because they all have Republican governors. Ah well, that's pretty recent for California.

Maybe it's because those states are among those that traditionally receive less money from the federal government than they send to it. http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf

Yeah, and we all know that Governors set the tax rates. ;) Maybe it does have something to do with the amount that the Feds send back there as well, but I kind of doubt it.

ok, thanks for giving us the list, now pick one that really means anything to you as a citizen.

You really don't understand how the Senate works, do you? Senators aren't even allowed to fart unless a resolution is made, seconded, debated, motioned, ammended, seconded, resolved, and finally voted on.

Even something as cheesy as deciding whether or not the Senate can express national condolence over the death of Ronald Reagan must be voted on!

Be glad we have such a system ... otherwise, Senators could go off and do whatever they like without ever concerning themselves about what the rest of the Senate thinks.

I don't know exactly what it is you're looking for, but Kerry's record reads like every other Senator's record. A lot of useless drivel and a few decent ideas scattered in the mix. You also may want to look up what it means when a Senator "sponsors" a bill or resolution. It's not what you seem to think it means.

See ... this is the problem ... they ask for 1 thing he did, I name 57 ... what's the reply? "Oh, well those just aren't that important".

Wanna compare Kerry's Senate record to Bush's Senate record? Oh ... that's right ...

Don't ask for something if you don't want the answer.

Also, "substance" is relative. I think S.CON.RES.62, a bill concerning Human Rights, is extremely significant. Maybe you don't.

S.J.RES.285 actually helped you neocons and your fake "War on Drugs", but you'd never acknowledge that Kerry did something for your side, would you?

S.1563 Oh no! Kerry wanted to help people go to college! :eek: :eek: He's the DEVIL!

S.RES.183 Oooh ... Kerry speaking out against the French! Guess he should have done something stupid like buy French wine just to pour it out or coined a term like "Freedom Fries" in order for ya'll to get it ...

S.CON.RES.7 Hey look! Kerry trying to do something for INTERNATIONAL security! Such an evil, petty man is he.

Come on, people. 99% of what goes through the Senate is useless drivel and you all know it. You can't blame it all on one single Senator.

Name your favorite Senator and I will gladly show you every single mundane, useless, and pointless bill they sponsored or co-sponsored.


lets choose Zell miller. what has he done for us? What about John McCain?

Yes, there is some other fluff in there. Now....of the bills he DID sponsor, which are of any SUBSTANCE? Not one of them....no, he did NOTHING but draw a paycheck for 20 years and he did not even show up for work a lot of the time to even vote. No, he claims that he has some plan to make things right, but when he was in a position to make REAL change he did nothing. Thats what he would do as President to....nothing.

Renaming buildings and other things is all fine and well....but it does nothing for the country or even his own district.

Do you read?? I specifically pointed out that, while there was some fluff, there were bills that were not fluff. ::sigh:: I don't understand someone who holds so fundamentally to an erroneous belief that they ignore anything put in front of them to the contrary. There was quite a bit in there that was *not* naming buildings and such.

Thats why Kerry is NOT running on his Senate record....it is extremely weak.

Kerry *is* running on his record. Only the Republicans are making a big deal out of one small period of time. Listen to Kerry speak or read the transcripts of his speeches, not just whatever soundbites you can find on foxnews.com. He speaks of his 20 years of service to the Federal government and to the people of the United States.

Yes, he's mentioned his war record, but it's not his platform.

His platform, what he stands for and his stance on the issues, is in plain English for anyone who wants to read it at www.johnkerry.com.

Originally Posted by Conservitive Ideas
ok, thanks for giving us the list, now pick one that really means anything to you as a citizen.

1) A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding ethical conduct expected of Senate political committees.

As a American who dislikes swearing and other unethical things in debates, this is important to me.

As I said he did many environment issues and I care about the environment so that means a lot.

2) 6) 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.
As I said, that I care about the environment and reservations are important.

He did manythings he runs on:
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.
-Civil rights, Kerry issue.

2) 1. S.CON.RES.99: A concurrent resolution condemning North Korea's support for terrorist activities.
- that he is against terrorist.

3) 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.
-love of his fellow man, they should be commended.

4) 3. S.RES.279: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding ethical conduct expected of Senate political committees.
-With Cheney's swearing one would think this is a big one!

5) 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.
-Protection of the environment and the Anaractic ecosystem.

6) 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.
-More envirnoment

7) 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.
-Banning those driftnets that capture many sea creatures. Terrible thing, was on simpsons.

8) 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.
- Showing his resolve against France trying to control US. Also showing how he would fight for the US against our allies if our interest are needed.

9) 1. S.791 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program.
-Shows he cares about woman rights.

10) 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.
-Protect Small business

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


As you see, he did at least 11 substantial things. The rest can be argued not great but decent.


You have GOT to be kidding!!

6) 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.

Yeah, THAT did a lot for the country as a whole.... ;) It only affected that ONE day. LOL

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

Yeah, how many NONFARM businesses are affected by drought? Oh yeah....skating rinks.

10) 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.

How many small businesses were in the WTC? Oh yeah....none.

Look....other Senators like McCain, Gephardt and even Kennedy do many things that do REAL good (or bad) for the entire country. Kerry has NOTHING to show for 20 years....nothing.

lets choose Zell miller. what has he done for us? What about John McCain?

Hmmmm....I took a picture with Zell Miller once.

John McCain - seems to be quite the likable guy. I'd have to look more into his actual record, but from what little I know about him, I'm pretty sure I'd vote for him if he were running for president. It's a shame he's so loyal to his party that he would support a man who attacked the war record of a VIETNAM WAR POW!!

Kerry *is* running on his record. Only the Republicans are making a big deal out of one small period of time. Listen to Kerry speak or read the transcripts of his speeches, not just whatever soundbites you can find on foxnews.com. He speaks of his 20 years of service to the Federal government and to the people of the United States.

Yes, he's mentioned his war record, but it's not his platform.

His platform, what he stands for and his stance on the issues, is in plain English for anyone who wants to read it at www.johnkerry.com.

Excuse me? It was Kerry who "reported for duty" and brought his Vietnam service up to begin with. He was advised not to do so by McCain....but he did it anyway. He brought it up and made it an issue.

You have GOT to be kidding!!
Yeah, THAT did a lot for the country as a whole.... ;) It only affected that ONE day. LOL

A great deal of legislation affects a single day or a single person. SO what?


Yeah, how many NONFARM businesses are affected by drought? Oh yeah....skating rinks.

Enough to need a bill about them. So obviously Senator Kerry knew more about the situation than you.

How many small businesses were in the WTC? Oh yeah....none.

And you think that means small businesses were not affected by the Sept. 11th attacks? Now you are just being silly.

Hmmmm....I took a picture with Zell Miller once.

John McCain - seems to be quite the likable guy. I'd have to look more into his actual record, but from what little I know about him, I'm pretty sure I'd vote for him if he were running for president. It's a shame he's so loyal to his party that he would support a man who attacked the war record of a VIETNAM WAR POW!!

McCain was Kerry's first choice for VP.....imagine that.

A great deal of legislation affects a single day or a single person. SO what?



Enough to need a bill about them. So obviously Senator Kerry knew more about the situation than you.



And you think that means small businesses were not affected by the Sept. 11th attacks? Now you are just being silly.

I think Kerry wanted to LOOK like he was doing something without risking anything. When was the last drought in Mass? I guess there might have been a few hotdog stands by the WTC, but there is not a small business in the world that could operate in the area around the WTC. it is too expensive.

McCain was Kerry's first choice for VP.....imagine that.

The only reason anybody has a problem with that is because one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. Hell, I would've voted for that ticket in a second. Now I have to settle for voting for Kerry/Edwards so that Bush won't get a second term. ::sigh::

lets choose Zell miller. what has he done for us? What about John McCain?

Alrighty ... Zell Miller: Only been a Senator for 4 years, but that's long enough I suppose.

First of all, Miller entered the US's most august debating body as a renegade and has spent the last four years making the ugliest, most inflammatory remarks ever uttered on the Senate floor. He is 1 out of 100 out of 300,000,000 and is supposed to be among the best of the best of the US, but has destroyed all notion of Senatorial dignity.

He has very little support in his party (9% in 2004), even though he votes in 70% of Senatorial votes. Personally, he should just call himself a Republican and be done with it. I'll never understand why he continues to call himself a Democrat.

In his time as a Senator, Zell Miller has never sponsored a bill or resolution. (This is according to http://www.senate.gov/ which, I assume, you will know to be a credible source)

Now, McCain, that's a bit different. I've watched him work very hard on nonpartisan resolutions while maintaining 80%+ approval in his own party. I have nothing bad to say about McCain anymore than I have anything bad to say about Kerry.

I think Kerry wanted to LOOK like he was doing something without risking anything. When was the last drought in Mass? I guess there might have been a few hotdog stands by the WTC, but there is not a small business in the world that could operate in the area around the WTC. it is too expensive.

This is where you are having problems. You didn't have to be right next to the WTC to be affected by what happened. Businesses *across the country* were affected adversely by the reaction of citizens after 9/11. This means that businesses *across the country* may have needed help. Seriously, think a little more globally here. The entire country was affected by the WTC incident. If you think that isn't true, then why the hell was it an issue at all? Why didn't we all just clean it up and get over it?

McCain was Kerry's first choice for VP.....imagine that.

McCain has openly said that Kerry never approached him to be VP.

He clearly has a vision, if he were to be elected he promises to do a lot of good things. However, don't take my word for it!

Watch This (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9029.html)

*Disclaimer - I endorse John Kerry :cool:

Oh, sarcasm. LOL. Yeah, that video pretty much sums up what Bush is REALLY like. If you vote for Bush again, you'll be voting for...

*More wars (Iran, Syria...?)
*More civil liberties being taken away (such as: Patriot Act II, making abortion illegal, etc.)
*An even worse economy than what it is right now
*Less funding to those who need it, such as: schools, welfare, social security, police, firefighters, and so on.
*More worrying about terrorist attacks (it's all scare tactics)
*More lies by the White House
*A Draft
*Satan

Think when you vote this year. Do you really want all this stuff to happen again?

Kerry/Edwards 2004

This is where you are having problems. You didn't have to be right next to the WTC to be affected by what happened. Businesses *across the country* were affected adversely by the reaction of citizens after 9/11. This means that businesses *across the country* may have needed help. Seriously, think a little more globally here. The entire country was affected by the WTC incident. If you think that isn't true, then why the hell was it an issue at all? Why didn't we all just clean it up and get over it?

You are probably right about that. However, if you have ever dealt with the SBA you will know that it is like dealing with the devil. You invite a lot of trouble in order to get a low interest loan. They come in and look your business over....and I mean over. If they find violations of ANY gov't regs (including the posting of minimum wage posters) you can and probably will be denied the loan. THEN they send in the enforcers to really look you over and assess fines. So on the one hand it SOUNDS like a good thing....I would NEVER contact the SBA for ANYTHING dealing with my small business.

6) 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.

Yeah, THAT did a lot for the country as a whole.... ;) It only affected that ONE day. LOL


You wouldn't have Thanksgiving or MLK day if some Senator somewhere didn't introduce it in a resolution somewhere in time. Sometimes bills only affect 1 day. It doesn't mean they're not important.


10) 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.

How many small businesses were in the WTC? Oh yeah....none.

The WTC was not the only thing affected on 9/11. When those towers came down, businesses were destroyed for blocks by falling materials. Maybe you should pay more attention to what happens when 110 story buildings collapse in a dense commercial area.

McCain has openly said that Kerry never approached him to be VP.

Yes....he says that, but he was asked if he would consider it. That he has admitted to.

National Security, I wonder why this is on the list.

Economy & Jobs, seems that we have a stong and growing economy and unemployment is at a lower level then it was with Clinton.

Health Care Does anyone get turned away at the emergency room, why don't you ask all the mexicans who cross the border in TX and Ca if they get free care.

Energy Independence Bush would love to drill in alaska, fl, la, ca but it seems that the environmentalist won't let that happen. did you know that one of the largest oil reserves in sitting in the southern CA region and also in alaska. We would not need to import oil if we could drill in the lands set aside as national lands.

Homeland Security Seems that Bush has the program working, have we been attacked in the past 3 years at home.


Education, how much more money can we spend to educate a child. education starts at home and if the parent won't make the child do homework or study throwing money at it won't work. we need better teachers not more money. Did you know that almost 50% of the teachers in the philadelphia school system failed the standard teaching test.

Environment what seems to be the problem. do you know where the pollution is?

what else is mr Kerry going to help us on. what are his ideas that are new to the mix. It seems like he is running on issues that are well at hand.

You wouldn't have Thanksgiving or MLK day if some Senator somewhere didn't introduce it in a resolution somewhere in time. Sometimes bills only affect 1 day. It doesn't mean they're not important.




The WTC was not the only thing affected on 9/11. When those towers came down, businesses were destroyed for blocks by falling materials. Maybe you should pay more attention to what happens when 110 story buildings collapse in a dense commercial area.

Thanksgiving is not celebrated once....it is an annual event. The day Kerry named...was that ONE day.

Maybe you should look at the area in question....nothing but financial offices. However, this has been cleared in another post.

I think Kerry wanted to LOOK like he was doing something without risking anything.

Mmkay ... well it's obvious that you're going to keep your Fox News blinders on and refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong because you haven't done enough research on the matters at hand.

You'd probably be anti-Kerry no matter what, so there's no point in carrying on this conversation.

You asked for something of significance that Kerry has done as Senator, you were given many things, and I guess they're not pearly white enough for you. Maybe Jesus needs to crawl out of his ass or something for you to be satisfied, but even McCain has applauded Kerry's efforts as a Senator. Guess McCain's standards are lower.

Yes....he says that, but he was asked if he would consider it. That he has admitted to.

Yeah ... McCain was asked by David Letterman if he would consider being VP. I don't think being asked by David Letterman qualifies as an official bid for VP.

Yeah ... McCain was asked by David Letterman if he would consider being VP. I don't think being asked by David Letterman qualifies as an official bid for VP.

No, he stated that Kerry asked him if he would consider it and he said he told him he would not.

I wish they would seperate the Pres/VP by party. If a Rep. wins then a Dem HAS to be VP and vice versa.

He clearly has a vision, if he were to be elected he promises to do a lot of good things. However, don't take my word for it!

Watch This (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9029.html)

*Disclaimer - I endorse John Kerry :cool:


I regret to say that George Bush is going to win quite easily!

No, he stated that Kerry asked him if he would consider it and he said he told him he would not.

I wish they would seperate the Pres/VP by party. If a Rep. wins then a Dem HAS to be VP and vice versa.
Originally it was like two Majority parties become VP and president.
Example: Kerry wins, Bush is VP.

Mmkay ... well it's obvious that you're going to keep your Fox News blinders on and refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong because you haven't done enough research on the matters at hand.

You'd probably be anti-Kerry no matter what, so there's no point in carrying on this conversation.

You asked for something of significance that Kerry has done as Senator, you were given many things, and I guess they're not pearly white enough for you. Maybe Jesus needs to crawl out of his ass or something for you to be satisfied, but even McCain has applauded Kerry's efforts as a Senator. Guess McCain's standards are lower.

No, you have me all wrong. I just looked at Kerry's Senate record and found it lacking. He has all these ideas, but he did not propose them when he could very easily have done so? Why not? If healthcare is such a huge problem (I don't think it is) then WHY did Kerry not propose a fix before?

Maybe you should look at the area in question....nothing but financial offices. However, this has been cleared in another post.

There's more there than financial offices. There were also transit authority stations as well as restaurants. Many working class stiffs lost their lives on 9/11 when the towers came down, but I guess that doesn't matter, eh?

Those working class stiffs didn't have big insurance policies to help the families they left behind. People like John Kerry tried very hard to make sure that they weren't forgotten in all the weeping over lost Kennedy family photos and Ansel Adams prints.

You also have to look at the further reaching aspects of a major brokerage, such as Morgan Dean Stanely Whittier, being decimated. A lot of small businesses rely on those major brokerages to help provide health insurance and other company benefits to their employees.

Take off your blinders .... please.

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.

No they don't. (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/56/)

Originally it was like two Majority parties become VP and president.
Example: Kerry wins, Bush is VP.

That would work too....

Mmkay ... well it's obvious that you're going to keep your Fox News blinders on and refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong because you haven't done enough research on the matters at hand.

You'd probably be anti-Kerry no matter what, so there's no point in carrying on this conversation.

You asked for something of significance that Kerry has done as Senator, you were given many things, and I guess they're not pearly white enough for you. Maybe Jesus needs to crawl out of his ass or something for you to be satisfied, but even McCain has applauded Kerry's efforts as a Senator. Guess McCain's standards are lower.

If you can't show me why i should vote for Kerry then you will just run to the next post. Give us a reason to vote for your guy and don't tell me anyone but Bush.

Ne1 who believes what a politician says is naive. They are nothing but liars. That's what's so great about NS. It's a game largely filled w/ RP and so you could have your leader be somebody who is cool and rarely ever lies.

Idiot, its John Stewart its a joke!

If you can't show me why i should vote for Kerry then you will just run to the next post. Give us a reason to vote for your guy and don't tell me anyone but Bush.
I just did a couple posts ago. Please reread this topic you have too short a memory.

There's more there than financial offices. There were also transit authority stations as well as restaurants. Many working class stiffs lost their lives on 9/11 when the towers came down, but I guess that doesn't matter, eh?

Those working class stiffs didn't have big insurance policies to help the families they left behind. People like John Kerry tried very hard to make sure that they weren't forgotten in all the weeping over lost Kennedy family photos and Ansel Adams prints.

You also have to look at the further reaching aspects of a major brokerage, such as Morgan Dean Stanely Whittier, being decimated. A lot of small businesses rely on those major brokerages to help provide health insurance and other company benefits to their employees.

Take off your blinders .... please.


No blinders on....and those major companies you mentioned would not have benefitted from Kerry's bill. Therefore the small businesses who relied on those companies would realize nothing from it either.

Any or all, where or how did John Kerry improve or expand the life of people of the US. He did get voted the most liberal senator. Thats an accomplishment.

I love this "fact." It's mindlessly repeated by people who are absolutely clueless about the truth.

You said he got "voted." Who voted? Answer: nobody. It was a rating by the National Journal, which takes all the votes and assigns each that have a distinct orientation either "liberal" or "conservative."

This rating is based Kerry and Edwards' complete records, right? Answer: no, it's for 2003 only. Kerry and Edwards were absent from the Senate for most of the year campaigning, and did not return to vote on issues that would pass or fail overwhelmingly. These issues tend to have a moderating effect since most senators are in favor of them. This is demonstrably true of all campaigning congresspeople.

They're more liberal than Teddy Kennedy, aren't they? Answer: No. According to the National Journal (the same source as that "1st and 4th" factoid) the 10 most liberal senators for their careers are:
National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

While they're certainly both left of the aisle, they're not on the fringe of their party.

Next time you hear a random talking point repeated ad infinitum by EITHER SIDE, do a little research before spouting it off as fact.

No way i'd ever vote for that Selfish Moron!

he destorys the image of america!
he destorys america's economy!
he makes the rich elite richer and the poor poorer!
he takes away civil rights illigally (patriot acts)!
he dosnt fund any important services!
he takes funing away from hospitals!
he doesn't want a good welfare state!
he wants more wars against harmless nations!
he has defied the UN more times than Saddam has!
he protects evil dictators and embraces their bloody massacrs calling their internal problems a part of the global war on terror"
he has no respect for any foreign nations!
he disrespects all international treaties!
he takes no avice from his allies!
he tries to continue the work of his father (who along with ragen refused to sign a treaty to destroy all nuclear weapons with the soviet union)
he invaded Iraq for no reason! and the reason he gave was poor!
he did not sign Kyoto when the rest of the world did!
he hates homosexuals!
he is a fundamentalist and misuses god's name in every poorly constructed speach!
he is a military man who never served in the army!
he can't even speak english properly!
he makes bogus promises to the nation!
he cheated his way into government dishonourably!
he seems to have gone against all of his presidential promises!

and-> http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

well you know my opinions.. thank you for hearing them.. i'm willing to hear yours!

If you can't show me why i should vote for Kerry then you will just run to the next post. Give us a reason to vote for your guy and don't tell me anyone but Bush.

First of all Bushs many taq cuts are crippling the econemy, he started a dumb war that hurts it more, hes made the rest of the world very angry at us, he ignored reports that lead up to 9/11 he has minimized security around the borders and as I type terrorists might be crossing in now, he is a complete bumbass and hurts the enviornment, I would go on and on and on but I dont want to type until election day.

If you can't show me why i should vote for Kerry then you will just run to the next post. Give us a reason to vote for your guy and don't tell me anyone but Bush.

Best reason I can think of to vote for Kerry is that the progressive agenda has a chance of survival under Kerry. Kerry will not ammend the US constitution to take away anyone's basic rights and Kerry will not lead the US into war under false pretenses. Kerry will allow the US to be a part of the global community and hopefully end our arrogance that we can do as we please while telling the rest of the world how to live.

That's why I will vote for Kerry. I don't care who he's not, I only care who he is.

No way i'd ever vote for that Selfish Moron!

he destorys the image of america!
he destorys america's economy!
he makes the rich elite richer and the poor poorer!
he takes away civil rights illigally (patriot acts)!
he dosnt fund any important services!
he takes funing away from hospitals!
he doesn't want a good welfare state!
he wants more wars against harmless nations!
he has defied the UN more times than Saddam has!
he protects evil dictators and embraces their bloody massacrs calling their internal problems a part of the global war on terror"
he has no respect for any foreign nations!
he disrespects all international treaties!
he takes no avice from his allies!
he tries to continue the work of his father (who along with ragen refused to sign a treaty to destroy all nuclear weapons with the soviet union)
he invaded Iraq for no reason! and the reason he gave was poor!
he did not sign Kyoto when the rest of the world did!
he hates homosexuals!
he is a fundamentalist and misuses god's name in every poorly constructed speach!
he is a military man who never served in the army!
he can't even speak english properly!
he makes bogus promises to the nation!
he cheated his way into government dishonourably!
he seems to have gone against all of his presidential promises!

and-> http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

well you know my opinions.. thank you for hearing them.. i'm willing to hear yours!

Thank you for not blaming Bush on Americans!

Best reason I can think of to vote for Kerry is that the progressive agenda has a chance of survival under Kerry. Kerry will not ammend the US constitution to take away anyone's basic rights and Kerry will not lead the US into war under false pretenses. Kerry will allow the US to be a part of the global community and hopefully end our arrogance that we can do as we please while telling the rest of the world how to live.

That's why I will vote for Kerry. I don't care who he's not, I only care who he is.

Well, thats fair. I disagree that he will actually do anything. He will try to do the "safe" thing and in the end do nothing. He has a record of that.

National Security, I wonder why this is on the list.

Economy & Jobs, seems that we have a stong and growing economy and unemployment is at a lower level then it was with Clinton.

Health Care Does anyone get turned away at the emergency room, why don't you ask all the mexicans who cross the border in TX and Ca if they get free care.

Energy Independence Bush would love to drill in alaska, fl, la, ca but it seems that the environmentalist won't let that happen. did you know that one of the largest oil reserves in sitting in the southern CA region and also in alaska. We would not need to import oil if we could drill in the lands set aside as national lands.

Homeland Security Seems that Bush has the program working, have we been attacked in the past 3 years at home.


Education, how much more money can we spend to educate a child. education starts at home and if the parent won't make the child do homework or study throwing money at it won't work. we need better teachers not more money. Did you know that almost 50% of the teachers in the philadelphia school system failed the standard teaching test.

Environment what seems to be the problem. do you know where the pollution is?

what else is mr Kerry going to help us on. what are his ideas that are new to the mix. It seems like he is running on issues that are well at hand.

Strong and growing economy? What country are you living in? Definitely not the United States! Unemployment is HIGHER now than it was under Clinton.

As for drilling in Alaska and California, in ANWR, there is only enough oil to last our needs for THREE months, and we won't be getting that oil for at least ten years. It would do no good for us if we go and drill up in ANWR.

Healthcare sucks right now. I don't even have health insurance, thanks to less federal funding for HC. I was on medications that I needed, and now I can't take them because I cannot afford $225 for a month supply. Maybe I can have it secretly shipped in from Canada, where the same medication I need only costs $40/month supply.

And I hope you are using sarcasm about the pollution. All the major cities in the US have an enormous amount of smog in the air. Smog can cause many health problems with people, including: asthma, respiratory problems, and some forms of cancer, according to the CDC.

I hope you can open your eyes and see what's going on instead of blindly following Bush and thinking the country is in good hands.

No way i'd ever vote for that Selfish Moron!

he destorys the image of america!
he destorys america's economy!
he makes the rich elite richer and the poor poorer!
he takes away civil rights illigally (patriot acts)!
he dosnt fund any important services!
he takes funing away from hospitals!
he doesn't want a good welfare state!
he wants more wars against harmless nations!
he has defied the UN more times than Saddam has!
he protects evil dictators and embraces their bloody massacrs calling their internal problems a part of the global war on terror"
he has no respect for any foreign nations!
he disrespects all international treaties!
he takes no avice from his allies!
he tries to continue the work of his father (who along with ragen refused to sign a treaty to destroy all nuclear weapons with the soviet union)
he invaded Iraq for no reason! and the reason he gave was poor!
he did not sign Kyoto when the rest of the world did!
he hates homosexuals!
he is a fundamentalist and misuses god's name in every poorly constructed speach!
he is a military man who never served in the army!
he can't even speak english properly!
he makes bogus promises to the nation!
he cheated his way into government dishonourably!
he seems to have gone against all of his presidential promises!

and-> http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

well you know my opinions.. thank you for hearing them.. i'm willing to hear yours!


I couldn't have said it better myself.

First of all Bushs many taq cuts are crippling the econemy, he started a dumb war that hurts it more, hes made the rest of the world very angry at us, he ignored reports that lead up to 9/11 he has minimized security around the borders and as I type terrorists might be crossing in now, he is a complete bumbass and hurts the enviornment, I would go on and on and on but I dont want to type until election day.


The economy is doing better then when he came in an inherited a recession. Not to mention that fact that he had to deal with the economic backlash of 9/11. If you think about it logically he has done quite a good job with the economy. More small businesses, more minority homeowners, more homeowners period, and ALOT (can't remember the exact number) of new jobs.

War, dumb or not, has never "hurt" the economy. It always stimulates it.

Don't talk to me about ignoring reports since Clinton's refusal to cooperate with the CIA was a large part of why 9/11 happened. I'm not blaming Clinton but in the issue of National Security he was seriously lacking. One of Bush's first actions was increasing the funding to the CIA in order to increase our National Security. Basically give them back the money that Clinton neglected to give them.

As far as hurting the environment, name one environmental policy change that he made that had a serious effect on the environment. Evironmental policy has pretty much not changed since the mid 80's.

Well, thats fair. I disagree that he will actually do anything. He will try to do the "safe" thing and in the end do nothing. He has a record of that.

Sometimes that's for the best. ;)

Sometimes that's for the best. ;)

Most times it causes great harm though. I would rather have a President who does what he feels is right than sit back and try to do what the polls tell him he should do. Clinton did that, even taking his vacation to Wyoming because a poll said he should. :rolleyes:

As far as hurting the environment, name one environmental policy change that he made that had a serious effect on the environment. Evironmental policy has pretty much not changed since the mid 80's.

Um...how about backing out of the Kyoto Protocol? How about lifting regulations that required cleaner air coming out of factories and businesses? How about letting logging companies into National Forests to log for wood? How about letting snowmobiles back into Yellowstone?

You, sir, have been living under a rock.

As far as hurting the environment, name one environmental policy change that he made that had a serious effect on the environment.

President Bush has weakened the Clean Air Act at every turn. The "New Source Review" regulation of the Clear Air Act forced older coal-fired power plants and other facilities to install pollution controls when they expand or are repaired. But under President Bush, the New Source regulations have been significantly weakened, allowing power plants to more pollution into the air. Statistics released by the Clean Air Task Force noted that the 51 power plants subject to New Source Review enforcement helped to cause the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year, many from respiratory diseases. (New York Times, 7/11/01; Baltimore Sun, 8/28/03; Chicago Tribune, 8/28/03; Los Angeles Times, 8/28/03; Washington Post, 8/28/03)

Corporate polluters used to pay to clean their own messes. Now Bush is shifting the costs to you. The Superfund program was created to ensure that corporate polluters bore the brunt of the costs of cleaning up the worst environmental disasters. But under President Bush, funding cuts and a failure to collect penalties from polluters is creating a shift in costs right to the taxpayer. Superfund assets have declined to nearly zero. Now your tax dollars will pay for 80 percent of the program in 2004, and all Superfund cleanups in 2005. (General Accounting Office, 7/29/03; Boston Globe, 1/9/04; New York Times, 7/1/02; The Bush Administration's FY2005 Budget for the Environment: Putting Our Future at Risk, 2/4/04)

Bush opened 9 million acres of public land to logging. In December 2003, the Bush Administration removed prohibitions on logging and mining in the forest largest national forest in the U.S., the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The decision could "allow roads to be built through 9 million acres" of Tongass. Bush has fought to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as protected national parks, monuments, and public lands in the Rocky Mountains. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 12/24/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/24/03; Denver Post, 3/15/01; Washington Post, 4/18/02)

Bush proposed weakening mercury regulations in Clean Air Act. A proposed rule change by the Bush EPA would remove mercury emissions from Clean Air Act regulations that limit the most toxic air pollutants and shift the poison to a weaker category, despite the FDA and EPA's own recent recommendation that pregnant women and young children eat less tuna and other seafoods to avoid excessive mercury consumption. Approximately 630,000 babies are born in the United States every year to mothers who have been exposed to unsafe mercury levels. (New York Times, 12/3/03, 2/10/04; Washington Post, 12/3/03; Pioneer Press, 10/6/03; Houston Chronicle, 12/5/03; Associated Press, 12/15/03)

*shrug*

Thats why Kerry is NOT running on his Senate record....it is extremely weak.

Face it you have no good points to make and got MODED big time.

You were shown several things that Kerry sponsored that were very important and disregard them with "yeah, he renamed a building" - lol

weak!

President Bush has weakened the Clean Air Act at every turn. The "New Source Review" regulation of the Clear Air Act forced older coal-fired power plants and other facilities to install pollution controls when they expand or are repaired. But under President Bush, the New Source regulations have been significantly weakened, allowing power plants to more pollution into the air. Statistics released by the Clean Air Task Force noted that the 51 power plants subject to New Source Review enforcement helped to cause the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year, many from respiratory diseases. (New York Times, 7/11/01; Baltimore Sun, 8/28/03; Chicago Tribune, 8/28/03; Los Angeles Times, 8/28/03; Washington Post, 8/28/03)

Corporate polluters used to pay to clean their own messes. Now Bush is shifting the costs to you. The Superfund program was created to ensure that corporate polluters bore the brunt of the costs of cleaning up the worst environmental disasters. But under President Bush, funding cuts and a failure to collect penalties from polluters is creating a shift in costs right to the taxpayer. Superfund assets have declined to nearly zero. Now your tax dollars will pay for 80 percent of the program in 2004, and all Superfund cleanups in 2005. (General Accounting Office, 7/29/03; Boston Globe, 1/9/04; New York Times, 7/1/02; The Bush Administration's FY2005 Budget for the Environment: Putting Our Future at Risk, 2/4/04)

Bush opened 9 million acres of public land to logging. In December 2003, the Bush Administration removed prohibitions on logging and mining in the forest largest national forest in the U.S., the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The decision could "allow roads to be built through 9 million acres" of Tongass. Bush has fought to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as protected national parks, monuments, and public lands in the Rocky Mountains. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 12/24/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/24/03; Denver Post, 3/15/01; Washington Post, 4/18/02)

Bush proposed weakening mercury regulations in Clean Air Act. A proposed rule change by the Bush EPA would remove mercury emissions from Clean Air Act regulations that limit the most toxic air pollutants and shift the poison to a weaker category, despite the FDA and EPA's own recent recommendation that pregnant women and young children eat less tuna and other seafoods to avoid excessive mercury consumption. Approximately 630,000 babies are born in the United States every year to mothers who have been exposed to unsafe mercury levels. (New York Times, 12/3/03, 2/10/04; Washington Post, 12/3/03; Pioneer Press, 10/6/03; Houston Chronicle, 12/5/03; Associated Press, 12/15/03)

*shrug*


Thank you. :)

Strong and growing economy? What country are you living in? Definitely not the United States! Unemployment is HIGHER now than it was under Clinton.

As for drilling in Alaska and California, in ANWR, there is only enough oil to last our needs for THREE months, and we won't be getting that oil for at least ten years. It would do no good for us if we go and drill up in ANWR.

Healthcare sucks right now. I don't even have health insurance, thanks to less federal funding for HC. I was on medications that I needed, and now I can't take them because I cannot afford $225 for a month supply. Maybe I can have it secretly shipped in from Canada, where the same medication I need only costs $40/month supply.

And I hope you are using sarcasm about the pollution. All the major cities in the US have an enormous amount of smog in the air. Smog can cause many health problems with people, including: asthma, respiratory problems, and some forms of cancer, according to the CDC.

I hope you can open your eyes and see what's going on instead of blindly following Bush and thinking the country is in good hands.

Health care, we can all go to Canada and get health care, going to cost you big time in taxes and waiting for a doctor to see you. I don't see the canada system as being the winner for the US. If you can't afford the $225 per month how are you going to afford living if the gov. takes the $225 from your pay check then charges you the $40 for the pills. I think i would like to purchase my own care with my own money. I am a big boy, i know how to spend my dollars.

unemployment rate. U.S. Unemployment Rate Forecast SA %
Jul
2004 Aug 4.03
2004 Sep 4.11
2004 Oct 4.48
2004 Nov 4.03
2004 Dec 4.95

Seems like the economy is going forward and most people who are looking for a job can find one. that is if they are looking. Seems like more folks are asking for a free check from uncle sam than looking for work. kind of makes you think why are we paying so much to be unemployed and then we get a check and don't even want to work for it.

Most times it causes great harm though. I would rather have a President who does what he feels is right than sit back and try to do what the polls tell him he should do. Clinton did that, even taking his vacation to Wyoming because a poll said he should. :rolleyes:

The President is supposed to be the representative of the entire United States. That means he (or she) is supposed to represent me equally as much as he represents you.

The President should not have the option to do what he "thinks" is right, he should only do what we tell him is right. Period.

As for the Wyoming thing, so what? He wanted to take vacation, he asked for advice on where to go. Haven't you ever looked at your friends and saud, "What should we do tonight?" Personally, I'm glad Bill asked ... after all ... we pay for his vacations. I'd rather pay for him to go to Wyoming than, say, 2 weeks in the Bahamas.

Logging companies policy is to plant 2 trees for every tree they cut down. And if you think it was just Bush passing these laws you have been living under a rock.

The clean air act is regarded by many as a bit too strict. Everyone is always yelling about the economy but, would like to cripple industry profits by making them make non polluting factories. You can't blame Bush for factory pollution, blame the Industrial Age.

Everyone has high hopes for emissions but many are just not logical. Industry has to make money to or you have none.

And like I said, name one environmental policy that has seriously effected the environment. The clean air act changes haven't. Emissions are always going to be part of America and every other industrially modern nation.

Face it you have no good points to make and got MODED big time.

You were shown several things that Kerry sponsored that were very important and disregard them with "yeah, he renamed a building" - lol

weak!

Kerry has come out with all these things that are wrong with America and he will fix them. Well.... these are not new problems (healthcare, social security, etc.) yet he has done NOTHING during his time in the Senate to fix them. Now, had he sponsored bills to at least TRY to fix them, even if those bills had failed, he could say that he had at least TRIED to do something. As it is, he has done nothing and you guys cannot see that. IF he had tried I would be first in line to vote for him as he would obviously be someone who would try to fix things.

The President is supposed to be the representative of the entire United States. That means he (or she) is supposed to represent me equally as much as he represents you.

The President should not have the option to do what he "thinks" is right, he should only do what we tell him is right. Period.

As for the Wyoming thing, so what? He wanted to take vacation, he asked for advice on where to go. Haven't you ever looked at your friends and saud, "What should we do tonight?" Personally, I'm glad Bill asked ... after all ... we pay for his vacations. I'd rather pay for him to go to Wyoming than, say, 2 weeks in the Bahamas.

You must have been asleep during Gov't class. We elect our leaders to REPRESENT us and to lead us, not to do what we want them to do. It is the mark of a leader who stands for what he feels is right, even if it is not the popular choice. There have been many in History. FDR was one, as was Billy Mitchell. Clinton was NOT a leader...and Kerry would not be one either.

National Security.
Military operating on minimal supply, more than half of the soldiers used salvaged Ceramic RG Armour in the second gulf war. Thats right, we couldnt afford SAAPI plating so the soldiers had to use Iraqi scrap metal for themselves and to protect the Humvees. Risking your life for under $20k a year, you'd think they could get decent protection.

Economy & Jobs, seems that we have a stong and growing economy and unemployment is at a lower level then it was with Clinton.
Take some economics, look at our deficit. Theres a landmine in the road to progress.


Health Care Does anyone get turned away at the emergency room, why don't you ask all the mexicans who cross the border in TX and Ca if they get free care.
Shut up about Mexicans, they are hard working people doing jobs that most unemployed whites dont want. Does Jimmy Cornbread want to mop up airport restrooms or change his own childs diapers? No, thats what Pablo and Inez do. I live in Texas, I spend months on the border and have met wetbacks sneaking across. One guy was from Ecuador, he was WALKING to INDIANA because his buddy had a factory job for him. This guy is leathertramping a thousand miles for a minimum wage opening. What about the CEO who pirates millions from the company to pay for his trips out of the country to spend money in foreign countries. The amount of money lost to illegal immigrant healthcare is nothing compared to BS taxbreaks and false claims by the higher income Americans.

Energy Independence Bush would love to drill in alaska, fl, la, ca but it seems that the environmentalist won't let that happen. did you know that one of the largest oil reserves in sitting in the southern CA region and also in alaska. We would not need to import oil if we could drill in the lands set aside as national lands.

No, the solution is to move away from oil dependency. If we put cost restrictions on SUVs and used that money to lower the cost of hybrids and public transportation altenatives, we could make the fuel we get go much farther. We have to solve the problem for good, another 'quick fix' is not going to work forever.

Homeland Security Seems that Bush has the program working, have we been attacked in the past 3 years at home.

Seems every soldier I know on active duty hates bush because hes wrecked our army by overdeploying them, its so bad that we have had to withdraw from almost every other country and call back soldiers, not just reserve but National Guard and Honorable Discharges. Not only that but hes violating constitutional rights and allowing the military to function as police. Hell, anyone can keep a country safe under martial law.
At home. Thats what matters. But if Americans go anywhere else, we're doomed. The rest of the world hates us now. And its because of Bush. Out of 35 Nations, 30 including the U.K. and Canada, prefer Kerry by a margin of greater than 2-1. The only countries which support bush are Poland, Nigeria and the Phillipines.
The world is turning against us, and trade is going to screw us. Of course, its not like the size of the deficit every bothered Bush anyway.


Education, how much more money can we spend to educate a child. education starts at home and if the parent won't make the child do homework or study throwing money at it won't work. we need better teachers not more money. Did you know that almost 50% of the teachers in the philadelphia school system failed the standard teaching test.

Throwing Money at the System didn't work, so I guess Bushes plan of taking money away will do better? Removing funding is not going to help.

Environment what seems to be the problem. do you know where the pollution is?
Yes its coming out of unrestricted SUV mileage, burning the petrol and increasing our demand, allowing the Middle East to price gouge us.

what are his ideas that are new to the mix. It seems like he is running on issues that are well at hand.

Well, it seems that we will have to agree to dissagree. Its been fun reading all the talking points. Remember, vote Bush.

I think Kerry wanted to LOOK like he was doing something without risking anything. When was the last drought in Mass? I guess there might have been a few hotdog stands by the WTC, but there is not a small business in the world that could operate in the area around the WTC. it is too expensive.
the "whatever the F you call it" around the WTC was full of vendor stalls selling a variety of stuff. the plaza maybe? thats small business. any small shop is a small business even in an area like that. plus it affected a larger area.

a small business can make a few million dollars a year and still be considered small

Kerry has come out with all these things that are wrong with America and he will fix them. Well.... these are not new problems (healthcare, social security, etc.) yet he has done NOTHING during his time in the Senate to fix them. Now, had he sponsored bills to at least TRY to fix them, even if those bills had failed, he could say that he had at least TRIED to do something. As it is, he has done nothing and you guys cannot see that. IF he had tried I would be first in line to vote for him as he would obviously be someone who would try to fix things.
Bush always says hes going to do marvellous things for us if he gets elected. Apparently he forgot that during his first term when he spent the first two years on vacation.

the "whatever the F you call it" around the WTC was full of vendor stalls selling a variety of stuff. the plaza maybe? thats small business. any small shop is a small business even in an area like that. plus it affected a larger area.

a small business can make a few million dollars a year and still be considered small

Wrong.... The SBA considers any business making under 200K to be a small business. Anything over 200K is outside of their range and is not considered a small business.

The clean air act is regarded by many as a bit too strict. Everyone is always yelling about the economy but, would like to cripple industry profits by making them make non polluting factories. You can't blame Bush for factory pollution, blame the Industrial Age.

Everyone has high hopes for emissions but many are just not logical. Industry has to make money to or you have none.

And like I said, name one environmental policy that has seriously effected the environment. The clean air act changes haven't. Emissions are always going to be part of America and every other industrially modern nation.

Bit too strict? So it's too strict to make sure we are breathing in clean air? And who gives a flying f*ck if industries don't make an extra couple of bucks? They're rich enough as it is. They can afford to clean up their act. You cannot put a price on human health.

Typical RW trash, I'm reading again. :rolleyes:

Most times it causes great harm though. I would rather have a President who does what he feels is right than sit back and try to do what the polls tell him he should do. Clinton did that, even taking his vacation to Wyoming because a poll said he should. :rolleyes:


Umm, isn't the president accountable for the will of America? A president who is concerned about polls is a president who is concerned about what the average American thinks. There is a time for leadership, and there is a time to be sensitive to America's needs. Frankly, Kerry and his Senate record show that he is more than capable of doing both of these things. He isn't all that liberal, he just represents a liberal constituency.

You Conservatives keep forgetting something important. In a republic, we elect people to represent us, and you seem to love to condemn people who actually represent their constituency! I support Zell Miller because he represents a bunch of Fascist, conservative, ignorant assholes like yourselves. I may disagree with him on everything, but I do agree that he needs to represent his people. The same goes for McCain, and the same goes for Kennedy. However, Bush has done worse than simply ignore the left, he has actually condemned it!!! How does he represent America if he says 30% of us are Un-American? And how does he represent any of us if he is handing us over almost no tax cuts?

Bush always says hes going to do marvellous things for us if he gets elected. Apparently he forgot that during his first term when he spent the first two years on vacation.

Wow....another one who does not know how the gov't works. Two whole years on vacation? I would love to see that one proved.

Well, thats fair. I disagree that he will actually do anything. He will try to do the "safe" thing and in the end do nothing. He has a record of that.

I am sure that there are some things he will do, but he probably will do the "safe" thing in many instances.

However, doing the "safe" thing for four years and then getting voted out is better than having a second-term fundamentalist moron in office who will do lots of bad things just because he could.

Well, it seems that we will have to agree to dissagree. Its been fun reading all the talking points. Remember, vote Bush.
As a registered Republican I can safely say you are a disgrace to the party.

Health care, we can all go to Canada and get health care, going to cost you big time in taxes and waiting for a doctor to see you. I don't see the canada system as being the winner for the US. If you can't afford the $225 per month how are you going to afford living if the gov. takes the $225 from your pay check then charges you the $40 for the pills. I think i would like to purchase my own care with my own money. I am a big boy, i know how to spend my dollars.

So...it's alright to let drug companies to SCREW US over? You know, if the CEO's of those companies were true "compassionate" conservatives, then they'd WANT to help out his/her fellow man, no? We should just let people go without medication? Is that what you are implying?

I can believe the filth I'm reading here...It's like I'm on Free Republic or something...
:rolleyes: :mad:

Umm, isn't the president accountable for the will of America? A president who is concerned about polls is a president who is concerned about what the average American thinks. There is a time for leadership, and there is a time to be sensitive to America's needs. Frankly, Kerry and his Senate record show that he is more than capable of doing both of these things. He isn't all that liberal, he just represents a liberal constituency.

You Conservatives keep forgetting something important. In a republic, we elect people to represent us, and you seem to love to condemn people who actually represent their constituency! I support Zell Miller because he represents a bunch of Fascist, conservative, ignorant assholes like yourselves. I may disagree with him on everything, but I do agree that he needs to represent his people. The same goes for McCain, and the same goes for Kennedy. However, Bush has done worse than simply ignore the left, he has actually condemned it!!! How does he represent America if he says 30% of us are Un-American? And how does he represent any of us if he is handing us over almost no tax cuts?

Wow..... Actually I am a Libertarian, card carrying member of that party.

Yes the President IS responsible to the will of the people. Thats why we have elections every 4 years. However, he cannot lead that way. What if the majority of the people wanted him to do something like repeal all the anti-slavery laws. Should he do that because it is the "popular" thing to do or should he do what he feels is right, regardless of the political points he might lose?

I would like to see a quote where Bush stated that 30% of the people were un-American. Can you find it?

Communism (http://www.cpusa.org) endorses Kerry.


anyone whos not an inbred hick or worth over 2 million supports Bush.

And nazis, they like him too ( Anne Coulter, for one)

I am sure that there are some things he will do, but he probably will do the "safe" thing in many instances.

However, doing the "safe" thing for four years and then getting voted out is better than having a second-term fundamentalist moron in office who will do lots of bad things just because he could.

Then he will be another Clinton. The military will be further eroded and there will be more scandals in big business. Afterall, those took years to come to light and happened during Clintons years.

He will look at terrorist attacks as criminal acts like the Europeans do and not as the acts of war that they are.

No, anyone who leads by the polls is not a leader at all.

Wow....another one who does not know how the gov't works. Two whole years on vacation? I would love to see that one proved.

Here you go:

-“In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”
*“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

-Bush relaxes at Camp David, Kennebunkport and his ranch in Crawford Texas.
* As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. “Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family’s compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days – or about 40 percent of his presidency – at one of these his three retreats.” “Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.

Bada-bing-bada-boom.

Here you go:

-“In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.”

*“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

-Bush relaxes at Camp David, Kennebunkport and his ranch in Crawford Texas.

* As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. “Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family’s compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days – or about 40 percent of his presidency – at one of these his three retreats.” “Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.

Bada-bing-bada-boom.

Good try....but as anyone who knows about the Gov't. The President is ALWAYS working, even when on "vacation." He has his staff and cabinet with him wherever he goes. Yes, he might play golf or go fishing, but he is still working. His vacation is not like yours or mine. So to say that he just drops everything and has fun for 2 years without working is disingenuous at best.

Then he will be another Clinton. The military will be further eroded and there will be more scandals in big business. Afterall, those took years to come to light and happened during Clintons years.

He will look at terrorist attacks as criminal acts like the Europeans do and not as the acts of war that they are.

No, anyone who leads by the polls is not a leader at all.

It was Clintons military that won Afganistan so quickly. Clinton did a lot for the military, you just refuse to see it because you wanted a raise even though everyone was makign quite enough money. Get over it. Bush's and Clintons budget for the military was actually quite similar.

Good try....but as anyone who knows about the Gov't. The President is ALWAYS working, even when on "vacation." He has his staff and cabinet with him wherever he goes. Yes, he might play golf or go fishing, but he is still working. His vacation is not like yours or mine. So to say that he just drops everything and has fun for 2 years without working is disingenuous at best.

Haha...Bush working while on vacation??? Yeah, I bet! He's working on bettering his putt!

:rolleyes:

It was Clintons military that won Afganistan so quickly. Clinton did a lot for the military, you just refuse to see it because you wanted a raise even though everyone was makign quite enough money. Get over it. Bush's and Clintons budget for the military was actually quite similar.

Clinton cut the military too much. Pay raises aside, his 8 years were rife with parts shortages and other things that brought combat effectiveness down. Of course you were not there to see it, but there was talk in many units among younger pilots who wanted a coup to remove Clinton. I heard several discussions along that vein and while not shocked, am glad they did not go anywhere. Bush on the other hand immediately started to put the pay issue right. Just like Reagan did after that wimp Carter left.

As for the military making enough money, you try living on the enlisted pay for awhile then. Trust me, it is not easy and does not leave much for luxuries.

Haha...Bush working while on vacation??? Yeah, I bet! He's working on bettering his putt!

:rolleyes:

Maybe, but EVERY President "vacations" that way. Carter was attacked by a rabbit when he was on vacation. ;)

Good try....but as anyone who knows about the Gov't. The President is ALWAYS working, even when on "vacation." He has his staff and cabinet with him wherever he goes. Yes, he might play golf or go fishing, but he is still working. His vacation is not like yours or mine. So to say that he just drops everything and has fun for 2 years without working is disingenuous at best.

Of course, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Senators are also still "on the job" whether or not they are in their DC office.

Of course, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Senators are also still "on the job" whether or not they are in their DC office.

Nope, you would be wrong. They are required to return to their districts and speak to the people and get their concerns. They work when not in their offices....but they have their "vacation" problems to if you remember the scandal from the 90's with the Democrat Senators going to the Bahamas as guests of lobbyists.

Wow..... Actually I am a Libertarian, card carrying member of that party.

Yes the President IS responsible to the will of the people. Thats why we have elections every 4 years. However, he cannot lead that way. What if the majority of the people wanted him to do something like repeal all the anti-slavery laws. Should he do that because it is the "popular" thing to do or should he do what he feels is right, regardless of the political points he might lose?

I would like to see a quote where Bush stated that 30% of the people were un-American. Can you find it?


Uh god, I would think you, a libertarian, would be more interested in a president who actually let us do what we wanted.

What is it going to be? Where do your priorities lie? In the privatization that did oh so poorly in the UK? Or in the personal freedoms that we have seen to never be detrimental?

You are going to vote for someone who believes even less of what you believe, just to spite Populism? No wonder you poor saps are ruining my poor state. Oh well, at least I'll pour some sugar in one of your buddies' gas tanks. :D

Such a quote was coined by a Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. He was speaking about all the people who were in opposition of the methods we chose to follow in the War on Terrorism.

I don't really believe that you actually are a libertarian. You may be a part of that party, but one of the essential parts of that platform is that they believe in the personal and economic freedoms of everyone. They believe in reducing the size and role of the government. Has Bush done either of these? Is he for freedom and small government?

No.

If you ask me to offer proof, I will just look into the freedoms lost, and the spending gained during the past 4 years.

And if the majority of Americans wanted slavery again? Well, then they would just vote for it. Interesting, though, that you mentioned FDR earlier. Most libertarians just say they hate him for being a socialist, and leave it at that. The difference with Bush and FDR though is this. The Americans who lived during FDR's time benefited from his leadership. Only a minority of Americans benefit from Bush's leadership. I don't. You don't. No one in the military does. Only the conservative part of the middle class, and the wealthy benefit from what Bush's "leadership" has given to us.

And about them terrorists? They may be less organized, but they are greater in number, and much angrier. America is only safe from airborne attack (but we all know that they are too creative to try that one again) while our ports and cargo ships are actually less safe (money was diverted away from port security, into air security)

Does Bush go forward on his own? Yes. Does he demonstrate leadership? No.

Maybe, but EVERY President "vacations" that way. Carter was attacked by a rabbit when he was on vacation. ;)

Carter didn't spend over 40% of his presidency on vacation either. ;)

Clinton cut the military too much. Pay raises aside, his 8 years were rife with parts shortages and other things that brought combat effectiveness down. Of course you were not there to see it, but there was talk in many units among younger pilots who wanted a coup to remove Clinton. I heard several discussions along that vein and while not shocked, am glad they did not go anywhere. Bush on the other hand immediately started to put the pay issue right. Just like Reagan did after that wimp Carter left.

As for the military making enough money, you try living on the enlisted pay for awhile then. Trust me, it is not easy and does not leave much for luxuries.



I've gotta say, there is NO way that you are a libertarian. You are a neo-con who likes to think he opposes government spending, but shows in his own arguments that he doesn't.

I've gotta say, there is NO way that you are a libertarian. You are a neo-con who likes to think he opposes government spending, but shows in his own arguments that he doesn't.

You are just wrong....the Gov't has only ONE responsibility. That is to defend the nation period. THATS where the money should go.

Social Security? Scrap it.

Healthcare? Buy your own or not as you desire.

Education? Leave it to the states.

All other things should be left to the states except defense.

Income tax? Scrap it for a national sales tax. You buy less, you pay less in taxes. Simple as everyone would pay the same rate and those who consume more will pay more.

Clear enough for you?

I'm surprised no one brought up the fact that Kerry worked with John McCain for 7 or 8 years to get to the bottom of MIA's and POW's in Vietnam and they ended in complete success and the United States was able to normalize relations with Vietnam because of Kerry and McCain's work. They finally put this very difficult mess to bed. (Well except for the conspiracy nuts, who never believe any thing..LOL)

I'm also surprised that no one mentioned that Kerry was instrumental in exposing the Iran/Contra affair as well..

Put it this way, he has done a hell of a lot more in the last 20 years to be president then Bush had done when he took office.

I'm surprised no one brought up the fact that Kerry worked with John McCain for 7 or 8 years to get to the bottom of MIA's and POW's in Vietnam and they ended in complete success and the United States was able to normalize relations with Vietnam because of Kerry and McCain's work. They finally put this very difficult mess to bed. (Well except for the conspiracy nuts, who never believe any thing..LOL)

I'm also surprised that no one mentioned that Kerry was instrumental in exposing the Iran/Contra affair as well..

Put it this way, he has done a hell of a lot more in the last 20 years to be president then Bush had done when he took office.

Noone remembers the Keating Five either do they? ;)

Carter didn't spend over 40% of his presidency on vacation either. ;)

Maybe not, but he did spend 60% of his time asleep at the helm. ;)

Car loans were 21%!! :eek:

Noone remembers the Keating Five either do they? ;)

Kerry had nothing to do with that actually.

A number of investigations began as to whether these senators had acted improperly and whether Keating had been able to buy influence through his campaign contributions. These included investigations by the State of California, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. While the California and the Justice Department investigations concentrated on Keating's action, the Senate Ethics Committee investigation concentrated on the actions of the five senators implicated: Alan Cranston (D, CA), Dennis DeConcini (D, AZ), John Glenn (D, OH), John McCain (R, AZ), and Donald Riegle (D, MI). These men were dubbed the Keating Five.

Although the special counsel to the Ethics Committee advised the Senate that Senators Glenn and McCain were not substantially involved, months of testimony revealed that all five senators had acted improperly in varying degrees. All of these senators, however, continued to proclaim that they were not involved in any wrongdoing, and were just following normal campaign funding practices.

In the end, the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Senators Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle had substantially interfered with the federal regulators' enforcement processes at the request of Charles Keating. In August 1991, the Ethics Committee recommended to the full Senate the censuring of Cranston for reprehensible conduct. The other four senators were noted for questionable conduct. Cranston had already decided not to seek re-election, citing medical problems.

I look at it like this:

We KNOW Bush is a moron.

Kerry is probably a moron.

We KNOW Bush will make horrible decisions.

Kerry will probably make horrible decisions.

We KNOW Bush is his father's puppet.

Kerry is probably a puppet.


A vote for Bush: "At least we know he's stupid."
A vote for Kerry: "At least he speaks fluent English."

So...it's alright to let drug companies to SCREW US over? You know, if the CEO's of those companies were true "compassionate" conservatives, then they'd WANT to help out his/her fellow man, no? We should just let people go without medication? Is that what you are implying?

I can believe the filth I'm reading here...It's like I'm on Free Republic or something...
:rolleyes: :mad:


Who says that the CEO's of these companies are conservative. There's just as many cutthroat liberal businessman as there are cutthroat conservative business men.

And carefull about calling a differing opinion filth. It leads down the path of "those mean republicans."

Then he will be another Clinton. The military will be further eroded and there will be more scandals in big business. Afterall, those took years to come to light and happened during Clintons years.

Ah yes. Because cutting the military in this time would be the "safe" thing to do. Right.

He will look at terrorist attacks as criminal acts like the Europeans do and not as the acts of war that they are.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything that said Kerry opposed fighting in Afghanistan. It is the way in which we went to Iraq, which had perpetuated no known terrorist attacks on the US, that he opposed.

No, anyone who leads by the polls is not a leader at all.

Anyone who ignores every rule that was laid down about his leadership and refuses to admit when he is wrong is not a leader at all.

Ah yes. Because cutting the military in this time would be the "safe" thing to do. Right.

Kerry has never voted for ANYTHING "pro" military, only for cuts. He has a proven track record of this and I do not see him turning over a new leaf anytime soon. I do not trust him when it comes to the military.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything that said Kerry opposed fighting in Afghanistan. It is the way in which we went to Iraq, which had perpetuated no known terrorist attacks on the US, that he opposed.

Who says we went into Iraq because they attacked us? We went in there to PREVENT Saddam from being able to. I am not so sure he did not turn some sort of weapon over to a terrorist group anyway. I would have if I was him.

Anyone who ignores every rule that was laid down about his leadership and refuses to admit when he is wrong is not a leader at all.

What hard rules are there for leadership? As Napoleon said, "A General who always sticks to a battle plan will be defeated." Flexibility is key to leadership. Kerry states what he will "unwaveringly" do. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes?" No flexibility there either....

Kerry has never voted for ANYTHING "pro" military, only for cuts. He has a proven track record of this and I do not see him turning over a new leaf anytime soon. I do not trust him when it comes to the military. oh right, right, because a gigantic conventional military is just what we need to stop tiny little terrorist cells. and the best way to spend our money is on things like a gigantic icbm shield since the people we need to be worrying about all have long range missiles and things. i dont trust kerry to throw money at the problem of a dated military because, gee, thats not what democrats do.



Who says we went into Iraq because they attacked us? We went in there to PREVENT Saddam from being able to. I am not so sure he did not turn some sort of weapon over to a terrorist group anyway. I would have if I was him. and by going in there, we just made enemies of all the rest of the islamic states and made even more crackpot dictators feel threatened by the US. and when dictators feel threatened, dictators get guns and bombs and things. and when dictators get guns and bombs and things, they become real threats. North Korea stepped up its weapons program and im pretty sure Iran did too after they saw what we did to Iraq. We cut off one small head and made two gigantic ones grow.



What hard rules are there for leadership? As Napoleon said, "A General who always sticks to a battle plan will be defeated." Flexibility is key to leadership. Kerry states what he will "unwaveringly" do. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes?" No flexibility there either... Wait wait wait, first flip flopping is a bad thing and then its a sign of good leadership? Isnt it bush whos all about being stalwart and staying the course no matter what?


Listen, im not saying Kerry is awesome, but i think i would vote for a nice slab of blueberry pie over bush. sure the pie causes tooth decay, but it never ran up a deficit or made me panic about getting drafted.

oh right, right, because a gigantic conventional military is just what we need to stop tiny little terrorist cells. and the best way to spend our money is on things like a gigantic icbm shield since the people we need to be worrying about all have long range missiles and things. i dont trust kerry to throw money at the problem of a dated military because, gee, thats not what democrats do.

All the weapons we are using right now in both Iraq AND Afganistan were voted against by Kerry. If it was up to him we would not have much of a military at all.

and by going in there, we just made enemies of all the rest of the islamic states and made even more crackpot dictators feel threatened by the US. and when dictators feel threatened, dictators get guns and bombs and things. and when dictators get guns and bombs and things, they become real threats. North Korea stepped up its weapons program and im pretty sure Iran did too after they saw what we did to Iraq. We cut off one small head and made two gigantic ones grow.

I've got news for you, they already hated us. For our support of Israel and our "perceived" war against Islam. North Korea had a nuclear program going in 1990, so your timing is a bit off. Clinton offered them oil to get them to stop it, they took the oil and kept on going. Dictators ALWAYS get guns and bombs. They are very insecure people. Ruling as they do will do that.

Wait wait wait, first flip flopping is a bad thing and then its a sign of good leadership? Isnt it bush whos all about being stalwart and staying the course no matter what?

Bush wants to see the job through to the end. Kerry will pull the troops out too quickly and cause more problems.

Listen, im not saying Kerry is awesome, but i think i would vote for a nice slab of blueberry pie over bush. sure the pie causes tooth decay, but it never ran up a deficit or made me panic about getting drafted.

Actually the draft was proposed by the Democrats. So get ready.

All the weapons we are using right now in both Iraq AND Afganistan were voted against by Kerry. If it was up to him we would not have much of a military at all.
quote the bills, i can quote dick cheney saying we should stop funding them when he was secretary of defense if you like

All the weapons we are using right now in both Iraq AND Afganistan were voted against by Kerry. If it was up to him we would not have much of a military at all. first, we dont need all the military crap we have in iraq. there should be no war. it is not fighting against terrorism. second of all, i think me and my friends could go to wal-mart, buy a few shot uns, and take out the taliban. we dont need a huge military. we need small special forces and lots of money going into the cia. the laws have changed.


I've got news for you, they already hated us. For our support of Israel and our "perceived" war against Islam. North Korea had a nuclear program going in 1990, so your timing is a bit off. Clinton offered them oil to get them to stop it, they took the oil and kept on going. Dictators ALWAYS get guns and bombs. They are very insecure people. Ruling as they do will do that. and ive got news for you, the situation just got desperate for them. before 'death to america' was a slogan to get poor people to unite, it was like 'power to the masses' or 'give peace a chance' it was just something that sounded good and and rallied the troops. now the us has called the bluff so they need to find weapons to back it up. before all the dictators could just talk smack and feel tough but now they feel like they got to go out and buy brass knuckles...and that makes the playground less safe for everyone.



Bush wants to see the job through to the end. Kerry will pull the troops out too quickly and cause more problems.

guess who else wanted to stay in till the end? kissinger. and his stalwartness helped this country greatly. good thing nixon wasnt a bleeding heart and never backed out of vietnam, because that would have caused all kinds of problems too.


Actually the draft was proposed by the Democrats. So get ready. the republicans started the war. the war needs soldiers. we need to draft people to get soldiers. therefore, the republicans started the draft.

Then he will be another Clinton. The military will be further eroded ...

Actually, Dick Cheney wanted to gut the military worse than Kerry and Clinton combined ....


Cheney Proposed Cutting F-16 Aircraft. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s...The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s." According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 defense budget "kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $ 11.9 billion...Major weapons killed include[d]....the Air Force's F-16 airplane." [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cuts to B-2 Program. According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback... of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75..."

[B]Cheney Proposed Cutting AH-64 Apaches. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64...I forced the Army to make choices...So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Cheney Testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 7/13/89, emphasis added]

Cheney Proposed Cutting M-1 Abrams Tanks. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." The Boston Globe reported on the impact of Cheney's cuts to armored tanks: "The Army's cupboard is left particularly bare. Coming in the wake of last year's killing of the M-1 tank and the Apache helicopter, the death of the M-2 means the Army will soon have virtually no major weapons in production." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cutting B-52 Bombers. In 1990, Cheney proposed cutting 14 B-52 bombers. Cheney also sought the retirement of two Navy battleships, two nuclear cruisers, and eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. In 1991, Cheney scrapped the Navy's A-12 Stealth attack plane, a fighter that was proclaimed to be a key part of the future of navy aviation in advanced stealth technology. [Newsday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Cheney Cut Thousands of Active-Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Forces. In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Active-Duty and Reserve Forces Endured Huge Reductions Under Cheney. The LA Times reported in November 1991 that the number of active-duty military personnel had decreased by over 106,000, or 5 percent of the total forces. The National Guard and Reserves had been cut by nearly 38,000, instead of the 105,000 the Bush Administration sought. [LA Times, 11/2/91]

Cheney Proposed Over 70 Base Closures. In 1990, Cheney proposed the closure of 72 domestic military installations and 12 overseas facilities. On April 12, 1991, Cheney proposed to close 31 major domestic military bases. The plan also called for shutting 12 smaller bases and reducing operations at 28 others. He submitted his list of closures to a commission on base closings on April 15, 1991. In 1992, Cheney proposed 70 overseas military base closures, three of which were in Turkey. [Aerospace Daily, 8/17/92; 1991 CQ Almanac, p. 427; Chicago Tribune, 1/30/90]

Yikes.

did it ever occur to you people who seem to think we need more of a military that the only reason we were attacked in the first place is because we abused the power we allready had? we need to get the fuck out of israel, it's the idiots who gave them weapons in the first place who caused 9-11, the attack was entirely predictable and preventable, but we chose not to prevent it because the christian right feels some obligation to israel, largely because jews smell better than muslims, or something to that effect. if we'd get the hell out of other people's wars we wouldn't be *gasp* fighting them. no shit.

first, we dont need all the military crap we have in iraq. there should be no war. it is not fighting against terrorism. second of all, i think me and my friends could go to wal-mart, buy a few shot uns, and take out the taliban. we dont need a huge military. we need small special forces and lots of money going into the cia. the laws have changed.

But it was Kerry who wanted to cut the CIA big time. Shotguns huh? Well, I invite you to go try it.

and ive got news for you, the situation just got desperate for them. before 'death to america' was a slogan to get poor people to unite, it was like 'power to the masses' or 'give peace a chance' it was just something that sounded good and and rallied the troops. now the us has called the bluff so they need to find weapons to back it up. before all the dictators could just talk smack and feel tough but now they feel like they got to go out and buy brass knuckles...and that makes the playground less safe for everyone.

Have you ever been to the Middle East? Or any of the Eastern European countries? I have spent years in both of those parts of the world. The dictators already HAVE a lot of weapons and they fancy themselves big tough guys. However, none of them can take on the US, not even combined. They just don't have the power to project force like we do.

guess who else wanted to stay in till the end? kissinger. and his stalwartness helped this country greatly. good thing nixon wasnt a bleeding heart and never backed out of vietnam, because that would have caused all kinds of problems too.

Nixon wanted to leave with a policy of "Peace with Dignity." That the North Vietnamese did not negotiate honestly should be no surprise. Just like Saddam adhereing to the cease fire agreements.

the republicans started the war. the war needs soldiers. we need to draft people to get soldiers. therefore, the republicans started the draft.

You really need to do some research.....when did this "draft" start then? Here are the two bills and the snopes.com reference.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Fritz Hollings bill...he is a DEMOCRAT from South Carolina...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:s.89:

Thomas Rangel's bill...he is a DEMOCRAT from New York...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.163:

Have you ever been to the Middle East?

Yeah ... and it saddens me greatly that decades of unceasing war has destroyed what was once a very beautiful part of the world. I don't care who's fault it is ... it'd just be nice if it ended. I'd like to take my children to see Arabic countries some day in relative safety.

You really need to do some research.....when did this "draft" start then?

Just a guess .... Inauguration Day 1789? :D

Bush is a criminal, traitor, AWOL COWARD, Cocaine addict, drunk driver, abortion getting, abortion banning, assault weapon loving, North Korea Nukes ignoring, Rich people Loving, PILE OF CRAP

Yeah ... and it saddens me greatly that decades of unceasing war has destroyed what was once a very beautiful part of the world. I don't care who's fault it is ... it'd just be nice if it ended. I'd like to take my children to see Arabic countries some day in relative safety.



Just a guess .... Inauguration Day 1789? :D

Actually Bahrain and Qatar are pretty nice. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are not so nice.

The draft has been proposed by a couple of Democrat Senators, but nothing has been done toward that end.

The draft has been proposed by a couple of Democrat Senators, but nothing has been done toward that end.

Nod ... personally I am indifferent to the draft as proposed. Draft or not, I would have volunteered anyway. I believe it should be a choice, but I also understand that some people need to be poked with a stick in order to get out and do something for their country.

I'd accept a draft that allowed a person to do a couple years of service to their community or in some sort of civilian corp in lieu of active military. I do think, however, that every citizen should give something back. All of these freedoms have come with a price that was paid by the few for the benefit of the many.

However, I recognize people who are religiously or morally opposed to war, so there'd have to be a choice offered.

Nod ... personally I am indifferent to the draft as proposed. Draft or not, I would have volunteered anyway. I believe it should be a choice, but I also understand that some people need to be poked with a stick in order to get out and do something for their country.

I'd accept a draft that allowed a person to do a couple years of service to their community or in some sort of civilian corp in lieu of active military. I do think, however, that every citizen should give something back. All of these freedoms have come with a price that was paid by the few for the benefit of the many.

However, I recognize people who are religiously or morally opposed to war, so there'd have to be a choice offered.

There will always be those who react out of emotion and not intelligence. Most of the lefties do that. They see something they don't like and they jump to all sorts of conclusions. Just as our friend was trying to blame a draft on Bush without knowing the truth. In his mind he is right no matter what the facts are. This is going to be a very interesting election year.

Looking from outside, its clear both sides of the arguement are calling eachother the exact same things based on the exact same truths, interpreted by their own sick minds.

You are talking, but not listening. The exact same thing is starting to show in global politics now... The US is talking, but everyone stopped listening.

You lost a lot of credibility as a nation on the "good" side, and everybody without blinds in their heads could easily see that.

Then again, who cares what I have to say? I don't exist.

Kerry has never voted for ANYTHING "pro" military, only for cuts. He has a proven track record of this and I do not see him turning over a new leaf anytime soon. I do not trust him when it comes to the military.

He tried not to vote for pork-barrel spending. I agree with that stance. Find me a single bill that *only* had a weapons system in it that he voted against. The bills people like to cite had all sorts of other pork-barrel spending in them.

Who says we went into Iraq because they attacked us? We went in there to PREVENT Saddam from being able to. I am not so sure he did not turn some sort of weapon over to a terrorist group anyway. I would have if I was him.

You said that we went to Iraq to fight terrorists. Now you have backtracked and said we went to fight *the potential* of terrorism. All I said was that Kerry opposed the idea of going in on a *potential* threat that was determined based on bad evidence and Bush wanting to attack Iraq.

What hard rules are there for leadership? As Napoleon said, "A General who always sticks to a battle plan will be defeated." Flexibility is key to leadership. Kerry states what he will "unwaveringly" do. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes?" No flexibility there either....

Wait, you support Bush for never chaning his mind, even when proven wrong, even when most of his own party admits that he was wrong - and then you state that a leader should be able to change his mind?

You bash Kerry for "flip-flopping" and then call him "unwavering" and assume that he will not change with changing times?

Do you even try logic, or is that a foreign concept to you?

He tried not to vote for pork-barrel spending. I agree with that stance. Find me a single bill that *only* had a weapons system in it that he voted against. The bills people like to cite had all sorts of other pork-barrel spending in them.

True, every bill has riders on it. Thats why the President needs the line item veto so he can cut those out.

You said that we went to Iraq to fight terrorists. Now you have backtracked and said we went to fight *the potential* of terrorism. All I said was that Kerry opposed the idea of going in on a *potential* threat that was determined based on bad evidence and Bush wanting to attack Iraq.

No, I said we went to Iraq to prevent Saddam from attacking the US. Face it, the man would have given anything to strike back at the US, and he was trying. There were terrorists in Iraq and there had been for years. Saddam's intelligence service had met with reps from Al Qaeda and who knows if there would be other meetings in the future had we not invaded. Saddam could have easily handed over a stockpile of sarin or other chemical agent for use in the US.

Wait, you support Bush for never chaning his mind, even when proven wrong, even when most of his own party admits that he was wrong - and then you state that a leader should be able to change his mind?

No, I support Bush for going into Iraq, REGARDLESS of the reason. It is something that had to be done. Even Kerry has said he would have done the same thing....then said he would not have.

You bash Kerry for "flip-flopping" and then call him "unwavering" and assume that he will not change with changing times?

No, I bash Kerry for not taking a definitive stand on ANYTHING. The man will NEVER give a firm answer on anything. From owning an SUV to the invasion of iraq, he changes with the tide.

Do you even try logic, or is that a foreign concept to you?

I use as much logic as I am confronted with.

True, every bill has riders on it. Thats why the President needs the line item veto so he can cut those out.

So you admit then that Kerry voted against bills with lots of junk in them, not specifically against any certain weapons?

No, I support Bush for going into Iraq, REGARDLESS of the reason. It is something that had to be done. Even Kerry has said he would have done the same thing....then said he would not have.

This is completely besides the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bush "resolutely" holds to any position, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. And when he cannot deny the evidence, he just changes the reason he did something but still claims that it was "right." I am not speaking specifically about the war in Iraq. This is a general statement.

No, I bash Kerry for not taking a definitive stand on ANYTHING. The man will NEVER give a firm answer on anything. From owning an SUV to the invasion of iraq, he changes with the tide.

Again, besides the point and doesn't answer the question I asked. You say that Kerry does not have a "definitive stand on ANYTHING" and then claim that you are afraid of Kerry's policies because they are "unwavering." These are mutually exclusive views - which one is it?

I use as much logic as I am confronted with.

Yeah, because it's really logical to contradict yourself every other post.

So you admit then that Kerry voted against bills with lots of junk in them, not specifically against any certain weapons?

EVERY bill has a buch of junk on it. That is nothing new. However, Kerry could not find ONE of those bills he could vote for? That they each contained a major weapons system is rather telling.

This is completely besides the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bush "resolutely" holds to any position, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. And when he cannot deny the evidence, he just changes the reason he did something but still claims that it was "right." I am not speaking specifically about the war in Iraq. This is a general statement.

Bush does not RESOLUTELY hold onto any position. he has admitted that the intelligence he was given was flawed, but he had no way to know that at the time it was presented now did he? Kerry would have done the same thing given the same intel.

Again, besides the point and doesn't answer the question I asked. You say that Kerry does not have a "definitive stand on ANYTHING" and then claim that you are afraid of Kerry's policies because they are "unwavering." These are mutually exclusive views - which one is it?

No, I do not like Kerry because he is going to raise my taxes through the roof. He has all these grand ideas and they have to be paid for somehow if they do get through.

Yeah, because it's really logical to contradict yourself every other post.

No contradiction at all....semantics may be different, but not my feelings about Mr. Kerry. For the record, i don't particularly like Bush either, but I do think he is far better than Kerry.

Ironically there were two bills about funding the troops.. Kerry supported one but not the other. Thus him saying "I voted for before I voted against" but they put the other one up that had tons of pork in it and that is why he voted against. However the irony is had the bill he did support be put up for vote instead like he wanted, Bush said he would veto it. So, I suppose one could argue there is no difference. ;)

Ironically there were two bills about funding the troops.. Kerry supported one but not the other. Thus him saying "I voted for before I voted against" but they put the other one up that had tons of pork in it and that is why he voted against. However the irony is had the bill he did support be put up for vote instead like he wanted, Bush said he would veto it. So, I suppose one could argue there is no difference. ;)

Kerry does himself no favors does he? He gives his opponents the best sound bites. ;)

If I was an American citizen I'd certainly factor the question of "who has the best soundbites?" into my deliberations when deciding who to vote for. Yes, that would right up there with "who looks better in a dress?"

If I was an American citizen I'd certainly factor the question of "who has the best soundbites?" into my deliberations when deciding who to vote for. Yes, that would right up there with "who looks better in a dress?"

Well, it certainly falls right in there with the "he's not Bush" crowd then doesn't it? ;)

Don't be silly. And stop winking at me.

Kerry does himself no favors does he? He gives his opponents the best sound bites. ;)

Oh come on now Biff, you and I both know both sides take those "sound bites" out of context. Politicians count on the average voter being uninformed, in fact to quote George Carlin "If the American public knew the truth, the whole fucken system would collapse" :p

And the point of this thread is what? Bush is going to win, it is already overwith and the debates have not even started yet, so what is the point?

Kerry's approval rating as of today is so low, Joseph McCarthy would beat him. He is at 36%, when the Democratic Party is at 54% for Krist's sakes. Your much hated John Ashcroft is at 49%, he stands a good chance of beating this pile of mush.

Unless somebody gets a picture of George Bush punching his wife in the face or something similar it is over. You can all but throw out the sex scandal prayer as no woman on earth would give a blow job to a Republican who can't say nuclear . You can forget the money scandal as he is a super rich Republican who doesn't need money, even though he has less than Kerry, Edwards or Cheney, that is besides the point.

It's over, the fat lady has all but sung, and at this point she is getting ready for retirement.

Hey, you're a M0dz0r. Can you stop him winking at me? It's un-nerving.

Hey, you're a M0dz0r. Can you stop him winking at me? It's un-nerving.

*LOL* :D

Seriously. It scares the crap out of me. :(

I don't really like either candidate that much, but i would vote for bush. At least with him, you know what to expect. Kerry is just always changing his mind and you don't know what the hell he would do. AND HE'S ALWAYS POINTING!!! its so annoying

Dosen't matter who is president the U.S is still gonna fall in a hole.

Yeah, gotta hate the pointing. And at least with Bush you are certain of getting a pile horse excrement shoved down the throat as opposed to the slight possibility of some moral guidance from Kerry. Slight.

I endorse John Kerry

Originally it was like two Majority parties become VP and president.
Example: Kerry wins, Bush is VP.
That would be great, and you used to have it in the US. Pretty much everyone would be happy.

Oh come on now Biff, you and I both know both sides take those "sound bites" out of context. Politicians count on the average voter being uninformed, in fact to quote George Carlin "If the American public knew the truth, the whole fucken system would collapse" :p

Of course they do, but Bush and Co. do it much better don't they? Then again, Kerry is an easy one to turn things on.

Well, thats fair. I disagree that he will actually do anything. He will try to do the "safe" thing and in the end do nothing. He has a record of that.
Wow, what a wonderful gift you have to predict the future! Even if you're right, I would rather have a US President who does nothing than one who does all the wrong things.

Wow, what a wonderful gift you have to predict the future! Even if you're right, I would rather have a US President who does nothing than one who does all the wrong things.

Doing nothing is wrong too. I see a future alright, and it does NOT include John Kerry as President. :p

To Kerry's record defense, most of his initiative are stuck in comitee. That'S the problem with being a democrat senator in a republican senate. You can't do much even if you want to.

To Kerry's record defense, most of his initiative are stuck in comitee. That'S the problem with being a democrat senator in a republican senate. You can't do much even if you want to.

Yeah, those Republicans might want to name that building after someone else....

Yeah, those Republicans might want to name that building after someone else....

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Oh come on, that was a good one.

Maybe but I though someone would come with a reply that wasn't a joke. I was hoping for a debate.

Maybe but I though someone would come with a reply that wasn't a joke. I was hoping for a debate.

Well, one could argue that the Republican dominated House and Senate would prevent Kerry from getting anything of substance done. However, all it really takes is to sell an idea to a ranking Republican and present it as a team. It is done all the time. Alas, Kerry had nothing that he could run with.....

If I was an American citizen I'd certainly factor the question of "who has the best soundbites?" into my deliberations when deciding who to vote for. Yes, that would right up there with "who looks better in a dress?"

Isnt this how most americancs vote???? now since i'm not american (i'm from the UK (PS can we have Tony Blair back please we miss him lol) i have a question why are you focusing on the war so much? beacuse all through this post it gotton more and more war orentated???


Oh BTW I would not vote for bust... sorry bush due to his anti-homosexual stance but that is just me.

Oh and Refused Party Program why don't you like winks???
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

lol

Wow..... Actually I am a Libertarian, card carrying member of that party.
Then why do you never criticise Bush? I am guessing (assuming you are really a Libertarian) that you think Bush is the lesser of two evils. Maybe (you think) if you say anything negative about him it might cause someone, somewhere not to vote for him.

I notice that you are also strongly militaristic - a central tenet of Republican ideology. Don't expect people to think you're not Republican. Hell, the only reason I know that you're a Libertarian is because you say you are.

Good luck to Badnarik! I hope he has your vote!

All the weapons we are using right now in both Iraq AND Afganistan were voted against by Kerry.

I've got news for you, they already hated us.

Dictators ALWAYS get guns and bombs.

Bush wants to see the job through to the end. Kerry will pull the troops out too quickly and cause more problems.
Yeah, kinda like Dick Cheney, isn't he?

True, but back in 2000 the percentage of Arabs who looked favourably on the US was around 35%, I think. That means that most of them didn't like you. Now, however, favour ratings are around 7% - that's pretty bad. Now, an overwhelming majority of them don't like or hate you. You try make it sound like nothing has changed. I don't see how increasing anti-Americanism in the Arab world makes you "safer from terrorism".

Not really true. The dictatorship in Burma are horrible to their own people but they're not arming up to present a threat to the world. Same for many other totalitarian regimes around the world.

When did Kerry say this? I thought he was pro-war.

He will look at terrorist attacks as criminal acts like the Europeans do and not as the acts of war that they are.
You sound very Republican there.

We Europeans are right! They are criminal acts. Wars are waged by countries. Yes, I agree that al-Qaeda is a very dangerous group of criminals - but not an army. I agree that they commit genocide. I agree that their members must be brought to justice.

I just don't think that Americans are right when they act like this is world war 3.

There will always be those who react out of emotion and not intelligence. Most of the lefties do that.
Why do you have to flamebait like that?

Wasn't it the lefties that have always said that we need to get rid of poverty and other root causes to stop terrorism? All the while, righties were shouting "let's bomb the hell out of them!!!11!" - who's reacting out of emotion?

To be fair, most of the libertarians I've seen sound like they react out of intelligence and not emotion. But you seem to support every Republican position - are you a LINO - "Libertarian in name only"? ;)

No, I do not like Kerry because he is going to raise my taxes through the roof. He has all these grand ideas and they have to be paid for somehow if they do get through.
Are you in the top bracket of taxpayers? Then I understand.

Another note, who do libertarians think that paying taxes is the worst thing in the world. It's not like JFK wants to outlaw capitalism. Kerry makes you squirm about the prospect of a few extra tax dollars, but you support George "PATRIOT Act" Bush?

I don't know about you, but I would choose personal freedom over economic freedom any day.

Kerry does himself no favors does he? He gives his opponents the best sound bites. ;)
Need I remind you that there are several books dedicated to Bush's silly quotes?

Well, it certainly falls right in there with the "he's not Bush" crowd then doesn't it?
You're a part of the "he's not Kerry" crowd; is this any better? You just said you don't really like Bush, but that you think Kerry is worse.

Oh and Refused Party Program why don't you like winks???
;)
It's because he's afraid when teh kewl d00dz like Biff show teh hotz 4 him.

EVERY bill has a buch of junk on it. That is nothing new. However, Kerry could not find ONE of those bills he could vote for? That they each contained a major weapons system is rather telling.

Have you looked at every single bill he ever voted for or against? I wouldn't make such broad claims just because you heard them from someone else.

Bush does not RESOLUTELY hold onto any position. he has admitted that the intelligence he was given was flawed, but he had no way to know that at the time it was presented now did he? Kerry would have done the same thing given the same intel.

You are kidding, right? I don't trust anyone who, in other areas, has been shown to purposely surround himself with advisors who, instead of giving him real data, will be yes-men and tell him what he wants to hear. If he will do that in science, what makes you think he won't do that in all areas and that the bad intelligence wasn't really just his yes-men telling him what he wanted to hear?

Besides, even when confronted about this, he always says "Yeah, it was bad intel. BUT WE WERE STILL RIGHT!!!!!!"

Besides, as I pointed out, we are not talking only about Iraq. Bush holds resolutely to every point he ever makes, no matter what evidence is put in front of him. Take, for instance, his insistence that the war in Iraq is the same as the war on terror, even though *NO* real connections have been found. When presented with evidence, he said "Well, obviously there are connections though!"

How about Bush claiming that we are in a "war on terror" while simultaneously trying to claim that those we capture are not POWs and therefore are not covered by the Geneva convention? This is an obvious contradiction, but as far as he is concerned, he is right - given advice directly from God Almighty!

No, I do not like Kerry because he is going to raise my taxes through the roof. He has all these grand ideas and they have to be paid for somehow if they do get through.

So you would rather vote for the guy who is running up such a deficit that your taxes will have to be raised through the roof in a few years instead? Besides, presidents don't directly raise taxes - just vote to balance things out.

No contradiction at all....semantics may be different, but not my feelings about Mr. Kerry. For the record, i don't particularly like Bush either, but I do think he is far better than Kerry.

No, you simultaneously bash someone for being a "flip-flopper" and for being "too resolute." These are pretty much directly opposing.

Isnt this how most americancs vote???? now since i'm not american (i'm from the UK (PS can we have Tony Blair back please we miss him lol) i have a question why are you focusing on the war so much? beacuse all through this post it gotton more and more war orentated???

I have tried to focus on things other than wars, but apparently Biff thinks that the only issue our government has ever faced is the war in Iraq.

This is a terrible election year. We were so busy riding that upward curve with clinton(who was a great president) that we didn't realize there would be a recession. It just happened when bush came to power, and was then magnified several times over by that horrible day in september. This year, for the democrats we have somone who disagrees with himself more than anyone else in the world, with a smart, yet very inexperienced vp nominee. For the republicans, we have a moron who's vocabulary(or lack there of) is becoming infamous, with a vp that goes around telling people to go F themselves.

I'm conservative. And don't try to change my mind, cause you wont. The mere fact that you all are arguing over the internet PROVES your opinions don't matter. The point I'm trying to make is this election is full of singleminded party extremeists. Not one full fledged liberal is ever gonna sway a devout conservative. It's all up to that VAST majority of undecideds in this country to pick the lesser of two evils. immature name calling and trying to belittle your political opposite while he sits there(like a nerd) and takes it, is more likely to hurt your cause.

Kerry is way too liberal and Bush is way too conservative. I say find some one(in either party) who leans more towards the middle. That's the best president, one who will take the nation across multiple horizons, instead of one single minded purpose. This is a democracy, however, and sadly it's not up to me. It's up to the people. Some people just hate bush, while others just hate kerry. That's the way it is, that's how it'll always be. I leave you with these words of wisdom from one of my friends:
"It doesn't matter what decisions we make today, or tomorrow, Russia's bound to nuke us in 2005 anyway"

:headbang:

This is a terrible election year. Agreed.

This year, for the democrats we have somone who disagrees with himself more than anyone else in the world, with a smart, yet very inexperienced vp nominee. I'd have to disagree here. If you actually look at his statements and put them in context, he disagrees with himself only as much as the average politician. Which is still excessive, but not nearly as bad as the Bush campaign has painted him out to be.

Not one full fledged liberal is ever gonna sway a devout conservative. And likewise.


Kerry is way too liberal and Bush is way too conservative. Only in the US can Kerry be conscidered liberal at all. For that matter, Bush is many things but he sure as hell is not conservative. I don't know what he is precisely, but conservative is not quite the descriptive word.

I leave you with these words of wisdom from one of my friends:
"It doesn't matter what decisions we make today, or tomorrow, Russia's bound to nuke us in 2005 anyway"

:headbang: If you are basing that off the statements from johnswar.com, the actual year Russia bombs the US is 2015. 2005 is when the US erupts into civil war. I really need to spend less time in the internet, lol.

Then why do you never criticise Bush? I am guessing (assuming you are really a Libertarian) that you think Bush is the lesser of two evils. Maybe (you think) if you say anything negative about him it might cause someone, somewhere not to vote for him.

I notice that you are also strongly militaristic - a central tenet of Republican ideology. Don't expect people to think you're not Republican. Hell, the only reason I know that you're a Libertarian is because you say you are.

Good luck to Badnarik! I hope he has your vote!


Yeah, kinda like Dick Cheney, isn't he?

True, but back in 2000 the percentage of Arabs who looked favourably on the US was around 35%, I think. That means that most of them didn't like you. Now, however, favour ratings are around 7% - that's pretty bad. Now, an overwhelming majority of them don't like or hate you. You try make it sound like nothing has changed. I don't see how increasing anti-Americanism in the Arab world makes you "safer from terrorism".

Not really true. The dictatorship in Burma are horrible to their own people but they're not arming up to present a threat to the world. Same for many other totalitarian regimes around the world.

When did Kerry say this? I thought he was pro-war.


You sound very Republican there.

We Europeans are right! They are criminal acts. Wars are waged by countries. Yes, I agree that al-Qaeda is a very dangerous group of criminals - but not an army. I agree that they commit genocide. I agree that their members must be brought to justice.

I just don't think that Americans are right when they act like this is world war 3.


Why do you have to flamebait like that?

Wasn't it the lefties that have always said that we need to get rid of poverty and other root causes to stop terrorism? All the while, righties were shouting "let's bomb the hell out of them!!!11!" - who's reacting out of emotion?

To be fair, most of the libertarians I've seen sound like they react out of intelligence and not emotion. But you seem to support every Republican position - are you a LINO - "Libertarian in name only"? ;)


Are you in the top bracket of taxpayers? Then I understand.

Another note, who do libertarians think that paying taxes is the worst thing in the world. It's not like JFK wants to outlaw capitalism. Kerry makes you squirm about the prospect of a few extra tax dollars, but you support George "PATRIOT Act" Bush?

I don't know about you, but I would choose personal freedom over economic freedom any day.


Need I remind you that there are several books dedicated to Bush's silly quotes?


You're a part of the "he's not Kerry" crowd; is this any better? You just said you don't really like Bush, but that you think Kerry is worse.


Yeah, I am a Libertarian, but my party is not very realistic. Why we try to start at the top is beyond me. We should start at the ground level and get mayors and city council members elected first and build a strong power base. Instead we squander our resources on trying to get the top spot. Go figure...

As a disabled veteran I could never support Kerry. Bush is not perfect and I dislike a number of things that he stands for, but he is a better choice than Kerry by far.

As for Arabs not liking the US. I don't think you will find many people here who really care. I have spent a few years in the middle east and I know quite a few people from there. They don't like their own governments either. The whole area is one powder keg that will explode one day.

As for the "Patriot Act," I keep hearing about all these freedoms that I have lost and how the black helicopters will be flying overhead all the time, but I just don't see it. I have not lost any freedoms, nor do I know anyone else who has. Chicken Little was convinced the sky was falling too.... ;)

Income taxes....sure, Kerry will raise them through the roof. He says he won't, but his past voting record speaks for itself. He has voted to raise them almost 100 times and voted against a tax cut. You Europeans are used to paying high taxes and even sharing jobs (France) but we Americans have this fierce sense of independence and do not want to depend on the government or anyone else for anything. The Democrats have this "big brother" syndrome and they feel that they know how to take care of everyone. By doing so, they will take away a lot of our independence. Trust me, every time the government gives you something, there are a LOT of strings attached and it usually ends up costing you more than you gain. THAT is what Kerry wants to do and I cannot allow that to happen so thats why I will vote for Bush.

Europeans may not like Bush, and neither do Canadians. Thats ok, we don't particularly like the leaders of some other countries, but the US is always easier to pick on isn't it. ;)

Al Qaeda certainly did declare war on the US. No, they are not a "country" in the true sense but they have the support of several countries. Therefore they are surrogate fighters for those countries. Clinton decided to treat the USS Cole and the embassy bombings as criminal acts. So did he send in the police to arrest those responsible? No, he did nothing. Terrorism is NOT a criminal act, it is an act of war designed to create change in an enemy. Al Qaeda has publicly stated that if the US renounces christianity and becomes a muslim country the attacks will stop. Think that will happen?

Have you looked at every single bill he ever voted for or against? I wouldn't make such broad claims just because you heard them from someone else.

No, but Kerry has a history of voting against military benefits and other programs. You see, when I was in the USAF we were kept up to date on who voted for or against our payraises and such. Kerry's name always seemed to appear in the "against" column. So while I have not read every single bill, I have seen where his name falls so many times that a definite trend has been detected.

You are kidding, right? I don't trust anyone who, in other areas, has been shown to purposely surround himself with advisors who, instead of giving him real data, will be yes-men and tell him what he wants to hear. If he will do that in science, what makes you think he won't do that in all areas and that the bad intelligence wasn't really just his yes-men telling him what he wanted to hear?

I am not so sure that they were "yes" men. Even Bill Clinton believed the intell as he was given the same info from his advisors. So what does that mean?

Besides, even when confronted about this, he always says "Yeah, it was bad intel. BUT WE WERE STILL RIGHT!!!!!!"

Even if the intel was bad and the reason we went in was phony, Saddam had to go. We would eventually be going in anyway. We could not keep up the no-fly zones forever, it was really taking it's toll on the USAF with the constant 90 day rotations. Of course you don't know what that was doing to mission effectiveness or aircraft capability rates, but I do and it was becoming a serious issue that needed to be dealt with.

Besides, as I pointed out, we are not talking only about Iraq. Bush holds resolutely to every point he ever makes, no matter what evidence is put in front of him. Take, for instance, his insistence that the war in Iraq is the same as the war on terror, even though *NO* real connections have been found. When presented with evidence, he said "Well, obviously there are connections though!"

Really? How about the Al Qaeda allies that were operating in Iraq? Or the other terrorists that were found in Baghdad. Face it, Saddam did have contacts with terrorist groups like Hamas and individual terrorists as well.

How about Bush claiming that we are in a "war on terror" while simultaneously trying to claim that those we capture are not POWs and therefore are not covered by the Geneva convention? This is an obvious contradiction, but as far as he is concerned, he is right - given advice directly from God Almighty!

Well, is it? I think he is right. Since only those fighters who are sanctioned by an actual country are covered by the Geneva convention these guys are not protected by it. I could not care less if they are kept in Cuba for the rest of their lives. They took up arms against the US and lost. If they were freed, they would attack us again.

So you would rather vote for the guy who is running up such a deficit that your taxes will have to be raised through the roof in a few years instead? Besides, presidents don't directly raise taxes - just vote to balance things out.

Well, Reagan built up a huge deficit too and the economy took off like a rocket. Bush I and Clinton reaped the benefits of that upswing.

No, you simultaneously bash someone for being a "flip-flopper" and for being "too resolute." These are pretty much directly opposing.

I don't think I have done that. Kerry flip-flops on many things, but two things he does NOT flip-flop on are tax increases and military cuts. Two things I am passionate about.

Just on your economy statement, Biff, because I have to head out for work--if Bush I and Clinton reaped the benefits of Reagan's economy, then isn't it also logical to say that Reagan reaped the benefits of the Nixon/Ford/Carter economy, and that they were victims of the JFK/Johnson economy, and so on and so on.

Al Qaeda certainly did declare war on the US. No, they are not a "country" in the true sense but they have the support of several countries. Therefore they are surrogate fighters for those countries. Clinton decided to treat the USS Cole and the embassy bombings as criminal acts. So did he send in the police to arrest those responsible? No, he did nothing. Terrorism is NOT a criminal act, it is an act of war designed to create change in an enemy. Al Qaeda has publicly stated that if the US renounces christianity and becomes a muslim country the attacks will stop. Think that will happen?
By that rationale, the government should treat the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as POW. How can you rationalize treating prisoners otherwise?

No they don't. (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/56/)


They don't because they are revolutionaries, and aren't supporting the current system.

From the Faq:

We think that a socialist government could be elected under our current political structure, and that if the capitalist class can be restrained sufficiently, that transformation could be peaceful. That is what we want, what we work for. But in most revolutions, the source of the violence is the actions of the established order, which resorts to civil war or violent repression to prevent a peaceful revolution.

That's right. RESTRAINED SUFFICIENTLY.

"Oh don't worry, we are just taking away the rights of the evil capitalists. We will give them right back, we promise."



:headbang:

Sheeple.

Just on your economy statement, Biff, because I have to head out for work--if Bush I and Clinton reaped the benefits of Reagan's economy, then isn't it also logical to say that Reagan reaped the benefits of the Nixon/Ford/Carter economy, and that they were victims of the JFK/Johnson economy, and so on and so on.

You are kidding right? Were you old enough in the Carter years to remember what it was like? Car loans were running at 21% interest! Mortgages were almost impossible to get. Carter was a disaster. Reagan came in and cut taxes which spurred investment and got the economy going again.

By that rationale, the government should treat the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as POW. How can you rationalize treating prisoners otherwise?

No, because they are not soldiers fighting FOR a country. They are religious fanatics who are fighting against civilization. They are not protected by the GC, period.

No, because they are not soldiers fighting FOR a country. They are religious fanatics who are fighting against civilization. They are not protected by the GC, period.

Well, it isn'T a war then as a war is between two or more countries. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are kidding right? Were you old enough in the Carter years to remember what it was like? Car loans were running at 21% interest! Mortgages were almost impossible to get. Carter was a disaster. Reagan came in and cut taxes which spurred investment and got the economy going again.

If Reagan is responsible for his economic decisions, you should then, by the same logic, say that Bush II is responsible for the state the economy is in right now. Again, you say Bush inheritted the economic problems of Clinton but you can't agree that Reagan inherrited the benifits of the previous president.

Double standard?

Well, it isn'T a war then as a war is between two or more countries. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Not a war in the literal sense. Much like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty."

However, these fighters are illegal combatants and thus are not protected by the GC. They chose to fight alongside the Taliban which was only recognised as a legitimate government by a handful of countries itself.

If Reagan is responsible for his economic decisions, you should then, by the same logic, say that Bush II is responsible for the state the economy is in right now. Again, you say Bush inheritted the economic problems of Clinton but you can't agree that Reagan inherrited the benifits of the previous president.

Double standard?

Reagan inherited an economy in shambles....

Bush inherited an economy in decline....

Tax cuts ALWAYS spur investment and stimulate the economy. Democrats favor huge social programs and NEED high taxes to support them. Every dollar spent on social programs is a loss. Every dollar invested brings a return.

No, but Kerry has a history of voting against military benefits and other programs. You see, when I was in the USAF we were kept up to date on who voted for or against our payraises and such. Kerry's name always seemed to appear in the "against" column. So while I have not read every single bill, I have seen where his name falls so many times that a definite trend has been detected.

Of course, I have seen bills that Bush supported that cut veteran's benefits. Kerry voted against those too. Interesting how Bush claims to care about the military but wants to cut benefits for veterans (who already don't get what they deserve). Maybe it's because he never actually fought in a war.

I am not so sure that they were "yes" men. Even Bill Clinton believed the intell as he was given the same info from his advisors. So what does that mean?

I don't think that the exact same people were in all of those positions when Bush went to war as when Clinton was in office. Besides, I didn't say I was *sure* they were yes-men. I simply pointed out that when a person will only hire yes-men advisors in one area, it stands to reason that he would do it in all areas. Therefore it is very likely that the advisors who "misinformed" him were just yes-men telling him what he wanted to hear.

Even if the intel was bad and the reason we went in was phony, Saddam had to go. We would eventually be going in anyway. We could not keep up the no-fly zones forever, it was really taking it's toll on the USAF with the constant 90 day rotations. Of course you don't know what that was doing to mission effectiveness or aircraft capability rates, but I do and it was becoming a serious issue that needed to be dealt with.

I don't really disagree that Saddam was a dictator that had to go. In fact, he should have gone years ago in the first Desert Storm. However, that is beside the point. We went into war under faulty reasoning and Bush still refuses to admit that. Even when stating that it was all someone else's fault for giving him bad intel, he still retorts with, "but they are there, you know. Even though the intel was bad and we haven't found them - they are there. And Saddam was in bed with Al Quaida - I'm sure of it!"

Really? How about the Al Qaeda allies that were operating in Iraq? Or the other terrorists that were found in Baghdad. Face it, Saddam did have contacts with terrorist groups like Hamas and individual terrorists as well.

Allowing someone into your country is not the same as actively supporting them. It's the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Saddam has never been directly tied to Al Quaeda.

Well, is it? I think he is right. Since only those fighters who are sanctioned by an actual country are covered by the Geneva convention these guys are not protected by it. I could not care less if they are kept in Cuba for the rest of their lives. They took up arms against the US and lost. If they were freed, they would attack us again.

Fine, you think they are not soldiers and are therefore not covered by the Geneva Convention. Then, this is not a war. It is a conflict, sure. A police action, really. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well, Reagan built up a huge deficit too and the economy took off like a rocket. Bush I and Clinton reaped the benefits of that upswing.

You know, if I really want something - I have to figure out how to pay for it. I don't just get to run up trillions of dollars of debt that I will never pay back. Why should my government be able to? And why do people like you think that being that far in debt is not a bad thing?

Of course, I have seen bills that Bush supported that cut veteran's benefits. Kerry voted against those too. Interesting how Bush claims to care about the military but wants to cut benefits for veterans (who already don't get what they deserve). Maybe it's because he never actually fought in a war.

I have heard about all these bills that cut veterans pay and benefits. Heard a LOT about them. As a disabled veteran who recieves both disability AND retirement pay I have yet to see a reduction in either. There is a new state of the art VA hospital being built here in Orlando to replace one that is getting too small. So WHERE are all these cuts. Hearing about them and seeing them are two different things aren't they?

I don't think that the exact same people were in all of those positions when Bush went to war as when Clinton was in office. Besides, I didn't say I was *sure* they were yes-men. I simply pointed out that when a person will only hire yes-men advisors in one area, it stands to reason that he would do it in all areas. Therefore it is very likely that the advisors who "misinformed" him were just yes-men telling him what he wanted to hear.

It is easy to say that they were yes men, but then you would have to say that British and Russian Intelligence who also said the WMD's were there were also "yes" men.

I don't really disagree that Saddam was a dictator that had to go. In fact, he should have gone years ago in the first Desert Storm. However, that is beside the point. We went into war under faulty reasoning and Bush still refuses to admit that. Even when stating that it was all someone else's fault for giving him bad intel, he still retorts with, "but they are there, you know. Even though the intel was bad and we haven't found them - they are there. And Saddam was in bed with Al Quaida - I'm sure of it!"

Well, Bush has admitted that the intel he relied on was wrong. What else can he do? Wipe the dust off of Saddam and say he is sorry and pull the troops out? No, thats not the answer. I think the WMD's were there and still could be. The Iraqi's buried their air force in the desert, they could hide any number of chemical weapons anywhere. We know he had them once and he "said" he destroyed them. Would Saddam lie?

Allowing someone into your country is not the same as actively supporting them. It's the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Saddam has never been directly tied to Al Quaeda.

Really? Do you know how Iraq worked under Saddam? NOONE came or went without his knowledge. That known terrorists were operating out of Baghdad is a fact. THAT shows a level of support in itself.

Fine, you think they are not soldiers and are therefore not covered by the Geneva Convention. Then, this is not a war. It is a conflict, sure. A police action, really. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

No, they are not soldiers. They wear no uniform from any country. It is not a "declared" war either in the true sense of the word.

You know, if I really want something - I have to figure out how to pay for it. I don't just get to run up trillions of dollars of debt that I will never pay back. Why should my government be able to? And why do people like you think that being that far in debt is not a bad thing?

Absolutely. But have you EVER seen a government do that?

Al Qaeda certainly did declare war on the US. No, they are not a "country" in the true sense but they have the support of several countries. Therefore they are surrogate fighters for those countries. Clinton decided to treat the USS Cole and the embassy bombings as criminal acts. So did he send in the police to arrest those responsible? No, he did nothing. Terrorism is NOT a criminal act, it is an act of war designed to create change in an enemy. Al Qaeda has publicly stated that if the US renounces christianity and becomes a muslim country the attacks will stop. Think that will happen?

No, because they are not soldiers fighting FOR a country. They are religious fanatics who are fighting against civilization. They are not protected by the GC, period.

You contradict yourself, my friend.

Furthermore, if they are, like you say, illegal combattant, they should be treated like criminals and are entitled to due process. Any way you cut it, what is happening in GB is an affront to due process and the constitution and the rights of those prisonners are denied.

Reagan inherited an economy in shambles....

Bush inherited an economy in decline....

Tax cuts ALWAYS spur investment and stimulate the economy. Democrats favor huge social programs and NEED high taxes to support them. Every dollar spent on social programs is a loss. Every dollar invested brings a return.
I'm sure that's an answer to SOME question just no my question....

Wrong. Besides, ideologies can't endorse people.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/56/

"Being Anti-Bush is Not Enough", by Sam Webb, National Chair (http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/590/1/27/)

You contradict yourself, my friend.

Furthermore, if they are, like you say, illegal combattant, they should be treated like criminals and are entitled to due process. Any way you cut it, what is happening in GB is an affront to due process and the constitution and the rights of those prisonners are denied.

Maybe I did not make myself clear. SOME of those foreign fighters in Afganistan were undoubtably funded by nations like Iran and Syria. therefore it can be argued that they are surrogate fighters for those nations while not actually BEING soldiers. Much like the Palestinians are surrogate fighters against Israel.

Since when do foreigners have constitutional rights? Especially those who are not ON US soil? That argument has been tried and failed.

I'm sure that's an answer to SOME question just no my question....

Oh it did....

Reagan inherited a bad economy and fixed it. It declined a bit under Bush I and rebounded under Clinton but began to decline at the end of his second term. Bush cut taxes to spur growth and it is working. I wish they would do away with the income tax completely, but thats not going to happen.

Maybe I did not make myself clear. SOME of those foreign fighters in Afganistan were undoubtably funded by nations like Iran and Syria. therefore it can be argued that they are surrogate fighters for those nations while not actually BEING soldiers. Much like the Palestinians are surrogate fighters against Israel..

And the GC has provision for irregular fighters. Tha fact that the US administration has coined the term 'ennemy combattant' does not remove their rights.

Since when do foreigners have constitutional rights? Especially those who are not ON US soil? That argument has been tried and failed.

Either they have the US constitutionnal rights or they have the constitutionnal rights of whatever country they were arrested in. Either way they have SOME rights and they are being denied right now.

Oh it did....

Reagan inherited a bad economy and fixed it. It declined a bit under Bush I and rebounded under Clinton but began to decline at the end of his second term. Bush cut taxes to spur growth and it is working. I wish they would do away with the income tax completely, but thats not going to happen.

So by your rationale, if something good happens, it's because of the current president.
If something bad happens, it's the fault of the previous president.
Logical error.

Furthermore, only the administration says the economy is good right now. You will find many more people that will tell you that Bush's policies were a disaster to the US economy. And I'm not only talking about partisan sources.

And the GC has provision for irregular fighters. Tha fact that the US administration has coined the term 'ennemy combattant' does not remove their rights.

Yes...irregular fighters can be shot as spies unless they are wearing the uniform of the country they are from. So what should we do?

Either they have the US constitutionnal rights or they have the constitutionnal rights of whatever country they were arrested in. Either way they have SOME rights and they are being denied right now.

Ok, lets see....they were captured in Afganistan. Since the taliban were technically still in power when they were captured, what would the Taliban do with them? Probably behead them publicly. They have no rights under the US constitution at all. They backed the wrong side and lost.

So by your rationale, if something good happens, it's because of the current president.
If something bad happens, it's the fault of the previous president.
Logical error.

Furthermore, only the administration says the economy is good right now. You will find many more people that will tell you that Bush's policies were a disaster to the US economy. And I'm not only talking about partisan sources.

No, not at all. The economy has its own highs and lows. It can only be stimulated up or down, not really controlled.

Now if you look at all the indicators, the economy is doing just fine. of course the Democrats NEED a bad economy to run on, so they keep up the hype that it is bad. Inflation is extremely low, as are interest rates. Unemployment is going down, it is where it was when Clinton was running for re-election. i would say we are in pretty good shape overall.

Yes...irregular fighters can be shot as spies unless they are wearing the uniform of the country they are from. So what should we do?

Ok, lets see....they were captured in Afganistan. Since the taliban were technically still in power when they were captured, what would the Taliban do with them? Probably behead them publicly. They have no rights under the US constitution at all. They backed the wrong side and lost.

So we should have killed most germans in WW2 because they backed the wrong side and lost? I'm sorry but I find your logic faulty.

The US has no rights to detain them either. Find me an article of law that permits the US to have these prisonners at all.

So we should have killed most germans in WW2 because they backed the wrong side and lost? I'm sorry but I find your logic faulty.

The US has no rights to detain them either. Find me an article of law that permits the US to have these prisonners at all.

No, because the German soldiers were in uniform and protected by the GC.

The US has the right and responsibility as the victor to do as it pleases with them. Until some other country liberates these cretins. The only "law" that regulates these things is the GC and it does not apply in this instance.

No, because the German soldiers were in uniform and protected by the GC.

I'm talking about germans, not just soldiers. And I'm merely extrapolating on your responses that they lost, and we can do what we want and there ain't nothin' they can do about it.


The US has the right and responsibility as the victor to do as it pleases with them. Until some other country liberates these cretins. The only "law" that regulates these things is the GC and it does not apply in this instance.

So in other words, you can't justify it with law.

To me, US invaded Afganistan. Some people oppsed the US when they invaded. They MUST be considered POW even if they don't have a uniform. End of story.
But no, let's invent a new term not covered by the GC and we can do whatever we want. The US is all for internationnal treaties as long as they protect them but dead against as soon as they must abide by them. They are doing the same thing with the NAFTA right now.

Clearly, I'm trying to convince someone who doesn'T want to listen to my arguments. I will stop arguing now. At least we didn't descend to name-calling...

So in other words, you can't justify it with law.
not only that but responsibility and do as they please shouldnt go in the same sentence

I'm talking about germans, not just soldiers. And I'm merely extrapolating on your responses that they lost, and we can do what we want and there ain't nothin' they can do about it.




So in other words, you can't justify it with law.

To me, US invaded Afganistan. Some people oppsed the US when they invaded. They MUST be considered POW even if they don't have a uniform. End of story.
But no, let's invent a new term not covered by the GC and we can do whatever we want. The US is all for internationnal treaties as long as they protect them but dead against as soon as they must abide by them. They are doing the same thing with the NAFTA right now.

Clearly, I'm trying to convince someone who doesn'T want to listen to my arguments. I will stop arguing now. At least we didn't descend to name-calling...

Well, if you read the GC it does not cover "terrorists." So maybe it needs to be updated. However, I would rather have those "fine upstanding citizens" who were fighting the US invasion of their "utopian society" sitting in a cage in Cuba than able to attack the US or any other country. Remember, the terrorists want to make the entire world a Muslim world.

There is just no way to justify giving these cretins the same rights as legitimate soldiers. They are not soldiers at all, they are a new kind of enemy.

Either they have the US constitutionnal rights or they have the constitutionnal rights of whatever country they were arrested in. Either way they have SOME rights and they are being denied right now.

Oh yes! give them the constitutional rights of their country at the time of capture.

Iraqies get the shreader, Afganies get executed summarily.

We treat them much better.

And there IS very specific instructions in the GC for fighters who do not wear their countries uniform while engaging the enemy. They are called "spies and sabatours" and may be excuited without trial.

Well, if you read the GC it does not cover "terrorists." So maybe it needs to be updated. However, I would rather have those "fine upstanding citizens" who were fighting the US invasion of their "utopian society" sitting in a cage in Cuba than able to attack the US or any other country. Remember, the terrorists want to make the entire world a Muslim world.

There is just no way to justify giving these cretins the same rights as legitimate soldiers. They are not soldiers at all, they are a new kind of enemy.

You call them terrorist, some call them freedom fighter, other call them holy warriors. Who's right and, most importantly, why?

There's just no way to justify not giving them the same rights as legitimates soldiers. They are not a new kind of enemy, they are soldiers who fight whith whatever is availlable against the enemy.

Oh yes! give them the constitutional rights of their country at the time of capture.

Iraqies get the shreader, Afganies get executed summarily.

We treat them much better.

And there IS very specific instructions in the GC for fighters who do not wear their countries uniform while engaging the enemy. They are called "spies and sabatours" and may be excuited without trial.

Then execute them and be done with it. If you want to interrogate them, you have to treat them as POW.

Then execute them and be done with it. If you want to interrogate them, you have to treat them as POW.

Actually they are pretty much being treated as POW's. Since when do POW's get access to lawyers anyway?

You call them terrorist, some call them freedom fighter, other call them holy warriors. Who's right and, most importantly, why?

There's just no way to justify not giving them the same rights as legitimates soldiers. They are not a new kind of enemy, they are soldiers who fight whith whatever is availlable against the enemy.

Well, you could look at it that way. Do you think POW's are treated better than these guys are?

I have heard about all these bills that cut veterans pay and benefits. Heard a LOT about them. As a disabled veteran who recieves both disability AND retirement pay I have yet to see a reduction in either. There is a new state of the art VA hospital being built here in Orlando to replace one that is getting too small. So WHERE are all these cuts. Hearing about them and seeing them are two different things aren't they?

I work near (and almost worked at) a VA hospital. The doctors who work there are disgusted by the poor equipment they have and also by the amount of bs people have to go through to get treated. This is especially true in the cardiovascular area. I suppose you have been lucky if you have had no problems.

Meanwhile, I have heard a lot about weapons being cut and such. Of course, no one thay I know in the military is unarmed and we didn't seem to have any trouble attacking Iraq, except of course, for the fact that Bush sent soldiers over to Iraq without the proper protection. Does that mean that the military was never cut? After all, hearing about them and seeing them are two different things, aren't they?

It is easy to say that they were yes men, but then you would have to say that British and Russian Intelligence who also said the WMD's were there were also "yes" men.

Or people following the USA's lead. Or people who were misled - but *didn't* immediately jump into the tank and go after Baghdad.

Well, Bush has admitted that the intel he relied on was wrong. What else can he do?

Stop making excuses directly afterward and actually APOLOGIZE. Simply say "The intel I relied on was wrong, I am sorry." The end. No, "but so and so told me wrong," no "but I know in my heart that they are still there," no "but since a good thing came out of it I was still right." Just a simple "I was wrong and I am sorry." That is all.

Wipe the dust off of Saddam and say he is sorry and pull the troops out?

I never suggested that. Pulling the troops out at this point would be just a big a mistake as it was in Vietnam. We're in it now, we have to stay in it.

No, thats not the answer. I think the WMD's were there and still could be.

Possible. But it is pretty obvious at this point that there were no "huge stockpiles" of them. And *no* WMDs, in the sense that most people know them, have yet been found.

The Iraqi's buried their air force in the desert, they could hide any number of chemical weapons anywhere. We know he had them once and he "said" he destroyed them.

Yeah. We know Bush said they had massive stockpiles and we knew where we were. Now he "says" that it was just bad intel.

Would Saddam lie?

Quite likely.

Would Bush lie?

Equally likely.


Really? Do you know how Iraq worked under Saddam? NOONE came or went without his knowledge. That known terrorists were operating out of Baghdad is a fact. THAT shows a level of support in itself.

We allow the KKK in our country. Does that mean that we support them? All I said was that there are no *direct* ties. I never suggested that he didn't know they were there.

No, they are not soldiers. They wear no uniform from any country. It is not a "declared" war either in the true sense of the word.

If it is not a war, our soldiers should not be used in it.

Absolutely. But have you EVER seen a government do that?

Yup. The GA state government has standing legislation that the state legislators cannot end a session until a *balanced* budget has been determined.

Inflation is extremely low, as are interest rates.

Of course, interest rates are not supposed to be this low. They were initially lowered to stimulate the economy. Once this stimulation was achieved, they are supposed to go back up. The Fed has already tried to raise them, and it is not happening. Looks to me like something is screwy.

Unemployment is going down, it is where it was when Clinton was running for re-election. i would say we are in pretty good shape overall.

From what I have read, the numbers are only the same as when Clinton was running for reelection because the method of calculation has been changed. Factors that used to be included are not anymore, so the numbers cannot be directly compared.

It's kind of like how Bush wants to count fish bred in a fish farm as "wild" just so that he can look all environmentally helpful and take them off the endangered species list. Never mind that they aren't wild fish.

Actually they are pretty much being treated as POW's. Since when do POW's get access to lawyers anyway?
POW get access to lawyers under article 89, 103 and 105 of the GC.

Couple of thing to consider if GB respect the POW rights:

Taken from the Geneva Convention
Article 69

Immediately upon prisoners of war falling into its power, the Detaining Power shall inform them and the Powers on which they depend, through the Protecting Power, of the measures taken to carry out the provisions of the present Section. They shall likewise inform the parties concerned of any subsequent modifications of such measures.

Article 70

Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family, on the one hand, and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner.

Article 71

Prisoners of war shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. If the Detaining Power deems it necessary to limit the number of letters and cards sent by each prisoner of war, the said number shall not be less than two letters and four cards monthly, exclusive of the capture cards provided for in Article 70, and conforming as closely as possible to the models annexed to the present Convention. Further limitations may be imposed only if the Protecting Power is satisfied that it would be in the interests of the prisoners of war concerned to do so owing to difficulties of translation caused by the Detaining Power's inability to find sufficient qualified linguists to carry out the necessary censorship. If limitations must be placed on the correspondence addressed to prisoners of war, they may be ordered only by the Power on which the prisoners depend, possibly at the request of the Detaining Power. Such letters and cards must be conveyed by the most rapid method at the disposal of the Detaining Power; they may not be delayed or retained for disciplinary reasons.

Prisoners of war who have been without news for a long period, or who are unable to receive news from their next of kin or to give them news by the ordinary postal route, as well as those who are at a great distance from their homes, shall be permitted to send telegrams, the fees being charged against the prisoners of war's accounts with the Detaining Power or paid in the currency at their disposal. They shall likewise benefit by this measure in cases of urgency.

As a general rule, the correspondence of prisoners of war shall be written in their native language. The Parties to the conflict may allow correspondence in other languages.

Sacks containing prisoner of war mail must be securely sealed and labelled so as clearly to indicate their contents, and must be addressed to offices of destination.

Article 78

Prisoners of war shall have the right to make known to the military authorities in whose power they are, their requests regarding the conditions of captivity to which they are subjected.

They shall also have the unrestricted right to apply to the representatives of the Protecting Powers either through their prisoners' representative or, if they consider it necessary, direct, in order to draw their attention to any points on which they may have complaints to make regarding their conditions of captivity.

These requests and complaints shall not be limited nor considered to be a part of the correspondence quota referred to in Article 71. They must be transmitted immediately. Even if they are recognized to be unfounded, they may not give rise to any punishment.

Prisoners' representatives may send periodic reports on the situation in the camps and the needs of the prisoners of war to the representatives of the Protecting Powers.

Article 82

A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.

If any law, regulation or order of the Detaining Power shall declare acts committed by a prisoner of war to be punishable, whereas the same acts would not be punishable if committed by a member of the forces of the Detaining Power, such acts shall entail disciplinary punishments only.

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

(What this says is that POW have access to lawyers for their trial if it is in the military code. You'll have to excuse me, I'm not familiar with the US Military code.)

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months.

Any period spent by a prisoner of war in confinement awaiting trial shall be deducted from any sentence of imprisonment passed upon him and taken into account in fixing any penalty.

The provisions of Articles 97 and 98 of this Chapter shall apply to a prisoner of war whilst in confinement awaiting trial.

Article 105

The prisoner of war shall be entitled to assistance by one of his prisoner comrades, to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own choice, to the calling of witnesses and, if he deems necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter. He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial.

Failing a choice by the prisoner of war, the Protecting Power shall find him an advocate or counsel, and shall have at least one week at its disposal for the purpose. The Detaining Power shall deliver to the said Power, on request, a list of persons qualified to present the defence. Failing a choice of an advocate or counsel by the prisoner of war or the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power shall appoint a competent advocate or counsel to conduct the defence.

The advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war shall have at his disposal a period of two weeks at least before the opening of the trial, as well as the necessary facilities to prepare the defence of the accused. He may, in particular, freely visit the accused and interview him in private. He may also confer with any witnesses for the defence, including prisoners of war. He shall have the benefit of these facilities until the term of appeal or petition has expired.

Particulars of the charge or charges on which the prisoner of war is to be arraigned, as well as the documents which are generally communicated to the accused by virtue of the laws in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power, shall be communicated to the accused prisoner of war in a language which he understands, and in good time before the opening of the trial. The same communication in the same circumstances shall be made to the advocate or counsel conducting the defence on behalf of the prisoner of war.

The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the trial of the case, unless, exceptionally, this is held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the Detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

POW get access to lawyers under article 89, 103 and 105 of the GC.

These guys will be tried in a military court. No US soldier is tried in civilian court and neither will these guys.

I would suggest that the GC, which covers actual soldiers, again, does not apply in the case of these men. They are not members of any nations armed forces. They took up arms as civilians and can be executed as spies or sabatuers. I guess we could do that as it is authorized behavior. I think they are damn lucky that they were captured by the US and not the Northern Aliiance. What would have happened to them then?

These guys will be tried in a military court. No US soldier is tried in civilian court and neither will these guys.

I would suggest that the GC, which covers actual soldiers, again, does not apply in the case of these men. They are not members of any nations armed forces. They took up arms as civilians and can be executed as spies or sabatuers. I guess we could do that as it is authorized behavior. I think they are damn lucky that they were captured by the US and not the Northern Aliiance. What would have happened to them then?

GC Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Any half-decent lawyer can make a case that they fall under the POW provisions.


Article 82

A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.

If any law, regulation or order of the Detaining Power shall declare acts committed by a prisoner of war to be punishable, whereas the same acts would not be punishable if committed by a member of the forces of the Detaining Power, such acts shall entail disciplinary punishments only.


Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

I agree that they must be tried by military court. They must have representation as if they were in the US militare as per atr. 82 and 84.

GC Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

I think these might preclude them getting that distiction. They did not identify themselves with a sign. They did not always carry their arms openly nor did they conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Plus there is this.... Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. How will they get out of this one since most come from countries that were NOT part of the conflict?

I think these might preclude them getting that distiction.
Maybe but your claim was that they were treated mostly as POW. My claim is that they are not.

Maybe but your claim was that they were treated mostly as POW. My claim is that they are not.

No, their TREATMENT (food, housing, religious freedoms) is similar to that of a POW, but they should not get that distiction. They should be locked away until such time as they cease to be a threat to anyone.

Plus there is this.... Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. How will they get out of this one?

Authorithy does not equal country. The Pope is a legitimate authority. I submit that Al-quaeda can be construed as authority in that sense.

Either you are at war against terrorist (in that case you recognise that terrorist organisation have valid authority under GC) or you're not. If you're not, the GB prisonners are criminals are entitled to due process.

Authorithy does not equal country. The Pope is a legitimate authority. I submit that Al-quaeda can be construed as authority in that sense.

Either you are at war against terrorist (in that case you recognise that terrorist organisation have valid authority under GC) or you're not. If you're not, the GB prisonners are criminals are entitled to due process.

How can Al Qaeda be considered an authority? As for the Pope, he has no political authority except within Vatican City as far as I know, I am not catholic so I am only guessing at that.

No, their TREATMENT (food, housing, religious freedoms) is similar to that of a POW, but they should not get that distiction. They should be locked away until such time as they cease to be a threat to anyone.

Their treatment is not similar to POW when it comes to outside contact with families, torture (if there is any), legal rights (even under military code).

And your statement is what I find immoral, abbhorent and downright evil of the current situation. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion, but I find revolting the treatment of these prisonners.

Their treatment is not similar to POW when it comes to outside contact with families, torture (if there is any), legal rights (even under military code).

And your statement is what I find immoral, abbhorent and downright evil of the current situation. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion, but I find revolting the treatment of these prisonners.

Well, given that these men are not exactly upstanding citizens I don't think it would be a good idea to have them sending messages out to their cohorts elsewhere.

I understand your concern for these men, but you must temper that with the knowledge that any one of them would gladly kill you or me simply because we do not share the same beliefs that they do. People like that need to be locked up and put away.

How can Al Qaeda be considered an authority? As for the Pope, he has no political authority except within Vatican City as far as I know, I am not catholic so I am only guessing at that.

Definition: (1)the power or right to give orders or make decisions; "he has the authority to issue warrants"; "deputies are given authorization to make arrests"

(2) (usually plural) persons who exercise (administrative) control over others; "the authorities have issued a curfew"

(3) an administrative unit of government; "the Central Intelligence Agency"; "the Census Bureau"; "Office of Management and Budget"; "Tennessee Valley Authority"

Under definition 1 and 2, the leaders of Al Qaeda can be considered an authority. Not under def. 3.

Yes, the pope has no political authority outside the vatican but that doesn't mean that christians around the world don't respect what he says. If the Pope said "kill all the muslims", there would be people who would take up arms.

Definition: (1)the power or right to give orders or make decisions; "he has the authority to issue warrants"; "deputies are given authorization to make arrests"

(2) (usually plural) persons who exercise (administrative) control over others; "the authorities have issued a curfew"

(3) an administrative unit of government; "the Central Intelligence Agency"; "the Census Bureau"; "Office of Management and Budget"; "Tennessee Valley Authority"

Under definition 1 and 2, the leaders of Al Qaeda can be considered an authority. Not under def. 3.

Yes, the pope has no political authority outside the vatican but that doesn't mean that christians around the world don't respect what he says. If the Pope said "kill all the muslims", there would be people who would take up arms.

I don't think either of these definitions apply to Al Qaeda. But thats just me. they are a loose group that may or may not even have any power any more. We just don't know. OBL has not been seen, even on tape in a LONG time. So who knows.

Regardless, the guys at GB are no going anywhere anytime soon. Nor should they. If they were released we would just be fighting them again, they are fanatics.

Well, given that these men are not exactly upstanding citizens I don't think it would be a good idea to have them sending messages out to their cohorts elsewhere.

I understand your concern for these men, but you must temper that with the knowledge that any one of them would gladly kill you or me simply because we do not share the same beliefs that they do. People like that need to be locked up and put away.

I understand your concern. But how can we justify imprisonning people without some kind of trial to determine if they were not, like you say, upstanding citizen who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Those found guilty, fine. But what happens to those innocent?
The supreme court agrees with me on this and this is why there is a review process underway.

I understand your concern. But how can we justify imprisonning people without some kind of trial to determine if they were not, like you say, upstanding citizen who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Those found guilty, fine. But what happens to those innocent?
The supreme court agrees with me on this and this is why there is a review process underway.

Well, they were captured on the battlefield, not in their living rooms watching TV.

The Supreme Court has ruled in one way, but that will just cost a lot of money and not actually do anything. They will not release any of these guys as a result of this.

Some have been released after they were investigated. Some of those said they were treated very well, better than the Taliban had treated them, and others complained. Such is life.

The Americans that were caught there could, and I think should, have their citizenship revoked and be deported after they finish their sentences.

Can anyone out there tell me one thing that John Kerry did while he was a senator?

Best environmental record of any US senator. Ever.

Helped stop a bill to expand the military, immediately AFTER the Soviets disbanded-a time when we needed a huge army less than ever.

Best environmental record of any US senator. Ever.

Really? I would like to see the bills he sponsored that make him so.

Best environmental record of any US senator. Ever.

Helped stop a bill to expand the military, immediately AFTER the Soviets disbanded-a time when we needed a huge army less than ever.

LOL! I hope Kerry runs on this platform! If he does, he's toast for sure.

Well, they were captured on the battlefield, not in their living rooms watching TV.

The Supreme Court has ruled in one way, but that will just cost a lot of money and not actually do anything. They will not release any of these guys as a result of this.

Some have been released after they were investigated. Some of those said they were treated very well, better than the Taliban had treated them, and others complained. Such is life.

The Americans that were caught there could, and I think should, have their citizenship revoked and be deported after they finish their sentences.

Actually, some literally were captured while watching TV. The Taliban used to go around, give people guns, and say "Shoot Americans". They would keep the gun, never use it, and then Americans would come along, search the house, find guns, and arrest them. I don't think the soldiers doing it ever thought they would spend years in jail for a misunderstanding, though.

LOL! I hope Kerry runs on this platform! If he does, he's toast for sure.

13 years ago we had no need of a massive military. Now we do, and Kerry wants 40 000 more infantry.

Actually, some literally were captured while watching TV. The Taliban used to go around, give people guns, and say "Shoot Americans". They would keep the gun, never use it, and then Americans would come along, search the house, find guns, and arrest them.

And you "know" these things happened, how...?

13 years ago we had no need of a massive military. Now we do, and Kerry wants 40 000 more infantry.

Go for it! Run on that platform and see what happens.

Given the fact that the U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, how will Kerry guarantee 40,000 more volunteers?

Go for it! Run on that platform and see what happens.

Given the fact that the U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, how will Kerry guarantee 40,000 more volunteers?

He can't, obviously. Bush isn't even trying.

And you "know" these things happened, how...?

How do you know they were terrorists? Some of them have already been let go on this basis, so you know better than the US army?

Actually, some literally were captured while watching TV. The Taliban used to go around, give people guns, and say "Shoot Americans". They would keep the gun, never use it, and then Americans would come along, search the house, find guns, and arrest them. I don't think the soldiers doing it ever thought they would spend years in jail for a misunderstanding, though.

Oh, you are going to have to provide some proof of this one.

He can't, obviously. Bush isn't even trying.

Ah, I see. So that platform plank is worth...nothing, right? Just another meaningless, empty sop. Right?

13 years ago we had no need of a massive military. Now we do, and Kerry wants 40 000 more infantry.

No, we don't need a MASSIVE military again, but we do need more than we have at the moment. The cuts of the early 90's were just too deep.

You are kidding right? Were you old enough in the Carter years to remember what it was like? Car loans were running at 21% interest! Mortgages were almost impossible to get. Carter was a disaster. Reagan came in and cut taxes which spurred investment and got the economy going again.
I do remember--I'm pointing out the logical flaw in your statement that Clinton's success was due to Reagan's policies. If Clinton's policies didn't lead to the economic success of his time in office, then logically, neither did Reagan's.

I do remember--I'm pointing out the logical flaw in your statement that Clinton's success was due to Reagan's policies. If Clinton's policies didn't lead to the economic success of his time in office, then logically, neither did Reagan's.

Not true, your conclusion is logically flawed. The efficacy of one President's policies in one economic situation is not dependent on another's success or failure in a different situation. It is even possible for the same policies to succeed in one situation and fail in another. This is not a "one-size-fits-all" package deal, where all policies of all Presidents are either responsible for economic growth or they are not.

Not true, your conclusion is logically flawed. The efficacy of one President's policies in one economic situation is not dependent on another's success or failure in a different situation. It is even possible for the same policies to succeed in one situation and fail in another. This is not a "one-size-fits-all" package deal, where all policies of all Presidents are either responsible for economic growth or they are not.
I see. In other words, when it's your guy's policies that "work," it's all because of him, but when it's our guy's policies that work, it's because of the foundation you folks laid. Riiiiiiiiight. Glad you cleared that up. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Besides, ideologies can't endorse people.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/56/
what about http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/590/1/27/ ?

I see. In other words, when it's your guy's policies that "work," it's all because of him, but when it's our guy's policies that work, it's because of the foundation you folks laid. Riiiiiiiiight. Glad you cleared that up. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want, that's not what I said. What I said was that every situation is different. You were engaging in a logical fallacy known as the "package deal." In other words, it is not the case that every President's policies are in equal part responsible for the success or failure of the economy during that President's term in office. One President's policies could have a significant effect on the economy, while another's have little, if any, impact.

And I will thank you to take note that I didn't mention any specific Presidents. I was speaking in general, logical terms that are equally applicable to any President of any political persuasion.

It's just awfully convenient that when conservatives talk about Reagan's economy, it's all because of Reagan. Never mind that they overstate just how grand Reagan's economy actually was--the good economy is always inextricably linked to Reagan's policies. But for these same people, Clinton gets exactly no credit--they come out with the old saw that Presidents never affect the economy. That's where the logical fallacy comes in.

I'm the first to agree that the President gets too much credit if the economy works well and too much blame if it goes to hell (much like the quarterback), but if you're going to argue--and I don't mean you specifically, Galtania--that a President doesn't affect the economy in one case, you can't argue that he does in another. You've got to be consistent in terms of that argument.

but if you're going to argue--and I don't mean you specifically, Galtania--that a President doesn't affect the economy in one case, you can't argue that he does in another. You've got to be consistent in terms of that argument.

And I'm saying that is a logical fallacy. Doesn't it depend on the specific situations and the specific policies? Why must we assign an equal level of credit or blame in every case?

And I'm saying that is a logical fallacy. Doesn't it depend on the specific situations and the specific policies? Why must we assign an equal level of credit or blame in every case?

Because some people want to claim that the problems facing the economy comes from previous administrations but good thing in the economy come from current administration in one case but doesn't recognise the validity of the same argument in another case. It's another logical fallacy to say that what is good in one case should not even be considered in another.

Example: Reagan saved the economy by doing economic policy changes but
It's not the fault of Bush if the economy tanked in his second year after some of his economic policy change, they are rather caused by the previous government econimic policies.

You see how in one time, economic policies change are the cause but not in the other case?

Because some people want to claim that the problems facing the economy comes from previous administrations but good thing in the economy come from current administration in one case but doesn't recognise the validity of the same argument in another case. It's another logical fallacy to say that what is good in one case should not even be considered in another.
Where did I ever say it shouldn't be considered? I did say each example should be judged on its own merits, not on what happened in a completely different example.
Example: Reagan saved the economy by doing economic policy changes but
It's not the fault of Bush if the economy tanked in his second year after some of his economic policy change, they are rather caused by the previous government econimic policies.
This is an example of what I'm saying. There is economic data that directly correlates the economic growth during the '80s to Reagan's policies, in part. There is also data that supports Clinton's policies as leading to the growth of the '90s, in part. Likewise, there is economic data that places the "tanking" of the economy as early as 1999, thus supporting the conclusion that Bush inherited an economy which was already on a downturn.
You see how in one time, economic policies change are the cause but not in the other case?
Yes, and I'm saying that is logically correct! It depends on the specific situation and the specific policies.

Problem is, Galtania, that most pundits don't make the distinction that you're making here. They also take historical examples out of context (like when they call Kennedy an early supply-sider). Sorry I overreacted in that first post of yours that I replied to, but I did so because I've heard exactly the argument I described more than once.

Where did I ever say it shouldn't be considered? I did say each example should be judged on its own merits, not on what happened in a completely different example.

This is an example of what I'm saying. There is economic data that directly correlates the economic growth during the '80s to Reagan's policies, in part. There is also data that supports Clinton's policies as leading to the growth of the '90s, in part. Likewise, there is economic data that places the "tanking" of the economy as early as 1999, thus supporting the conclusion that Bush inherited an economy which was already on a downturn.

Yes, and I'm saying that is logically correct! It depends on the specific situation and the specific policies.

All you're saying is correct. You asked a question and I gave argument to answer it based on some previous conversations I've heard and read.

It was like when you pointed out that Incertonia's logic was faulty. I explained in my opinion how he came to that conclusion. If it seemed like an attack, I apologise.

I do remember--I'm pointing out the logical flaw in your statement that Clinton's success was due to Reagan's policies. If Clinton's policies didn't lead to the economic success of his time in office, then logically, neither did Reagan's.

What did Clinton really do? He cut the military to the bone....thats about it. He came in with a great economy and maintaining that was not too hard. it was going downhill when he left though.

What did Clinton really do? He cut the military to the bone....thats about it. He came in with a great economy and maintaining that was not too hard. it was going downhill when he left though.Came in with a great economy? Now who's having the selective memory issues? As I recall, the battle cry for the 1992 Clinton campaign was "It's the economy, stupid." That's the reason Bush the Elder lost his job, because the economy was sluggish and he was in denial.

Here's what Clinton did. He raised the marginal tax rates in the top wage earners, put some of that money in the hands of people who would spend it, and he--along with Congress--forced some fiscal discipline on the budget. When the US government stopped borrowing as much money as it had been, banks and other investment groups started looking for opportunities, and found them in the newly emerging internet. That fueled the boom. And while the economy was slowing some at the end of Clinton's second term, there's certainly no reason for us to still be in such a slump nearly four years later. Sooner or later, King George the Lesser has to take some responsibility for his own actions on the economy.

Came in with a great economy? Now who's having the selective memory issues? As I recall, the battle cry for the 1992 Clinton campaign was "It's the economy, stupid." That's the reason Bush the Elder lost his job, because the economy was sluggish and he was in denial.

Here's what Clinton did. He raised the marginal tax rates in the top wage earners, put some of that money in the hands of people who would spend it, and he--along with Congress--forced some fiscal discipline on the budget. When the US government stopped borrowing as much money as it had been, banks and other investment groups started looking for opportunities, and found them in the newly emerging internet. That fueled the boom. And while the economy was slowing some at the end of Clinton's second term, there's certainly no reason for us to still be in such a slump nearly four years later. Sooner or later, King George the Lesser has to take some responsibility for his own actions on the economy.

Maybe, but no President can actually change the economy. What he CAN do is create an atmosphere for the economy to grow. Thats what Bush has been trying to do by cutting taxes. personally I don't think ANYONE should have to pay any income tax, but thats just me.