NationStates Jolt Archive

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**

John Kerry.com...

NON-BIASED site
. . .

. . .
You wanted plan details, there you go.

. . .


Seriously man, you want the plan details go to the horses mouth. You think some other source is going to have the secret real plan that he only speaks about in hushed tones to members of his staff or something?

I still can't believe Kerry plugged his website as a response.

"Senator, what is your opinion on (issue 'X')?"

"Uh.. learn more at johnkerry.com!"

"I have a plan!" - John Kerry

Film at eleven!

Yeah, he has a plan. He wrote a book about it called "My Plan for America." Even if he has no plan, which he does not, at least he doesn't think that we can't win the War on Terror.

john kerry is an ass

john kerry is an ass

See, I always thought he looked alot like a horse, but I suppose a donkey works as well.

I still can't believe Kerry plugged his website as a response.

"Senator, what is your opinion on (issue 'X')?"

"Uh.. learn more at johnkerry.com!"
You want to give a detailed policy speech in two minutes?

I still can't believe Kerry plugged his website as a response.

"Senator, what is your opinion on (issue 'X')?"

"Uh.. learn more at johnkerry.com!"

Yeah, it really sucks that he has a resource where you can see his detailed, point-by-point plans first-hand that in no way can be expressed in a 2 minute debate speech.

/sarcasm

I have a plan too. But mine involves a fiifty gallon drum of pudding, a catapult and the GoodYear Blimp. I don't know what my plan will do for the economy, but at least it's a plan. :)

You want to give a detailed policy speech in two minutes?

On tort reform? Yeah. Two minutes to explain tort reform is plenty. I can explain 10 different angles to tort reform in two minutes as a first-year law student. He could've at least summarized, instead of plugging the website and defending John Edwards in a roundabout way.

Yeah, it really sucks that he has a resource where you can see his detailed, point-by-point plans first-hand that in no way can be expressed in a 2 minute debate speech.

/sarcasm

If Pepe Dominguez can do it, John Kerry can do it. He spaced.

I have a plan too. But mine involves a fiifty gallon drum of pudding, a catapult and the GoodYear Blimp. I don't know what my plan will do for the economy, but at least it's a plan. :)

I think it might lead to a boom in the raincoat and goggle industries.

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**

No flaming. Have you read Kerry's book? He posted his plans on his website, www.johnkerry.com

Why NOT read some of it?

I have a plan too. But mine involves a fiifty gallon drum of pudding, a catapult and the GoodYear Blimp. I don't know what my plan will do for the economy, but at least it's a plan. :)
Now THAT sounds like a plan.

Now THAT sounds like a plan.

Well, it all really hinges on the kind of pudding.

On tort reform? Yeah. Two minutes to explain tort reform is plenty. I can explain 10 different angles to tort reform in two minutes as a first-year law student. He could've at least summarized, instead of plugging the website and defending John Edwards in a roundabout way.
10 angles in two minutes? No.

Besides, how could he do this without boring the American public to death (I hate this) and not 'speaking in paragraphs'.

Well, it all really hinges on the kind of pudding.

Well, if the source of my 'plan' went unnoticed, I might be able to carry it out several more times over major cities with different varieties of pudding. :)

It's the catapult that provides the range necessary to keep my plan discreet.

10 angles in two minutes? No.

Besides, how could he do this without boring the American public to death (I hate this) and not 'speaking in paragraphs'.

He probably couldn't. Most people, I would wager, either don't know what a tort is or don't care. Still, I don't want the pro's and con's of tort reform, I only wanted to know what he would do about it, personally, as President. This could've been done in 45 seconds. I think he was thrown off by the loaded question accusing John Edwards of moneygrubbing, and I can sympathize. But Bush got loaded questions all night and it didn't slow him down a bit, e.g. the Patriot Act question.

Yes, two minutes is a short amount of time, but he could at least talk about the basis of his "plans." I watched both presidential debates (and the vice-presidential), and I still have no idea what Kerry stands for. I know exactly what Bush believes in, what his plans are, and how he intends to continue running the country. Yes, it is mainly due to the fact that he has already been president for four years, but I also learned a lot about his position that I didn't already know through watching the debates. Kerry? Nada. You'd think, since he hasn't been in the public eye for as long, that he would try a lot harder to get his point across to America. Honestly, how many people are actually going to go to his site to see where he stands? That's why we have debates, so people can see what the plans are! Kerry blew his chance - he needs to find out what exactly all of his "plans" are before the third debate or he will be screwed.

And no, I'm not looking at his site, I'm not looking at Bush's site, I'm not looking at anyone's... I watch the debates in order to find out what they plan to do as president, and it's Kerry's own fault that he couldn't say a single sentence to back up his claims.

and I cant vote for him, but
calling kerry or Bush a name is wrong,
agree or disagree with their policys.

Kerry does not want to say anything detailed for this reason: So that when you say "but you said this" he will say "That isnt necessarily what I said".

And Kerry's so called plans do involve foolish taxings and programs that will hurt the capitalist economy we have more than help it.
For instance the taxing of those who make $200,000 or more is unwise. Because alot of those who make that are, as I believe has been stated, are business owners. And when they have to spend more money on taxes and hiked min wage, then they have less money for expansion and job creation.
And outsourcing is honestly a tough issue. Because outsourcing makes the consumer have to pay less, no we have to realize that there is alot of insourcing too, like from companies such as Toyota, Honda and the like. Anyway my two cents.
Sure what he says sounds good, but if you look at what the price of his programs will cost, you realize its not as good as it sounds.

- that is to take America out of the frying pan and into the fire. Frankly, I am disgusted with both candidates, however like most Americans, I will hold my nose and vote for Bush in November. Kerry should consider unfurling his "plans" this close to the election, but the facts are facts. We are recovering from a recession, we have not been hit since 9/11 domestically (sheer miracle), small businesses are growing and doing better, and home ownership - especially in the black communities - is at an all-time high. I may be not pleased in having to accept a poor environmental policy as the price for the correct foreign policy, but there's no way I would jump horses in mid-stream with so much on the line. Besides, is it just me or has the genuinely hot issue of illegal immigration been completely off the table for both these guys? Conspiracy? Hmmmm....

If you actually gave a shit about the plan you would go and read it. The debates aren't supposed to give detailed policy plans, the idea is to tell the public what they will change and improve. Since he does have a plan this shouldn't be a problem, as the details will be worked out by qualified professionals. The American people are too full of biased propaganda and misconceptions to be simply given a full policy, and that is why we have an indirect democracy. Also, if he went into detail out in the open, the Republicans would be able to pick at his plan more readily(using soundbytes against him).

Stop nitpicking campaign strategy and talk about actual politics.

- that is to take America out of the frying pan and into the fire. Frankly, I am disgusted with both candidates, however like most Americans, I will hold my nose and vote for Bush in November. Kerry should consider unfurling his "plans" this close to the election, but the facts are facts. We are recovering from a recession, we have not been hit since 9/11 domestically (sheer miracle), small businesses are growing and doing better, and home ownership - especially in the black communities - is at an all-time high. I may be not pleased in having to accept a poor environmental policy as the price for the correct foreign policy, but there's no way I would jump horses in mid-stream with so much on the line. Besides, is it just me or has the genuinely hot issue of illegal immigration been completely off the table for both these guys? Conspiracy? Hmmmm....

The recession has not ended in Ohio, one of the largest states in the Union. We are still losing jobs. And terrorist attacks abroad have hit a new, all time high. Bankruptcy is also very high. Respect for America is low. America is bleeding out influence and money abroad. Civil rights are being reduced.

Yes, two minutes is a short amount of time, but he could at least talk about the basis of his "plans." I watched both presidential debates (and the vice-presidential), and I still have no idea what Kerry stands for. I know exactly what Bush believes in, what his plans are, and how he intends to continue running the country. Yes, it is mainly due to the fact that he has already been president for four years, but I also learned a lot about his position that I didn't already know through watching the debates. Kerry? Nada. You'd think, since he hasn't been in the public eye for as long, that he would try a lot harder to get his point across to America. Honestly, how many people are actually going to go to his site to see where he stands? That's why we have debates, so people can see what the plans are! Kerry blew his chance - he needs to find out what exactly all of his "plans" are before the third debate or he will be screwed.

And no, I'm not looking at his site, I'm not looking at Bush's site, I'm not looking at anyone's... I watch the debates in order to find out what they plan to do as president, and it's Kerry's own fault that he couldn't say a single sentence to back up his claims.


The debates are not there for letting you know what their detailed plans are, they never were.

Now, a study was done (many here have seen it cited,) to see which candidate's supporters were genrally more well informed about their candidate's positions. It was found that, by a large margin, Kerry's supporters knew his policy much better than Bush's supporters knew their candidate's policies.

From this I can only conclude: If you don't know where Kerry stands, you simply haven't been paying attention. How about you go and look it up and stop depending on the nightly news to wipe your ass for you?

Sorry if that last sentence was offensive. It was meant to simulteneously be humorous and express my dissatisfaction with anyone who doesn't know, at this late date, where Kerry stands.

Again, if one pays attention, one clearly sees that the "flip-flopper" label is clearly a lie. The Bush campaign is depending on people's short memories.

I know exactly where Kerry stands, how come so many others don't?

I know exactly where Kerry stands, how come so many others don't?

Because Kerry makes it sound as if he doesn't have a defined stance. While we are of different opinions on his "plans", whether he has them or not makes little difference when he states he voted for it then against it, has a gun then doesn't have a gun, has an SUV then doesn't have an SUV, wrong war etc.. but he would still vote for it, global test, ad nauseum...

He's providing the fodder for these attacks himself. His speechwriters need to be replaced if he wants a definite win on the 2nd.

The recession has not ended in Ohio, one of the largest states in the Union. We are still losing jobs. And terrorist attacks abroad have hit a new, all time high. Bankruptcy is also very high. Respect for America is low. America is bleeding out influence and money abroad. Civil rights are being reduced.

I believe you'll find that recession has ended and that the economics in Ohio have been brought on by the Ohio government. Check the 71% increase in taxes, additional regulations, and anti-business policies in Ohio and you'll find more rational blame for those problem locally than in the White House. As for terrorist attacks, they are NOT happening in the United States (my point) and more importantly, these people are an extreme minority of the Muslim/anti-Western community. Likewise, I would suggest comparing the rapidity of terrorist acts to the pace set in the 1980's and the "Bill Clinton Hurt Us all you want and we'll do nothing about it 1990's."

If you actually gave a shit about the plan you would go and read it. The debates aren't supposed to give detailed policy plans, the idea is to tell the public what they will change and improve. Since he does have a plan this shouldn't be a problem, as the details will be worked out by qualified professionals. The American people are too full of biased propaganda and misconceptions to be simply given a full policy, and that is why we have an indirect democracy. Also, if he went into detail out in the open, the Republicans would be able to pick at his plan more readily(using soundbytes against him).

Stop nitpicking campaign strategy and talk about actual politics.


Oh, please. Incoherent propagandist political babble. I have read Kerry's "plans" and they are no more grounded in reality and no more coherent than he is. Debates are political strategy and frankly my vote is not motivated by the guy with the best hair or charisma. Kerry's plans feed his base, the hard Left. Until someone can explain to me why the Dems can't put forward a rational candidate (and there are many), then there's no way I can take a 20-year Massachussetts Liberal Senator seriously and his waffling is all the more evidence that this guy doesn't have a plan, he wants a shot. I wish I had an alternative to Bush, but unfortunately Kerry is not it.

Yes, two minutes is a short amount of time, but he could at least talk about the basis of his "plans." I watched both presidential debates (and the vice-presidential), and I still have no idea what Kerry stands for. I know exactly what Bush believes in, what his plans are, and how he intends to continue running the country. Yes, it is mainly due to the fact that he has already been president for four years, but I also learned a lot about his position that I didn't already know through watching the debates. Kerry? Nada. You'd think, since he hasn't been in the public eye for as long, that he would try a lot harder to get his point across to America. Honestly, how many people are actually going to go to his site to see where he stands? That's why we have debates, so people can see what the plans are! Kerry blew his chance - he needs to find out what exactly all of his "plans" are before the third debate or he will be screwed.

And no, I'm not looking at his site, I'm not looking at Bush's site, I'm not looking at anyone's... I watch the debates in order to find out what they plan to do as president, and it's Kerry's own fault that he couldn't say a single sentence to back up his claims.
I guess you are happy with the staus quo then and are unwilling to check out the alternatives?

Staus Quo:

Failed domestic policies.

Failed foreign policies.

Failed war on terrorism.

Failed economic policies.

Four more years of status quo? Enjoy. :eek:

Because Kerry makes it sound as if he doesn't have a defined stance. While we are of different opinions on his "plans", whether he has them or not makes little difference when he states he voted for it then against it, has a gun then doesn't have a gun, has an SUV then doesn't have an SUV, wrong war etc.. but he would still vote for it, global test, ad nauseum...

He's providing the fodder for these attacks himself. His speechwriters need to be replaced if he wants a definite win on the 2nd.

Oh please. The SUV and gun things aren't even as big a deal as Bush lying about the $84 he got from a timber company that officially classified him as a small business.

Wrong War Wrong Time? I know exactly what he means by that, especially because I pay attention to all the other words he uses around those four words. The war was rushed into without proper planning, support or legitimacy. Besides, it's Bush who has repeated that line ad nauseum. How can you possibly get a clear picture of what Kerry said by only listening to the man desperately trying to discredit him?

I also Know whay Kerry means by "I would still vote for it." See, I pay attention. He clearly stated that the authorization was the right tool to give the president in order to move the talks forward. He stated clearly in his speech on october 9th 2002 that the authorization was only to be used if the President used up all other options and had created a strong alliance. It's all right there in Kerry's speech, way back in 2002, which I created a forum about: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

Read that and tell me Kerry's stance on Iraq wasn't clear. Furthermore, tell me, in which way, his position has changed (aside from the fact of acknowledging the newer, more accurate information that Iraq had no WMD.)

It's Bush who has confused you as to Kerry's position. It's Bush who sews confusion. Perhaps you should stop believing everything you hear from that confirmed liar. You've seen Kerry and Bush face to face now, and you still want to say that Kerry speaks less clearly?

sand, meet head.

Oh, please. Incoherent propagandist political babble. I have read Kerry's "plans" and they are no more grounded in reality and no more coherent than he is. Debates are political strategy and frankly my vote is not motivated by the guy with the best hair or charisma. Kerry's plans feed his base, the hard Left. Until someone can explain to me why the Dems can't put forward a rational candidate (and there are many), then there's no way I can take a 20-year Massachussetts Liberal Senator seriously and his waffling is all the more evidence that this guy doesn't have a plan, he wants a shot. I wish I had an alternative to Bush, but unfortunately Kerry is not it.

It's not incoherent babble to me. It makes a whole lot of sense. I have seen no credible evidence of Kerry waffling on anything major. I've seen Bush lying about it a lot. Please give an example of a major Kerry waffle.

I believe you'll find that recession has ended and that the economics in Ohio have been brought on by the Ohio government. Check the 71% increase in taxes, additional regulations, and anti-business policies in Ohio and you'll find more rational blame for those problem locally than in the White House. As for terrorist attacks, they are NOT happening in the United States (my point) and more importantly, these people are an extreme minority of the Muslim/anti-Western community. Likewise, I would suggest comparing the rapidity of terrorist acts to the pace set in the 1980's and the "Bill Clinton Hurt Us all you want and we'll do nothing about it 1990's."

Guess why individual state's taxes have gone up? It's because the Bush administration pulled federal funding from myriad state programs whose funding is locked in. The only way the states could pay for them was to raise taxes. This is a classic example of "bait-and-switch." Bush lowers federal taxes, but then enacts policies that causes state taxes to go up, and then proudly proclaims that he lowered your taxes.

Great guy, huh?

john kerry is an ass

Wow. With this new information, backed up with strong facts, I now know who NOT to vote for. Thanks, Jampher, for enlightening me.

John Kerry.com...

HAHAHAHAHA thats good. thats so non-bias. lol. :rolleyes: :D

HAHAHAHAHA thats good. thats so non-bias. lol. :rolleyes: :D

Wow, and you actually thought you were being clever. The best place to get a person's plans are from the person themselves. Hence, for Kerry's plans, go to his website, for Bush's plans, go to Bush's website.

Now, if you want unbiased analysis of their plans, that's another story.

In the next debate, John Kerry should argue both sides of the issue.

In the next debate, John Kerry should argue both sides of the issue.

Maybe it'd be less one-sided. ;)

In the next debate, John Kerry should argue both sides of the issue.

At least both sides would be argued intelligently.

Oh, please. Incoherent propagandist political babble. I have read Kerry's "plans" and they are no more grounded in reality and no more coherent than he is. Debates are political strategy and frankly my vote is not motivated by the guy with the best hair or charisma. Kerry's plans feed his base, the hard Left. Until someone can explain to me why the Dems can't put forward a rational candidate (and there are many), then there's no way I can take a 20-year Massachussetts Liberal Senator seriously and his waffling is all the more evidence that this guy doesn't have a plan, he wants a shot. I wish I had an alternative to Bush, but unfortunately Kerry is not it.

You don't say why you think his plans are unrealistic, please do so.

Debates are not about detailing policies, nor about changing them! They are simply a sample platter so the voting audience can get a taste of each side. You can't criticise Kerry for not detailing policy at the debates because he isn't supposed to. I'd also like to point out at this point that you are trying to slip past the fact that you didn't know the point of the debates, and you are masking you're retreat with an off topic quip about charisma....

Please explain what this mythical hard left is and how it benefits from middle class tax relief, sound environmental policies, and friendly relations with allies. Bush loves the hard right, and they are very easy to spot; big rich corporations getting government contracts and looser controls, and the overpaid heads of them who recieve tax breaks.

I can't answer why the democratic party chooses its candidates, but somehow I think you just want them to put forward an alternate republican anyway. I question why a very experiened senator can't be taken seriously, just what kind of background would you take seriously? Why not address Bush's waffling, which has been more severe, as evidence of his inadequecies as president? Lets also look at the current administration's policy of saying everything is fine and dandy, regardless of actual dandicity(:D). Kerry is far from my ideal president, but Bush has physically proven that he can't handle the job competently in nearly any fashion.

PEROUTKA FOR PRESIDENT 2004!

Support the constitution party!

So let me be clear about what you're asking for-
You want the Kerry plan, but you don't want to hear it from Kerry unless he can articulate it in under two minutes while answering questions in a debate. If he can't do it there, then you want the plan to be given to you by a third party and will not look at it if it actually comes from Kerry...because it's not verbalised in a two minute debate segment. Is that what you are asking for? Has Bush really done that for you?

So let me be clear about what you're asking for-
You want the Kerry plan, but you don't want to hear it from Kerry unless he can articulate it in under two minutes while answering questions in a debate. If he can't do it there, then you want the plan to be given to you by a third party and will not look at it if it actually comes from Kerry...because it's not verbalised in a two minute debate segment. Is that what you are asking for? Has Bush really done that for you?Well, to be fair, Bush's plan could pretty much be summed up in two minutes. Tax cuts for the wealthy, fuck everyone else, John Kerry's a flip-flopping liberal, Saddam bad, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Hell, that didn't even take thirty seconds.

Well, to be fair, Bush's plan could pretty much be summed up in two minutes. Tax cuts for the wealthy, fuck everyone else, John Kerry's a flip-flopping liberal, Saddam bad, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Hell, that didn't even take thirty seconds.
Well, yeah...thought I'd plum the depths anyway......I have a quixotal streak....

Well, yeah...thought I'd plum the depths anyway......I have a quixotal streak....

Hmmm, I would think it would be Bush tilting at windmills, since they cut into his oil buddies' profits.

On tort reform? Yeah. Two minutes to explain tort reform is plenty. I can explain 10 different angles to tort reform in two minutes as a first-year law student. He could've at least summarized, instead of plugging the website and defending John Edwards in a roundabout way.

As a lawyer, not even I can explain all the important details that come into a tort reform in 20 minutes, let alone 2. A good and deep analisis of a tort reform will take up to 1 full year worth of Tort Law classes in that college of yours, in order to get it right. So dont overestimate yourself.

As a lawyer, not even I can explain all the important details that come into a tort reform in 20 minutes, let alone 2. A good and deep analisis of a tort reform will take up to 1 full year worth of Tort Law classes in that college of yours, in order to get it right. So dont overestimate yourself.

pwn3d!!111!!

The problem I have with the upcoming US election is that I really can't bear the thought of Bush in for another term, but Kerry has so little charisma that he seems to be an unlikely candidate to actually win this election so despite Bush's stupidity, we could end with him for four more years just because he has no competition.

Only remaiming hope to keep Bush out of the Whitehouse. :sniper:

I find that most people aren't pro-Kerry, they are anti-Bush, that are at least voting for Kerry. I never understood undecided ones. How can you not have an opinion. These are the same asshole who when asked the question "Do you support the war" responded "I Support the troops". Wel done.

Just out of curiousity, whats the stand on Guatanomo Bay? For both of them? All those people being held without trial or even sentence, for the most part simply because of their ethnicity. Though I guess you're only entitled to human rights if you're an american.

Im hoping you'll vote Kerry. He cant be any worse, and he doesnt have all those suspicous links to the people who control the voting process. Maybe it'll actually look like the people voted instead of the Bush family?

Its a sad state of affairs when you can sum up the main point of Kerry's campaign in one sentence;
"At least hes not Bush".

Its a sad state of affairs when you can sum up the main point of Kerry's campaign in one sentence;
"At least hes not Bush".

Actually, Bush's campaign recently has been "I'm not Kerry," simply because Bush has NOTHING to run on. On the other hand, I firmly support Kerry, because the man really has knowledge of how things work. He has NOT flip-flopped (please see the thread about that,) and he is extremely well spoken. The only reason he is depicted as unclear is because Bush has done a masterful job (thanks to Karl Rove,) of painting him as such.

Seriously, Bush's total plan, both domestically and abroad, has been "more of the same." Kerry makes excellent points, if people would just pay attention. Turn off Fox News, and stop listening to Bush's lies.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622 Thread contains direct quote from Kerry from October 9th, 2002. War Authorization Vote. Iron-clad proof of no flip-flop.

I watch the debates in order to find out what they plan to do as president, and it's Kerry's own fault that he couldn't say a single sentence to back up his claims.

It's sad that you will willingly keep yourself ignorant of the information that should be the basis of your vote...

Oh please. The SUV and gun things aren't even as big a deal as Bush lying about the $84 he got from a timber company that officially classified him as a small business.

Wrong War Wrong Time? I know exactly what he means by that, especially because I pay attention to all the other words he uses around those four words. The war was rushed into without proper planning, support or legitimacy. Besides, it's Bush who has repeated that line ad nauseum. How can you possibly get a clear picture of what Kerry said by only listening to the man desperately trying to discredit him?

I also Know whay Kerry means by "I would still vote for it." See, I pay attention. He clearly stated that the authorization was the right tool to give the president in order to move the talks forward. He stated clearly in his speech on october 9th 2002 that the authorization was only to be used if the President used up all other options and had created a strong alliance. It's all right there in Kerry's speech, way back in 2002, which I created a forum about: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

Read that and tell me Kerry's stance on Iraq wasn't clear. Furthermore, tell me, in which way, his position has changed (aside from the fact of acknowledging the newer, more accurate information that Iraq had no WMD.)

It's Bush who has confused you as to Kerry's position. It's Bush who sews confusion. Perhaps you should stop believing everything you hear from that confirmed liar. You've seen Kerry and Bush face to face now, and you still want to say that Kerry speaks less clearly?

sand, meet head.

And I'll see you there because you've completely missed my point. I've already stated that we completely disagree on the topic of flip-flopping and Kerry's agenda. We will probably never agree on it. However, my point was that Kerry is providing sound bytes that make him out to be waffling on practically every issue or at the very least, justification to the tin hat crowd. It doesn't matter what he meant by it, uttering the phrase "global test" makes him out to be a UN puppet.

Whether you and I understand the issues doesn't matter. It's the large number of people that won't/can't get any other information other than by TV or the paper. Sound bytes matter.

Geez, I practically defend Kerry and you still go on the offensive.

Ok, I went to Kerry's web site. After sidestepping the innitial propoganda, I found his "plan" for the economy. It consists of raising taxes on businesses, the organizations that create the jobs, cutting taxes for the middle class. I suppose the second item could help a little. He also plans to increase minimum wage. Hmm, raising taxes and minimum wage. . .I have studied economics enough to know that will only cause jobs to leave the country. His tax incentive for companies to keep jobs in the US sounds good, but it probobly wont even sidestep the tax hike he plans. So, by making decisions that can only distroy jobs, he plans to create them? Sounds like socialism. He says that he will put a cap on spending, yet in the debates, he constantly tells us of all the spending increases he will put in place. Hmm. So far, I havn't learned anything new, perhaps that is why he didn't elaborate on his plans in the debates, it doesn't have any substance beyond what he said.

It's not incoherent babble to me. It makes a whole lot of sense. I have seen no credible evidence of Kerry waffling on anything major. I've seen Bush lying about it a lot. Please give an example of a major Kerry waffle.

It makes sense to you as you are a California Pinko. Are you from SF?

Yeah Gymoor, great detailed "plans" there...

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

Wow, this will solve the problem!

Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties.

Harden Vulnerable Targets
Chemical industry lobbying has kept the Bush administration from strengthening security at chemical plants, where an attack could endanger 1 million Americans. John Kerry and John Edwards will always put Americans' safety ahead of big business interests and take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack.

Improve Domestic Readiness
Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities.

Guard Liberty.
We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security.

The plans just keep on rolling.

My question is: Does Kerry have a plan to deal with Mrs. Edwards big butt?

john kerry is an ass

George Bush was nearly in tears, he is a baby.

Ok, I went to Kerry's web site. After sidestepping the innitial propoganda, I found his "plan" for the economy. It consists of raising taxes on businesses, the organizations that create the jobs, cutting taxes for the middle class. I suppose the second item could help a little. He also plans to increase minimum wage. Hmm, raising taxes and minimum wage. . .I have studied economics enough to know that will only cause jobs to leave the country. His tax incentive for companies to keep jobs in the US sounds good, but it probobly wont even sidestep the tax hike he plans. So, by making decisions that can only distroy jobs, he plans to create them? Sounds like socialism. He says that he will put a cap on spending, yet in the debates, he constantly tells us of all the spending increases he will put in place. Hmm. So far, I havn't learned anything new, perhaps that is why he didn't elaborate on his plans in the debates, it doesn't have any substance beyond what he said.

Gronde, your analysis of his plans is extremely simplistic. I assume you mean by his "tax hike" that you're referring to the Bush campaign's claim that he will raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses. If you paid attention to the analysis during the debates and afterward, you undoubtedly realize that the Republican definition of "small business" would include Bush himself, Dick Cheney, members of any large law firm or partnership, and lots of other wealthy individuals as well. Those are not the "job creators" that we should be concerned with. New jobs tax credits, cutting corporate taxes by 5%...these things are outlined pretty clearly in his plan (assuming you read the actual detailed plans instead of the blurbs on the main page - check out the PDF documents on the right hand side of the page about economy & jobs). He also details how the increased spending would be paid for by the rollback of tax cuts and other spending cuts. Now, you can disagree whether or not he can effectively do that, but he certainly spells out answers to your questions, which you apparently still haven't read.

Yeah Gymoor, great detailed "plans" there...

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

Wow, this will solve the problem!

Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties.

Harden Vulnerable Targets
Chemical industry lobbying has kept the Bush administration from strengthening security at chemical plants, where an attack could endanger 1 million Americans. John Kerry and John Edwards will always put Americans' safety ahead of big business interests and take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack.

Improve Domestic Readiness
Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities.

Guard Liberty.
We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security.

The plans just keep on rolling.

My question is: Does Kerry have a plan to deal with Mrs. Edwards big butt?


Not only do you spew random, warrantless ad homs throughout your "arguments", but you only spend about 30 seconds. If you'll notice, energy independence is addressed in more detail in the "Energy Independence" section. Now, maybe that level of in-depth reading is beyond you - that would explain why you have such a limited grasp of the plans. However, most quality researchers like to check out the other links on pages to try and find more detailed information instead of trumpeting how little work we've done by posting the very first thing we see.

Like why not check out this? http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/technology.html

Regarding improving intelligence, why not read this? http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0716c.html

And so on for every single issue you thought you were so cleverly attacking.

You may not get all the details of each bill that he plans to pass, but Kerry has laid out more than enough details for you to understand his plans. Now, you can keep mouthing off instead of doing the research, but why do that when it just makes you look feeble? Try doing the legwork instead. You'll be surprised at how much more respect you'll get.

Well, if the source of my 'plan' went unnoticed, I might be able to carry it out several more times over major cities with different varieties of pudding. :)

It's the catapult that provides the range necessary to keep my plan discreet.

Hey! I know how to build a catapault! :D

I'm looking at JohnKerry.com right now and I'm having a bit of trouble with his budget plans.

He says he wants to cut the deficit in half, and this will be accomplished by raising taxes on the "very wealthy", restraining discretionary spending, and cutting corporate welfare. This might be good... on its own. But then he adds plans to "cut taxes for 98% of Americans and 99% of businesses", and also manage to make healthcare more affordable and invest in education at the same time - and those are just his spending promises on that page alone...

Not only do you spew random, warrantless ad homs throughout your "arguments", but you only spend about 30 seconds. If you'll notice, energy independence is addressed in more detail in the "Energy Independence" section. Now, maybe that level of in-depth reading is beyond you - that would explain why you have such a limited grasp of the plans. However, most quality researchers like to check out the other links on pages to try and find more detailed information instead of trumpeting how little work we've done by posting the very first thing we see.

Like why not check out this? http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/technology.html

Regarding improving intelligence, why not read this? http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0716c.html

And so on for every single issue you thought you were so cleverly attacking.

You may not get all the details of each bill that he plans to pass, but Kerry has laid out more than enough details for you to understand his plans. Now, you can keep mouthing off instead of doing the research, but why do that when it just makes you look feeble? Try doing the legwork instead. You'll be surprised at how much more respect you'll get.

Hey ass-hat, I didn't want to clog the thread, but I did read each plan in depth as you say. His plans may look nice, but where the fuck is he going to find the money for them all? Increase the taxes on the wealthy? How will he get anything done as he will be absent most of the time anyway? Going to take a lot more then that numb-skull.

Why do I need respect on the internet? Esp on a silly website like this one. I'm sure everyone on here is super smart, super rich, not-gay, and take themselves way too seriously (esp that pillow muncher gymoor).

Get over yourself loser! I may be an asshole, but I have a life away from the computer, while you sit your ass down eating chips feeling like the almighty (in your own little world of course). Enjoy life.

Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

Way to answer that one Senator.

(esp that pillow muncher gymoor).

"Pillow muncher!" ROFLMAO!!!!! OMG! LOL!

Hey ass-hat, I didn't want to clog the thread, but I did read each plan in depth as you say. His plans may look nice, but where the fuck is he going to find the money for them all? Increase the taxes on the wealthy? How will he get anything done as he will be absent most of the time anyway? Going to take a lot more then that numb-skull.

Well, I'm sure since you read all his plans, you saw the part that lists how much each spending cut will be worth and how much his spending additions will be. Your further banal comments only serve to reinforce your nearly pre-literate misconceptions of what constitutes an argument. Yes, he will roll back tax cuts to 2000 levels on those making over $200,000. He's said that many times. And as for his "absence", I presume you're talking about how he's missed time because of campaigning. I recall a certain president that took more vacation time than any other right AFTER he was elected, when campaigning couldn't possibly be a reason. I just love your hypocritical, short-memory stances on these things. The phrase ass-hat is just too ironic.

Why do I need respect on the internet? Esp on a silly website like this one. I'm sure everyone on here is super smart, super rich, not-gay, and take themselves way too seriously (esp that pillow muncher gymoor).

You don't need respect anywhere. You certainly don't have it here. But you seem to feel the need to spend time trying to convince people. You're doing a piss poor job of it.

Get over yourself loser! I may be an asshole, but I have a life away from the computer, while you sit your ass down eating chips feeling like the almighty (in your own little world of course). Enjoy life.

Again, ad homs with no basis. I enjoy political discussions of all varieties (not that your infantile rantings count as discussions), and I engage in them in internet forums, in real life, in lots of contexts. I'm also mature enough to realize that while people don't always agree with me, productive political understanding doesn't happen in an environment when children like to be e-thugs behind the safety of a computer screen. If you behave like this in normal life (which I highly doubt you do), you undoubtedly are doing this because you have to vent your anger at nobody liking you. I do enjoy life...are you sure you're not projecting? It certainly seems that way from your posts. Have a nice day.

Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

Way to answer that one Senator.

Seems like he answered it pretty solidly to me. Maybe you wanna point out what you think is poor about the answer?

Gronde, your analysis of his plans is extremely simplistic. I assume you mean by his "tax hike" that you're referring to the Bush campaign's claim that he will raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses. If you paid attention to the analysis during the debates and afterward, you undoubtedly realize that the Republican definition of "small business" would include Bush himself, Dick Cheney, members of any large law firm or partnership, and lots of other wealthy individuals as well. Those are not the "job creators" that we should be concerned with. New jobs tax credits, cutting corporate taxes by 5%...these things are outlined pretty clearly in his plan (assuming you read the actual detailed plans instead of the blurbs on the main page - check out the PDF documents on the right hand side of the page about economy & jobs). He also details how the increased spending would be paid for by the rollback of tax cuts and other spending cuts. Now, you can disagree whether or not he can effectively do that, but he certainly spells out answers to your questions, which you apparently still haven't read.

I didn't see that, thank you. I checked it out, I read it, I considered it. (I'm not closed-minded) I must admit that some of his ideas make sense, such as the tax credits for companies who employ workers in the US. However, when combined with his other policies, it will only damage our economy. Kerry is looking after the worker's side of America, but not the consumer half. By raising taxes on the largest businesses, the largest employers, unless they keep a large ammount of jobs in the country will only raise the price of goods.

So lets take a middle class family. Yay, they get a tax cut. (Technically they wont, it will just seem like it because those wealthier than them will get a tax hike) But lets be optomistic. Now, lets me frank here; humans are greedy, especially those in large corporations. The large corporations will lose money either way. They either deal with the increase in taxes if they continue with what they are doing, or they bring jobs back to this country and deal with the increased minimum wage and regulations of doing business here. So either way, they lose money. So, what do the greedy corporations do, they raise prices. Now, lets return to the happy middle class familly. They may be saving money on taxes, but their living costs will go way up, due to the increase in the price of goods. Lets face it people, big business makes the world go 'round. The only other way is communism. So, can someone show me how they will benifit? I can't see it. Kerry's plan will only cause inflation to spin out of controll and destroy what little industrialization that we have left.

Now, moving back to the good side. I agree that spending loopholes should be closed and a cap should be put on government spending. But closing the loopholes (assuming that it makes it past the senate) wont be enough to make up for all the new spending that Kerry proposed in the debate. (I don't know about you, but all I heard asside from "I have a plan" is all the funding increases that Kerry proposed) But again, lets be positive, we will have a great socialist health care system.

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**
which is why the unemployment was in the 3% under clinton and 5% under bush. tax breaks make countries boom and super increase employment and tax hikes destroy jobs.

Hey ass-hat, I didn't want to clog the thread, but I did read each plan in depth as you say. His plans may look nice, but where the fuck is he going to find the money for them all? Increase the taxes on the wealthy? How will he get anything done as he will be absent most of the time anyway? Going to take a lot more then that numb-skull.
lets see? ad hominem AND post hoc ergo proctor hoc. brilliant 2 fallacies for the price of one, and the latter serves to invalidate your ENTIRE argument. bravisimo

Why do I need respect on the internet? Esp on a silly website like this one. I'm sure everyone on here is super smart, super rich, not-gay, and take themselves way too seriously (esp that pillow muncher gymoor).
ANOTHER ad hominem

Get over yourself loser! I may be an asshole, but I have a life away from the computer, while you sit your ass down eating chips feeling like the almighty (in your own little world of course). Enjoy life.
oh come on i dont even get this much action with ad hominems

Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

Way to answer that one Senator.
ooh ooh even better this time, you ignore a relevant fact to make a straw man of something

Chess, wasn't it you yourself that said ad hominems weren't really that bad... :p

Chess, wasn't it you yourself that said ad hominems weren't really that bad... :p
it takes me several posts to get that many

which is why the unemployment was in the 3% under clinton and 5% under bush. tax breaks make countries boom and super increase employment and tax hikes destroy jobs.
Kerry is planning both. . .lol.
Anyways, a 2% change is not a huge thing when you consider a few things. Before GWB even got into office, the bubble of the 90's burst and the stock market began to decline. Also, 9-11 hurt the economy. The stock trade was frozen for days and airlines were shut down. It changed the nature of our economy and businesses became more carefull with their expansion. Finally, many of the jobs that Clinton created were government jobs, not actuall jobs that contribute to the economy. Givin this, I think a 5% unemployment rate is preaty good.

Kerry is planning both. . .lol.
Anyways, a 2% change is not a huge thing when you consider a few things. Before GWB even got into office, the bubble of the 90's burst and the stock market began to decline. Also, 9-11 hurt the economy. The stock trade was frozen for days and airlines were shut down. It changed the nature of our economy and businesses became more carefull with their expansion. Finally, many of the jobs that Clinton created were government jobs, not actuall jobs that contribute to the economy. Givin this, I think a 5% unemployment rate is preaty good.
It should be a .2% change though. The time during the Clinton admin where it was in the 3% range was at the very end of his second term, whereas if you look at Bush's term now and Clinton's corresponding numbers, the difference is .2% - 5.4% for Bush in Sept '04 and 5.2% for Clinton in Sept '96.

we can't win the War on Terror.

would love to hear opinions on how exactly we can win "The War On Terror" (or T.W.A.T.).

Tbh it should be called The War On Some Terror, seeing as such charming souls as the leader of Azerbaijan are included in the Coalition Of The Willing. And he likes to boil people alive.

Hey ass-hat, I didn't want to clog the thread, but I did read each plan in depth as you say. His plans may look nice, but where the fuck is he going to find the money for them all? Increase the taxes on the wealthy? How will he get anything done as he will be absent most of the time anyway? Going to take a lot more then that numb-skull.

Why do I need respect on the internet? Esp on a silly website like this one. I'm sure everyone on here is super smart, super rich, not-gay, and take themselves way too seriously (esp that pillow muncher gymoor).

Get over yourself loser! I may be an asshole, but I have a life away from the computer, while you sit your ass down eating chips feeling like the almighty (in your own little world of course). Enjoy life.

Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

Way to answer that one Senator.


Wow. Abusive. Incorrect. Short-sighted. Stupid. You, sir are everything I see as being wrong with America today. Republican insistence on short-changing education has clouded your mind. You accuse me of being a pillow-muncher, while at the same time you enjoy the carnal knowledge of a goats posterior.

Anyway, I don't take myself too seriously, I merely give the politics of the day the due research they deserve. You, on the other hand, intentionall keep yourself ignorant and continue to support a regime that has been clearly shown to be harmful to the health of America.

I'm sorry if my words come off as if I think I'm almighty. Maybe long words are intimidating to you? Should I dumb-down my speech like Bush apparently does, just so you can understand?

It should be a .2% change though. The time during the Clinton admin where it was in the 3% range was at the very end of his second term, whereas if you look at Bush's term now and Clinton's corresponding numbers, the difference is .2% - 5.4% for Bush in Sept '04 and 5.2% for Clinton in Sept '96.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but what you said made little sense to me. If you could re-write that in a way that is gramatically correct and makes sense, I would appriciate it. I think you are talking about the changes in unemployment rates during Clintons term. If this is the case, then your claims have no weight because nothing like 9-11 happened during Clintons term. Anyways, elaborate your post a little for me, please.

I didn't see that, thank you. I checked it out, I read it, I considered it. (I'm not closed-minded) I must admit that some of his ideas make sense, such as the tax credits for companies who employ workers in the US. However, when combined with his other policies, it will only damage our economy. Kerry is looking after the worker's side of America, but not the consumer half. By raising taxes on the largest businesses, the largest employers, unless they keep a large ammount of jobs in the country will only raise the price of goods.

I think there are a couple inconsistencies in this argument. I believe the Bush campaign is the one that is very fond of saying 7 in 10 new jobs are created by small businesses. Hence, the big corporations are the engines of growth for the economy. Additionally, his plan seems to indicate a 5% corporate tax cut, which is the opposite of an increase in taxes. If you can point me to something that says he will increase taxes on businesses (other than businesses that ship jobs out of the US), I'd appreciate it. Additionally, the other tax credits he plans (college tax credits, increasing child tax credits for families) seem to be capable of offsetting any increase in the price of some goods and services. At least I've seen no economic analysis that indicates that consumer power would drop.

So lets take a middle class family. Yay, they get a tax cut. (Technically they wont, it will just seem like it because those wealthier than them will get a tax hike) But lets be optomistic. Now, lets me frank here; humans are greedy, especially those in large corporations. The large corporations will lose money either way. They either deal with the increase in taxes if they continue with what they are doing, or they bring jobs back to this country and deal with the increased minimum wage and regulations of doing business here. So either way, they lose money. So, what do the greedy corporations do, they raise prices. Now, lets return to the happy middle class familly. They may be saving money on taxes, but their living costs will go way up, due to the increase in the price of goods. Lets face it people, big business makes the world go 'round. The only other way is communism. So, can someone show me how they will benifit? I can't see it. Kerry's plan will only cause inflation to spin out of controll and destroy what little industrialization that we have left.

Okay, I disagree about them just not getting a tax hike. I outlined above a couple of the things that will give middle class consumers an actual tax cut, not just exemption from an increase. Additionally, increasing minimum wage increases buying power, but Kerry has a plan to offset the increased cost to business, by providing health care. Think about the savings corporations would have if they no longer had to provide health coverage for all their employees. Health insurance premiums are one of the most significant costs in overall labor expenditures for companies, which would be a huge relief for them, and would keep them from having to raise prices (or at least severely mitigate the impacts you claim from Kerry's increased minimum wage and other policies). I think your claims of economic devastation are extremely exaggerated.

Now, moving back to the good side. I agree that spending loopholes should be closed and a cap should be put on government spending. But closing the loopholes (assuming that it makes it past the senate) wont be enough to make up for all the new spending that Kerry proposed in the debate. (I don't know about you, but all I heard asside from "I have a plan" is all the funding increases that Kerry proposed) But again, lets be positive, we will have a great socialist health care system.

Health care being "socialist" isn't the evil that you would like it to be. I've outlined above how it would stimulate economic growth due to the relief it would provide companies that give health care to their employees. Additionally, all the benefits you outline would still be benefits. Now, what the Congress does is obviously not Kerry's fault...if the House doesn't pass his proposals, then maybe you should think about voting out your partisan Republican legislators if Kerry's plan isn't passed.

Hey! I know how to build a catapault! :D

A valuable life skill. :)

I think there are a couple inconsistencies in this argument. I believe the Bush campaign is the one that is very fond of saying 7 in 10 new jobs are created by small businesses. Hence, the big corporations are the engines of growth for the economy. Additionally, his plan seems to indicate a 5% corporate tax cut, which is the opposite of an increase in taxes. If you can point me to something that says he will increase taxes on businesses (other than businesses that ship jobs out of the US), I'd appreciate it. Additionally, the other tax credits he plans (college tax credits, increasing child tax credits for families) seem to be capable of offsetting any increase in the price of some goods and services. At least I've seen no economic analysis that indicates that consumer power would drop.


I didn't say that consumer power would drop. I think that you have mis-interperated much of my post. I highlighted the good parts about Kerry's plan, but I still have doubt about if he will deliver on them. Besides, if what you say is true, and corporations will not be getting a tax hike, then how will Kerry even come close to paying for all his wonderfull plans?


Okay, I disagree about them just not getting a tax hike. I outlined above a couple of the things that will give middle class consumers an actual tax cut, not just exemption from an increase. Additionally, increasing minimum wage increases buying power, but Kerry has a plan to offset the increased cost to business, by providing health care. Think about the savings corporations would have if they no longer had to provide health coverage for all their employees. Health insurance premiums are one of the most significant costs in overall labor expenditures for companies, which would be a huge relief for them, and would keep them from having to raise prices (or at least severely mitigate the impacts you claim from Kerry's increased minimum wage and other policies). I think your claims of economic devastation are extremely exaggerated.


Again, I acknowledged that in his plan, he promised a tax cut to the middle class, I just, as I said above, expressed my doubt on the side of whether this will happen or not. But the bottom line is, businesses are going to lose money under Kerry's plan. Providing health care and tax incentives will not offset the increased costs of regulations and minimum wage. Prices will increase. At best, only inflation might get worse. What Kerry needs to realize is that our economy is not the same as it was in the 60's and 70's. You can't get a good job without an education. I fear that Kerry's plan will make our general educational level go backwards and decrease the number of students going on to college.

[/quote]


Health care being "socialist" isn't the evil that you would like it to be. I've outlined above how it would stimulate economic growth due to the relief it would provide companies that give health care to their employees. Additionally, all the benefits you outline would still be benefits. Now, what the Congress does is obviously not Kerry's fault...if the House doesn't pass his proposals, then maybe you should think about voting out your partisan Republican legislators if Kerry's plan isn't passed.

He plans to take a private industry and make it a government monopoly. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with communism. You would have to consider my mentality. I do not want the government controlling the pharmaceutical*industry. There is too much room for corruption and something like that does not belong in a capitalist society. If you want government health care for free, move to Cuba.

Sure what he says sounds good, but if you look at what the price of his programs will cost, you realize its not as good as it sounds.

Quick question, because this line of thinking disturbs me.

Which is better for our economy and nation as a whole:

A. A "Tax and Spend" Liberal

B. A "Spend and Spend (and spend and spend)" 'Conservative'.

While I certainly can't ever see myself aggreeing with the first, as a 'fiscal conservative' libertarian, I see the second as a disaster waiting to happen. (More accurately, a disaster heading this way on rails at Mach 2.) Insolvency isn't something to be strived for, and long term deficits ALWAYS lead to insolvency.

How will he get anything done as he will be absent most of the time anyway? Going to take a lot more then that numb-skull.

Please tell me a Bush fan didn't just say that.

I find it most reassuring that the vast number of ad hominem attacks against Kerry (waffler, absentee, service in 'nam) are much worse when applied to Bush.

I didn't see that, thank you. I checked it out, I read it, I considered it. (I'm not closed-minded) I must admit that some of his ideas make sense, such as the tax credits for companies who employ workers in the US. However, when combined with his other policies, it will only damage our economy. Kerry is looking after the worker's side of America, but not the consumer half. By raising taxes on the largest businesses, the largest employers, unless they keep a large ammount of jobs in the country will only raise the price of goods.

Last I checked (and it's even a Republican talking point), the majority of Americans are employed by Small businesses (companies with less than 2,000 employees) and not major corporations. Also, most new jobs are created by small businesses. It seams that trying to benefit them over major corporations is likely to create more jobs than the inverse. Also, the workers are the consumers.

So lets take a middle class family. Yay, they get a tax cut. (Technically they wont, it will just seem like it because those wealthier than them will get a tax hike) But lets be optomistic. Now, lets me frank here; humans are greedy, especially those in large corporations. The large corporations will lose money either way. They either deal with the increase in taxes if they continue with what they are doing, or they bring jobs back to this country and deal with the increased minimum wage and regulations of doing business here. So either way, they lose money. So, what do the greedy corporations do, they raise prices. Now, lets return to the happy middle class familly. They may be saving money on taxes, but their living costs will go way up, due to the increase in the price of goods. Lets face it people, big business makes the world go 'round. The only other way is communism. So, can someone show me how they will benifit? I can't see it. Kerry's plan will only cause inflation to spin out of controll and destroy what little industrialization that we have left.

The last 4 years have seen dramatic increases in the costs of living for most americans. The war in Iraq is a major contributor to the almost doubling of the price of a gallon of gas here. Many other staple products (like milk) have seen similar price increases. Those trends are likely to continue whether or not either candidate gets elected. Inflation is already out of control, and industrialization stopped mattering economically as soon as everyone figured out how to build in third world countries.

Also, as above, Large corporations are not the focus of the job creation and revenue generation in JK's plan. By lowering the cost of health care, the prospectus of starting or working for a small business becomes a much more viable option for those who now work for or just got dismissed from the mega-corps. By giving tax cuts to thos same small companies, they are better able to hire more people.

Big business is not the end-all be all of capitalism. In fact, all the rampant cronyism that has gone on in this admisitration has caused a definate shift from capitalism into economic authoritarianism.

Now, moving back to the good side. I agree that spending loopholes should be closed and a cap should be put on government spending. But closing the loopholes (assuming that it makes it past the senate) wont be enough to make up for all the new spending that Kerry proposed in the debate. (I don't know about you, but all I heard asside from "I have a plan" is all the funding increases that Kerry proposed) But again, lets be positive, we will have a great socialist health care system.

If you believe those loopholes should be closed and a cap put on spending, you are backing the wrong horse. Bush's record of fiscal responsibility speaks for itself, and if I had no other reason, would be reason enough for me personally to never place my vote for him again. I may be stuck with 'tax and spend' versus 'spend and spend', but the choice seems obvious to me.

If he would have spelled out his plan, you would instead be bitching that he was "longwinded and boring" or that he only gave half of it out. And next week, two words from the plan would have been taken out of context and now be being used as an ad for the right, or one more phrase for Bush to memorize and repeat ad naseum in the next debate. The guy can't win with you. You probably made up your mind before the election even started. That is your right of course, but it's a bit misleading to make it out like it's Kerry's fault.

What Kerry needs to realize is that our economy is not the same as it was in the 60's and 70's. You can't get a good job without an education. I fear that Kerry's plan will make our general educational level go backwards and decrease the number of students going on to college.

Wait a minute. Could you please repeat that? Of the two, Kerry is the only one proposing increasing college tax credits, and incentives for individuals to go/go back to school. How on earth could he be the one to decrease college attendance?

He plans to take a private industry and make it a government monopoly. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with communism. You would have to consider my mentality. I do not want the government controlling the pharmaceutical*industry. There is too much room for corruption and something like that does not belong in a capitalist society. If you want government health care for free, move to Cuba.

No, the plan I read made some health care available, but it didn't preclude there being Inusurance companies, or preventing them in any way from competing with each other, or the government for customers. How is it a monopoly, by definition?

And second question, and I say this being both an investor in and former employee of the pharmaceutical industry, have you not looked at the industry at all? They are corrupt now. Having an independent third party come in and say, "hey guys, come on now, this advertising scheme you got going is a bit extreme, and you're selling snake oil and need to stop." is a good thing at this point.

Or you could move to canada, where it actually works, but that's beside the point right, you wanted to paint all socialist policies as being the bottom rung of the third world barrel didn't you?

Good god, man, you posted 4 times in a row. Chill.

Anyways, the reason that Kerry's plan will cause a decrease in the number of college students is because he is trying to force employers to keep low education jobs in the country. Thus, the incentive to get an education is lost. College credits may help, but I don't think it will be enough. As I have said time and time again, I like parts of Kerry's plan and I am sure that he meens well, but it can't work. For 1, how does he plan on paying for all of his great plans if he is also going to cut taxes and provide great tax incentives? It just doesn't work. Sure, he plans on closing loopholes, but there are not enough loopholes to offset Kerry's proposed spending. I'm just not sure of where he is getting the money from. With my knowledge of the human condition, I believe that most manufacturers would rathar keep their workers in other countries and raise the price of goods instead. Thus, they continue to make the same amount of money and wont need to deal with American regulations. Please understand that I am not a "closed minded anti-Kerry Bush supporter," I considered Kerry's plan. I just followed logic through and quickly realized that it doesn't add up. (quite literally) Some parts are good, but many parts are bad.

Good god, man, you posted 4 times in a row. Chill.

I tend to read threads I find interesting one post at a time, and rebut statements as I come to them. With really active threads, it works out pretty well, but if I catch it in a lull, I end up with 3 or 10 posts in a row, and it looks like I am being dogmatic, when I am really just playing catchup.

Anyways, the reason that Kerry's plan will cause a decrease in the number of college students is because he is trying to force employers to keep low education jobs in the country. Thus, the incentive to get an education is lost. College credits may help, but I don't think it will be enough.

The jobs that are currently leaving this country by the plane load, are software development and other white-collar type 'information handling' jobs. While I don't see his plan stopping this trend entirely (as the difference in paying me $40/hr and my friend in India $6/hr are too great to be made up entirely for in the closing of tax loopholes) it will definately slow things down. Thereby increasing the incentive for young people to go to college (as there is more likelyhood of a paying job on the other side).

You may be right in that it may not be enough, but how can you honestly say that no effort is better than some effort with a straight face?

As I have said time and time again, I like parts of Kerry's plan and I am sure that he meens well, but it can't work.

I think it can, though likely won't, but that is my opinion.

For 1, how does he plan on paying for all of his great plans if he is also going to cut taxes and provide great tax incentives? It just doesn't work.Sure, he plans on closing loopholes, but there are not enough loopholes to offset Kerry's proposed spending. I'm just not sure of where he is getting the money from.

By greatly reducing non-defense discretionary spending. Something that Bush happened to have doubled in his four years in office. Something that the conservative congress worked very hard to lower under clinton, all of which is now wasted, along with most of my good faith for the republican party.

With my knowledge of the human condition, I believe that most manufacturers would rathar keep their workers in other countries and raise the price of goods instead. Thus, they continue to make the same amount of money and wont need to deal with American regulations.

Of course they will. Big 'heartless' corporations do that. But Kerry's plan, if you had read it, isn't trying to get the plastic-whistle-toy-manufacturer jobs back. It's trying to prevent the massive hemorrahging that is going on in the intelligence services industry, and trying to increase growth in the small business sector. Neither of those things are entirely (or even mostly) about how uber-corps handle their minions or set their prices. Little can be done in that regard.

Please understand that I am not a "closed minded anti-Kerry Bush supporter," I considered Kerry's plan. I just followed logic through and quickly realized that it doesn't add up. (quite literally) Some parts are good, but many parts are bad.

Here's the difference:

Kerry's plan = Add $4 in new/restructured taxes, take away $6 in new spending. Net loss $2.

Bush's plan = Subtract $.50 from lower and middle class tax brackets and $5 from the highest 1%, take away an additional $14 in new spending. Net loss $19.50.

Which do you think will bankrupt us first?

I am not saying that you are definately close minded, but by refusing to compare the two plans and doing nothing but badmouthing the mistakes of one of them, while ignoring the same/worse mistakes in the other, definately paints you as such.

I didn't say that consumer power would drop. I think that you have mis-interperated much of my post. I highlighted the good parts about Kerry's plan, but I still have doubt about if he will deliver on them. Besides, if what you say is true, and corporations will not be getting a tax hike, then how will Kerry even come close to paying for all his wonderfull plans?

I haven't misinterpreted much, I don't think. Your doubts about whether he will deliver are fine. But you ask questions like "where will he get the money?" He says where. If you don't believe him, that's fine, but then you have to present evidence that he won't do those cuts. I haven't seen you do that so far.

And again, he outlines all of his proposed spending cuts and tax rollbacks on his website. The largest chunk of the money will come from rolling back the income tax cuts on people making over $200,000. http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf - go to page 8.

Again, I acknowledged that in his plan, he promised a tax cut to the middle class, I just, as I said above, expressed my doubt on the side of whether this will happen or not. But the bottom line is, businesses are going to lose money under Kerry's plan. Providing health care and tax incentives will not offset the increased costs of regulations and minimum wage. Prices will increase. At best, only inflation might get worse. What Kerry needs to realize is that our economy is not the same as it was in the 60's and 70's. You can't get a good job without an education. I fear that Kerry's plan will make our general educational level go backwards and decrease the number of students going on to college.

This has already been answered, but I'll sum up.

1. We're losing jobs now. Bush is the first president in 72 years to have a net job loss over his first 4 years.
2. Kerry is giving tax credits to people to go to college.
3. Kerry is providing incentives for businesses to keep jobs here (increasing taxes on companies that move jobs overseas and providing health care are just two examples)
4. Bush is planning...? *crickets chirping*

He plans to take a private industry and make it a government monopoly. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with communism. You would have to consider my mentality. I do not want the government controlling the pharmaceutical*industry. There is too much room for corruption and something like that does not belong in a capitalist society. If you want government health care for free, move to Cuba.

1. Claiming that there's more corruption in government than in business is silly. The health industry already has a wealth of unhanged scoundrels in it.
2. Calling Kerry's health care plan "communist" is absolutely absurd. I wish it were completely socialized, but Kerry doesn't go nearly that far. What it does is institute credits for certain things, help defray the extreme costs of some cases and attempts to keep premiums down for everyone. If you can point to the communist parts of Kerry's plan, I'll be happy to listen. But until then, it just seems like you're saying what it seems like, not what it is.

Is it so cunning that you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel and so cunning that it has just been made Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

Argh, two people replying to my posts at once. I will have to change format.

Money source for new spending and its economic effect on our country: He says that he will raise taxes (or "roll back the tax cuts") for those making over 200,000. I must say that it does not seem difficult for "small" businesses to make over that. Even if most don't (I'm really not sure what the average income for small businesses is, and I don't pretend to know), it will decrease the incentive for small businesses to expand. However, as we have touched on already, the employer tax incentive plan will help offset the tax hike on businesses, assuming they employ workers here, in the US. So the two possible options are: businesses are hurt and the prices for goods and services increase; or there will not be enough revenue generated to fund all of Kerry's spending. Granted, he is claims that he will work to close spending loopholes and -- *gasp* -- make the government more efficient. This is well and good, but I don't think that it will be enough to pay for plans that could bankrupt America.

Kerry's health care plan: This is the main problem that I have with Kerry's overall plan. If you like socialized health care, move to Cuba. I know that the health industry is corrupt, but Kerry's health plan could completely destroy a profitable (I agree that it may be too profitable, though) industry. Not only will it cost far too much money, it will be open to abuse by citizens. There is no cap on it. Also, as corrupt as the health industry is, I trust our government even less. To put something as important as health care into government hands gives them far to much power and will only lead to totalitarianism. Think about it, once to drug companies go out of business, the government will be in sole controll of pharmicutical drugs. Not good. I prefer Bush's idea of allowing generic drugs to be manufactured earlier. This keeps the health industry in the private sector, right where it belongs in a capitalist society, but still helps provide competative prices. Granted, I do wish that we could import drugs from Canada, another thing that I do agree with Kerry about. However, I think that it would work better to allow them in, but with temporary trade tariffs. This would provide low cost drugs, but would allow American companies to step up their game a little and become competative without being completely blown away in the first year.

*Sigh* If only there was some middle ground.
I am impressed by the civil manner of this descussion.

Argh, two people replying to my posts at once. I will have to change format.

Money source for new spending and its economic effect on our country: He says that he will raise taxes (or "roll back the tax cuts") for those making over 200,000. I must say that it does not seem difficult for "small" businesses to make over that. Even if most don't (I'm really not sure what the average income for small businesses is, and I don't pretend to know), it will decrease the incentive for small businesses to expand. However, as we have touched on already, the employer tax incentive plan will help offset the tax hike on businesses, assuming they employ workers here, in the US. So the two possible options are: businesses are hurt and the prices for goods and services increase; or there will not be enough revenue generated to fund all of Kerry's spending. Granted, he is claims that he will work to close spending loopholes and -- *gasp* -- make the government more efficient. This is well and good, but I don't think that it will be enough to pay for plans that could bankrupt America.
oh please, bankrupt america my ass. you do realise that bush has cut taxes and spent billions of dollars PER MONTH on the iraqi war, and thats iraqi war alone

Kerry's health care plan: This is the main problem that I have with Kerry's overall plan. If you like socialized health care, move to Cuba. I know that the health industry is corrupt, but Kerry's health plan could completely destroy a profitable (I agree that it may be too profitable, though) industry. Not only will it cost far too much money, it will be open to abuse by citizens. There is no cap on it. Also, as corrupt as the health industry is, I trust our government even less. To put something as important as health care into government hands gives them far to much power and will only lead to totalitarianism. Think about it, once to drug companies go out of business, the government will be in sole controll of pharmicutical drugs. Not good. I prefer Bush's idea of allowing generic drugs to be manufactured earlier. This keeps the health industry in the private sector, right where it belongs in a capitalist society, but still helps provide competative prices. Granted, I do wish that we could import drugs from Canada, another thing that I do agree with Kerry about. However, I think that it would work better to allow them in, but with temporary trade tariffs. This would provide low cost drugs, but would allow American companies to step up their game a little and become competative without being completely blown away in the first year.

*Sigh* If only there was some middle ground.
I am impressed by the civil manner of this descussion.

how iwll it destroy a profitable industry? well it would get rid of a pointless industry that likes sodomizing the american public. aka the health care industry

why would drug companies go out of business? taking over healthcare has nothing to do with drugs. sicne the fcc are a big corrupt bunch of nazis, drugs wont be costing much less

what asinine lunacy is that? make generic drugs earleir? that doesnt even make sense. guess what, we already have generic drugs for every high priced drug, BUT, the big drug companies pay off doctors and pharmacies to hawk THEIR products instead.

oh brilliant, letsp ut tariffs on drugs we are RE IMPORTING. guess what, canadains are using the same drugs you use but at a FRACTION of the price. the american totalitarian control over the drug industry protects them from any and all competition, the whoel idea of capitalism, thus letting them charge us whatever the hell they want.

your opinions are decent, you jsut have no idea what you are talking about

Boo Kerry Boo Bush


... Frankly we dont care, as long as we get what we want... or is it that?

If you actually gave a shit about the plan you would go and read it. The debates aren't supposed to give detailed policy plans, the idea is to tell the public what they will change and improve. Since he does have a plan this shouldn't be a problem, as the details will be worked out by qualified professionals. The American people are too full of biased propaganda and misconceptions to be simply given a full policy, and that is why we have an indirect democracy. Also, if he went into detail out in the open, the Republicans would be able to pick at his plan more readily(using soundbytes against him).

Stop nitpicking campaign strategy and talk about actual politics.


Ok you say he has a plan but what plan? Plan to tell people like PETA what he will do for them. Then turn around and tell Hunters and cattlemen what they want to hear. Those are examples of the plan? I have a plan too! Does that mean I should be running for president!!!!!

Campaign strategy my hind end. It's all smoke and mirrors!!!!! Once you work for a big Corpration you will see the same thing as what Kerry does. They say I have a plan too!!!!!

Telling me I have a plan go look on the internet, is like telling me you don't have jack. You just wanna be like slick Willy, don't answer the question redirect with stall tactics!!!!!

Ok you say he has a plan but what plan? Plan to tell people like PETA what he will do for them. Then turn around and tell Hunters and cattlemen what they want to hear. Those are examples of the plan? I have a plan too! Does that mean I should be running for president!!!!!

Campaign strategy my hind end. It's all smoke and mirrors!!!!! Once you work for a big Corpration you will see the same thing as what Kerry does. They say I have a plan too!!!!!

Telling me I have a plan go look on the internet, is like telling me you don't have jack. You just wanna be like slick Willy, don't answer the question redirect with stall tactics!!!!!

What plan does Bush have? You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but Kerry has articulated his plan much more thoroughly than Bush has.

The debates are not there for letting you know what their detailed plans are, they never were.

Now, a study was done (many here have seen it cited,) to see which candidate's supporters were genrally more well informed about their candidate's positions. It was found that, by a large margin, Kerry's supporters knew his policy much better than Bush's supporters knew their candidate's policies.

From this I can only conclude: If you don't know where Kerry stands, you simply haven't been paying attention. How about you go and look it up and stop depending on the nightly news to wipe your ass for you?

Sorry if that last sentence was offensive. It was meant to simulteneously be humorous and express my dissatisfaction with anyone who doesn't know, at this late date, where Kerry stands.

Again, if one pays attention, one clearly sees that the "flip-flopper" label is clearly a lie. The Bush campaign is depending on people's short memories.

I know exactly where Kerry stands, how come so many others don't?


This guy is hysterical!

He thinks Kerry being a flip flopper is a lie! Guess he hasn't been watching Kerry's interviews over the past year or so!!!!!

He voted to go to war because it was the right thing and needed to be done!!!!!

Then when someone starting rallying support from the voters he decides that Iraq was the wrong war wrong time!!!!!

WTF isn't that the biggest flip flop there is!!!!!!

Go ahead and tell me that isn't flip flopping!!!!!

I watched him say both statements with my own eyes and ears!

This guy is hysterical!

He thinks Kerry being a flip flopper is a lie! Guess he hasn't been watching Kerry's interviews over the past year or so!!!!!

He voted to go to war because it was the right thing and needed to be done!!!!!

Then when someone starting rallying support from the voters he decides that Iraq was the wrong war wrong time!!!!!

WTF isn't that the biggest flip flop there is!!!!!!

Go ahead and tell me that isn't flip flopping!!!!!

I watched him say both statements with my own eyes and ears!

What's so wrong about politicians changing their mind?

I guess you are happy with the staus quo then and are unwilling to check out the alternatives?

Staus Quo:

Failed domestic policies.

Failed foreign policies.

Failed war on terrorism.

Failed economic policies.

Four more years of status quo? Enjoy. :eek:

Funny thing we are still there hunting him huh!!!!!

Oh please. The SUV and gun things aren't even as big a deal as Bush lying about the $84 he got from a timber company that officially classified him as a small business.

Wrong War Wrong Time? I know exactly what he means by that, especially because I pay attention to all the other words he uses around those four words. The war was rushed into without proper planning, support or legitimacy. Besides, it's Bush who has repeated that line ad nauseum. How can you possibly get a clear picture of what Kerry said by only listening to the man desperately trying to discredit him?

I also Know whay Kerry means by "I would still vote for it." See, I pay attention. He clearly stated that the authorization was the right tool to give the president in order to move the talks forward. He stated clearly in his speech on october 9th 2002 that the authorization was only to be used if the President used up all other options and had created a strong alliance. It's all right there in Kerry's speech, way back in 2002, which I created a forum about: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

Read that and tell me Kerry's stance on Iraq wasn't clear. Furthermore, tell me, in which way, his position has changed (aside from the fact of acknowledging the newer, more accurate information that Iraq had no WMD.)

It's Bush who has confused you as to Kerry's position. It's Bush who sews confusion. Perhaps you should stop believing everything you hear from that confirmed liar. You've seen Kerry and Bush face to face now, and you still want to say that Kerry speaks less clearly?

sand, meet head.

Well the vote they had was to go to war, not talk and play jacks!!!!!

The intelligence came from Britain, the government all had their say and voted to go to war on Iraq. Now Kerry is trying to use the No WMD's in Iraq as reason enough why he was against the war that he voted for!

Well guess what if everyone had known then what they know now we wouldn't be there!!!!!

Well the vote they had was to go to war, not talk and play jacks!!!!!

The intelligence came from Britain, the government all had their say and voted to go to war on Iraq. Now Kerry is trying to use the No WMD's in Iraq as reason enough why he was against the war that he voted for!

Well guess what if everyone had known then what they know now we wouldn't be there!!!!!
1) there was no declaration of war
2) there was no vote to go to war

do some research before looking like an idiot at least

This guy is hysterical!

He thinks Kerry being a flip flopper is a lie! Guess he hasn't been watching Kerry's interviews over the past year or so!!!!!

He voted to go to war because it was the right thing and needed to be done!!!!!

Then when someone starting rallying support from the voters he decides that Iraq was the wrong war wrong time!!!!!

WTF isn't that the biggest flip flop there is!!!!!!

Go ahead and tell me that isn't flip flopping!!!!!

I watched him say both statements with my own eyes and ears!

I have watched Kerry, not only that, but I review the actual transcripts of what he says. He has not flip-flopped. What you saw with your eyes and ears were edited snippets designed by the Bush administration to make you think Kerry flip-flopped.

Also, according to the words of both Kerry and Bush on the day of the war authorization vote, it was NOT a vote to go to war.

I don't find you funny, I find you tragic, because you have been misled and refuse to replace your disinformation with information.

Also, know that the sites I cite from are not conspiracy theory sites. They are cspan, factcheck.org, whitehouse.gov and johnkerry.com (yes, I know, it's Kerry's site, but he does list his entire 200 page military record, complete with after-action reports, against supposed popular wisdom.)

He thinks Kerry being a flip flopper is a lie! Guess he hasn't been watching Kerry's interviews over the past year or so!!!!!
obviously you havnt

He voted to go to war because it was the right thing and needed to be done!!!!!
there was no declaration of war nor was there a vote to go to war

Then when someone starting rallying support from the voters he decides that Iraq was the wrong war wrong time!!!!!
it was, pay attention

Actually, Bush's campaign recently has been "I'm not Kerry," simply because Bush has NOTHING to run on. On the other hand, I firmly support Kerry, because the man really has knowledge of how things work. He has NOT flip-flopped (please see the thread about that,) and he is extremely well spoken. The only reason he is depicted as unclear is because Bush has done a masterful job (thanks to Karl Rove,) of painting him as such.

Seriously, Bush's total plan, both domestically and abroad, has been "more of the same." Kerry makes excellent points, if people would just pay attention. Turn off Fox News, and stop listening to Bush's lies.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622 Thread contains direct quote from Kerry from October 9th, 2002. War Authorization Vote. Iron-clad proof of no flip-flop.

Yea turn off Fox News you might see Kerry say he's for something today and then tell you he is against it tomorrow!

I still don't see what's wrong with changing your mind...

Well the vote they had was to go to war, not talk and play jacks!!!!!

The intelligence came from Britain, the government all had their say and voted to go to war on Iraq. Now Kerry is trying to use the No WMD's in Iraq as reason enough why he was against the war that he voted for!

Well guess what if everyone had known then what they know now we wouldn't be there!!!!!

Except, if you read what was said on the day of the authorization vote, you would know that it wasn't a vote to go to war. The transcripts don't lie. Bush's "revisionist" history has altered facts to fit his current stance. Got to whitehouse.gov and look at Bush's own speech. Go to the Senate website and find the actual transcript of Kerry's speech, like I did. I also posted it here for anyone to see.

Kerry's stance, all along, has been that Saddam was indeed a threat, but not necessarily an imminent one. Saddam should be faced, but only after a true coalition was formed and a thorough investigation had been conducted. Going into Iraq as he did was not only a broken promise by Bush, but a horrible mistake.

Please find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it, or shut up. If you do find actual documentation, then I will shut up.

As you can see, I am still talking. Not one person has been able to refute this point with actual documentation.

Gronde, your analysis of his plans is extremely simplistic. I assume you mean by his "tax hike" that you're referring to the Bush campaign's claim that he will raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses. If you paid attention to the analysis during the debates and afterward, you undoubtedly realize that the Republican definition of "small business" would include Bush himself, Dick Cheney, members of any large law firm or partnership, and lots of other wealthy individuals as well. Those are not the "job creators" that we should be concerned with. New jobs tax credits, cutting corporate taxes by 5%...these things are outlined pretty clearly in his plan (assuming you read the actual detailed plans instead of the blurbs on the main page - check out the PDF documents on the right hand side of the page about economy & jobs). He also details how the increased spending would be paid for by the rollback of tax cuts and other spending cuts. Now, you can disagree whether or not he can effectively do that, but he certainly spells out answers to your questions, which you apparently still haven't read.


Ok lower taxes by 5% good.
Raise Minimum wage not sure about how much, but in Oklahoma you raise it $1 that would be 25% raise in minimum wage. Or another way to look at it is Rasie wages 25% so I can get a 5% tax reduction! Just looks bad to me!!!!!

Yea turn off Fox News you might see Kerry say he's for something today and then tell you he is against it tomorrow!

prove it.

accually if he could spell it out in 30 min and the discuss it with some one who is not going to loft soft ball questions to him about it for the next 30 min that would be an hr long show I would watch

even doing 6 10 min back and forths about parts of his plan would be even better

So let me be clear about what you're asking for-
You want the Kerry plan, but you don't want to hear it from Kerry unless he can articulate it in under two minutes while answering questions in a debate. If he can't do it there, then you want the plan to be given to you by a third party and will not look at it if it actually comes from Kerry...because it's not verbalised in a two minute debate segment. Is that what you are asking for? Has Bush really done that for you?

why would drug companies go out of business? taking over healthcare has nothing to do with drugs. sicne the fcc are a big corrupt bunch of nazis, drugs wont be costing much less

what asinine lunacy is that? make generic drugs earleir? that doesnt even make sense. guess what, we already have generic drugs for every high priced drug, BUT, the big drug companies pay off doctors and pharmacies to hawk THEIR products instead.



Nope nope every high price drug but many!

Now lets look at make generic drugs earlier? : Ok let see I am a Big drug company, I spent 1 year, 10 years or longer producing a drug, going thru the FDA testing to get approval to sell their drug. I can sell this drug exclusively for 5 years. Now you tell me you want to shorten my time to make money. Guess what will happen. New drugs will no longer be made.

What no one believes me! Ask someone why there are only 2 companies making the flu vaccine. Ask your local hospital why they don't have Compazine. Just ask them why they have a shortage of any drug.

What i liked about that debate is, John Kerry stared into the camera and told the United States "i will not raise your taxes", then fifteen minutes later he's talking about his healthcare plan *cough*bullshit*cough* and says that he will have to raise taxes to fund his plan. I swear he suffers from short term memory loss, lol what a moron.

But the plan i love to bash the most is his plan for iraq. "i will bring more allies" lol yea right! GET A CLUE! "France, i know you made billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein, you said if i were elected you still wouldnt send troops, but i beg that you join my "great diversion" and "colossal mistake" your my friend right? LETS HOLD A SUMMIT, im sure that'll convince you!" LOL, what an ass. He criticizes and insults the allies we have now so he doesnt have their favor and he wants to bring in allies to a cause he doesnt support and his allies are anti-american. What a jackass lol.

What i liked about that debate is, John Kerry stared into the camera and told the United States "i will not raise your taxes", then fifteen minutes later he's talking about his healthcare plan *cough*bullshit*cough* and says that he will have to raise taxes to fund his plan. I swear he suffers from short term memory loss, lol what a moron. Conscidering he had already explained earlier in the debate how he would be paying for the healthcare plan, I believe you may be the one suffering from short term memory loss.

What i liked about that debate is, John Kerry stared into the camera and told the United States "i will not raise your taxes", then fifteen minutes later he's talking about his healthcare plan *cough*bullshit*cough* and says that he will have to raise taxes to fund his plan. I swear he suffers from short term memory loss, lol what a moron.

But the plan i love to bash the most is his plan for iraq. "i will bring more allies" lol yea right! GET A CLUE! "France, i know you made billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein, you said if i were elected you still wouldnt send troops, but i beg that you join my "great diversion" and "colossal mistake" your my friend right? LETS HOLD A SUMMIT, im sure that'll convince you!" LOL, what an ass. He criticizes and insults the allies we have now so he doesnt have their favor and he wants to bring in allies to a cause he doesnt support and his allies are anti-american. What a jackass lol.


Guess what? 8 members of our coalition are leaving or have left. Yeah, Bush is doing a great job with our allies. Say goodbye to Poland soon!

What i liked about that debate is, John Kerry stared into the camera and told the United States "i will not raise your taxes", then fifteen minutes later he's talking about his healthcare plan *cough*bullshit*cough* and says that he will have to raise taxes to fund his plan. I swear he suffers from short term memory loss, lol what a moron.
*sounds the out of context alarm*
what he said was "i will not raise taxes [for people above 200k income]"

But the plan i love to bash the most is his plan for iraq. "i will bring more allies" lol yea right! GET A CLUE! "France, i know you made billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein, you said if i were elected you still wouldnt send troops, but i beg that you join my "great diversion" and "colossal mistake" your my friend right? LETS HOLD A SUMMIT, im sure that'll convince you!" LOL, what an ass. He criticizes and insults the allies we have now so he doesnt have their favor and he wants to bring in allies to a cause he doesnt support and his allies are anti-american. What a jackass lol.
rofl least he has a plan, what i bush's plan? hu hu i dotn need a plan we are doing great hu hu

Bush isn't telling you the truth. To give a few examples :
Bush had no idea what he was talking when asked about drug reimportation from Canada. In the first debate he said they're fighting the Saddam-loyalists and Bathists in Iraq. False. The few loyalists and bathists laid down their arms when they had nothing to fight for anymore. US troops are fighting against Shia muslims led by the radical Moqtata Al-Sadr. The shia muslims were oppressed by Saddam and they tried to overthrow him and now they are trying to liberate themselves from American rule. A poll was done in Iraq : 2% of Iraqis feel that Americans are liberating them. Over 13 000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. And only for oil. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Try to guess why people are anti-american...

Anyone is better than Bush and from what I have seen John Kerry is a good choice. Bush's only weapon is fear. He's trying to say that if he isn't reelected things will go bad. Or that his opponent doesnt have what it takes for the job. Hope and despair.

9/11 could have been stopped.

He probably couldn't. Most people, I would wager, either don't know what a tort is or don't care. Still, I don't want the pro's and con's of tort reform, I only wanted to know what he would do about it, personally, as President. This could've been done in 45 seconds. I think he was thrown off by the loaded question accusing John Edwards of moneygrubbing, and I can sympathize. But Bush got loaded questions all night and it didn't slow him down a bit, e.g. the Patriot Act question.


People talk about torts as though they're completely a bad thing. Tort litigation in the medical industry - Bush's chief example - really only does take up about 1% of the industry's capital movement. Don't forget that PRIVATE health care is a trillion dollar plus industry.

People talk about John Edwards making a lot of money suing large corporations that took advantage of people, or, more tellingly, made faulty products and lied about it. This is the same thing my father and my uncle make their money doing - suing large corporations that made faulty building materials and knew they were faulty, yet refuse to compensate the people made sick or who lost their homes because of them. These cases take YEARS to see through. How much is four of five years of your time worth? We're talking THOUSANDS of work-hours, and if you don't have a large firm (my father and uncle only have three associates), it takes up the majority of your time. I find it incomprehensible that someone in law school, as you purport to be, doesn't grasp that. Isn't torts a first year class? It is at NYU Law, if I remember correctly.

Your perception that intelligent plans on complex matters can be summed up in 45 seconds to 2 minutes is ridiculous in the extreme, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the very issues you want explained to you. Judging by the tone of your posts, you are disposed to view anything Kerry says with skepticism and hostility. I guess that means you're much more in favor of Bush's tautological statements - remember, Bush hasn't indicated that he has any plans either.

What i liked about that debate is, John Kerry stared into the camera and told the United States "i will not raise your taxes", then fifteen minutes later he's talking about his healthcare plan *cough*bullshit*cough* and says that he will have to raise taxes to fund his plan. I swear he suffers from short term memory loss, lol what a moron.


God, why do you inflict such moronic statements on me?

Kerry was asked if he would raise taxes on families making less than $200,000 a year, and he said "No." He said he would raise taxes on the top 2% of earners, which means anyone making about $250,000 plus a year in order to pay for his health plan. This makes PLENTY OF SENSE, nor is it hard to understand, and IT'S WHAT HE'S BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

If Kerry suffers from short term memory loss, then you suffer from selective hearing, dude.

The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget analysis arm of the legislative branch has stated that the grand total of Kerry's proposed plans will be significantly less than the $2.2 trillion Bush claims. In addition, they state that Bush's plans will cost an estimated minimum of $3 trillion DURING THE SAME PROJECTED TIME PERIOD.

Tell me again how Bush will save us money, or improve our economy, or how he's such a fiscal conservative?

Except, if you read what was said on the day of the authorization vote, you would know that it wasn't a vote to go to war. The transcripts don't lie. Bush's "revisionist" history has altered facts to fit his current stance. Got to whitehouse.gov and look at Bush's own speech. Go to the Senate website and find the actual transcript of Kerry's speech, like I did. I also posted it here for anyone to see.

Kerry's stance, all along, has been that Saddam was indeed a threat, but not necessarily an imminent one. Saddam should be faced, but only after a true coalition was formed and a thorough investigation had been conducted. Going into Iraq as he did was not only a broken promise by Bush, but a horrible mistake.

Please find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it, or shut up. If you do find actual documentation, then I will shut up.

As you can see, I am still talking. Not one person has been able to refute this point with actual documentation.

First you do need to shut up cause we can neither one find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it or proves it!!!!!

I have watched Kerry, not only that, but I review the actual transcripts of what he says. He has not flip-flopped. What you saw with your eyes and ears were edited snippets designed by the Bush administration to make you think Kerry flip-flopped.

Also, according to the words of both Kerry and Bush on the day of the war authorization vote, it was NOT a vote to go to war.

I don't find you funny, I find you tragic, because you have been misled and refuse to replace your disinformation with information.

Also, know that the sites I cite from are not conspiracy theory sites. They are cspan, factcheck.org, whitehouse.gov and johnkerry.com (yes, I know, it's Kerry's site, but he does list his entire 200 page military record, complete with after-action reports, against supposed popular wisdom.)

So tell me how live interviews of John Kerry (when I watched the interview!)are edited snippets!

I guess you are still denying the fact that the US governemnt declared war on terror. I guess that the whole senate Hillary included standing outside the whitehouse saying yes lets go to war is just all propaganda! Guess there were noe terrorists living in Iraq during the invasion!

April 16: U.S. forces capture Abu Abbas, a Palestinian terrorist living in Baghdad. Abbas is best-known as the leader of a group which hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. Abu Abbas later died in American captivity.

http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar2.html#gulfwar2type

So tell me how live interviews of John Kerry (when I watched the interview!)are edited snippets!

Fine, link such an interview. People's memories are faulty things. Usually one remembers what one wants to remember. Prove me wrong! Find the text! Be unique, since Not one single person has been able to provide an example. All I'm asking for here is proof. I've done the research myself, but there's always a chance I missed something. Prove it! Come on, you'll get popularity and noteriety for proving me wrong! Just find a transcript! Unlike many others, I welcome the idea of being proven wrong, since it means I will be closer to truth. I link articles and transcripts all the time! It's not hard.

Do you also believe in bigfoot? No proof for that either, but a lot of people fervently believe it. Maybe those people who remember seeing Elvis at a gas station are right too! No proof, but they say they remember it. People remember being abducted by aliens too. I guess their memory is 100% correct too.

To sum up: Prove it and I will heap praise upon you.

People, people, I complimented the civility of this descussion. Don't make me regret it.

oh please, bankrupt america my ass. you do realise that bush has cut taxes and spent billions of dollars PER MONTH on the iraqi war, and thats iraqi war alone



how iwll it destroy a profitable industry? well it would get rid of a pointless industry that likes sodomizing the american public. aka the health care industry

why would drug companies go out of business? taking over healthcare has nothing to do with drugs. sicne the fcc are a big corrupt bunch of nazis, drugs wont be costing much less

what asinine lunacy is that? make generic drugs earleir? that doesnt even make sense. guess what, we already have generic drugs for every high priced drug, BUT, the big drug companies pay off doctors and pharmacies to hawk THEIR products instead.

oh brilliant, letsp ut tariffs on drugs we are RE IMPORTING. guess what, canadains are using the same drugs you use but at a FRACTION of the price. the american totalitarian control over the drug industry protects them from any and all competition, the whoel idea of capitalism, thus letting them charge us whatever the hell they want.

your opinions are decent, you jsut have no idea what you are talking about

Good lord. If you actually used correct grammar in ONE of your sentences, I might respond to it. Next. . .

Fine, link such an interview. People's memories are faulty things. Usually one remembers what one wants to remember. Prove me wrong! Find the text! Be unique, since Not one single person has been able to provide an example. All I'm asking for here is proof. I've done the research myself, but there's always a chance I missed something. Prove it! Come on, you'll get popularity and noteriety for proving me wrong! Just find a transcript! Unlike many others, I welcome the idea of being proven wrong, since it means I will be closer to truth. I link articles and transcripts all the time! It's not hard.

Do you also believe in bigfoot? No proof for that either, but a lot of people fervently believe it. Maybe those people who remember seeing Elvis at a gas station are right too! No proof, but they say they remember it. People remember being abducted by aliens too. I guess their memory is 100% correct too.

To sum up: Prove it and I will heap praise upon you.

We can neither one find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it or proves it on the internet!!!!!

We can neither one find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it or proves it!!!!!
Nope, you only get one. Prove it or back off. To make a claim is not enough to give it validation. You don't have proof, it doesn't exist until you find some.

Nope, you only get one. Prove it or back off. To make a claim is not enough to give it validation. You don't have proof, it doesn't exist until you find some.

What part of factual unedited transcript do you not understand. I can make a factual website with all kinds of statistics and transcripts you want. Are they real yes. Just look at the mire of internet sites out there that are spewing facts.

How many people have dual identities on this site? So you see Never believe things you see on the internet. You see I can show you a picture of my wife, but the question is, is she really my wife. Must be cause I showed you a picture of her.

You see there is no accountability on the internet. Just like the following link.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

You see they show the minimum number of civilians killed in Iraq as 13,182 and Max 15,248. That must be true cause I saw it on the internet. If it's true how come they can't give you the actual numbers? How do we know they were all civilains?

How come we can actually say that we have had 1076 casualties but they can't give us an accurate total of civilian deaths?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Cause we are all just as full of shit as the next person siting facts from the internet!

We can neither one find an actual unedited transcript that refutes it or proves it on the internet!!!!!

Yes, I have, and it's been posted here for a while. You just chose not to read it.

What part of factual unedited transcript do you not understand. I can make a factual website with all kinds of statistics and transcripts you want. Are they real yes. Just look at the mire of internet sites out there that are spewing facts.

How many people have dual identities on this site? So you see Never believe things you see on the internet. You see I can show you a picture of my wife, but the question is, is she really my wife. Must be cause I showed you a picture of her.

You see there is no accountability on the internet. Just like the following link.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

You see they show the minimum number of civilians killed in Iraq as 13,182 and Max 15,248. That must be true cause I saw it on the internet. If it's true how come they can't give you the actual numbers? How do we know they were all civilains?

How come we can actually say that we have had 1076 casualties but they can't give us an accurate total of civilian deaths?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Cause we are all just as full of shit as the next person siting facts from the internet!
Well, you see-that's why they make you take all those critical thinking and reading classes first thing in college and last thing in High School...so you know how to seperate and weigh sources. Often transcripts, especially from news programs, are offerd through the news source themselves. You learn these things when you're not just tossing claims off your head and hoping their valid and chiding anyone who would ask for actual validation.

As to your example-that is shocking, a military can keep an accurate record of how many people they sent out died but a scattered and suddenly disconnected populace that is still waiting for the fighting to stop or services to be restored can't stop to give an accurate census on how many are dead? Gosh, that does explain why you can't back up claims of what a candidate said in an interview.

Accusation is not proof. No proof, not a valid charge. Sorry Bob.

Yes, I have, and it's been posted here for a while. You just chose not to read it.

For one I have read this entire thread and have found nothing factual or unedited. So therefore your quote above is a lie!

Might as well show you a pic of my wife.

john kerry will never have more than a plan, or multiple plans. if he is elected they r plans, they will not b put into effect, but they will still be his plans lol.
what can u expect from someone who fragged himself accidently twice and got a bruise for his 3 purple hearts n Nam

As to your example-that is shocking, a military can keep an accurate record of how many people they sent out died but a scattered and suddenly disconnected populace that is still waiting for the fighting to stop or services to be restored can't stop to give an accurate census on how many are dead? Gosh, that does explain why you can't back up claims of what a candidate said in an interview.

Accusation is not proof. No proof, not a valid charge. Sorry Bob.

Can't count the dead bodies either can you!!!!!

but a scattered and suddenly disconnected populace that is still waiting for the fighting to stop or services to be restored can't stop to give an accurate census on how many are dead

Take that statement to a court of law and see how far you can get with it!!!!

Can't count the dead bodies either can you!!!!!



Take that statement to a court of law and see how far you can get with it!!!!
What would I be doing with that in a court of law? Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

Nevermind-I'll take a bit of your advice, you're right-anyone can say anything on the internet and so we should be suspicious. Since you have not provided anything other than that argument, I am left to conclude that you are full of shit. As you brought up the court of law, the burdon was on you to prove you weren't-you conceded that you could not, ergo-you're full of shit. You do not get benefit of doubt, you get what you prescribed-a decision that you are full of shit.

For one I have read this entire thread and have found nothing factual or unedited. So therefore your quote above is a lie!

Might as well show you a pic of my wife.

I didn't say it was on this thread, you just assumed. I said "here" meaning the general forum.

From Kerry's speech. October 9th, 2002


The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

No thread hijacking. This is for descussion of both canditates plans and whether they will work or not. It is not a character descussion. (this is not the place to argue about whether or not Kerry "flip flopped")

Funny, becuase Kerry's plan follows what he said in 2002. He's had a plan, and it's a shame Bush didn't follow it.

What would I be doing with that in a court of law? Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

Nevermind-I'll take a bit of your advice, you're right-anyone can say anything on the internet and so we should be suspicious. Since you have not provided anything other than that argument, I am left to conclude that you are full of shit. As you brought up the court of law, the burdon was on you to prove you weren't-you conceded that you could not, ergo-you're full of shit. You do not get benefit of doubt, you get what you prescribed-a decision that you are full of shit.

If you had read any of what I had said prior to that you would see that I said everyone in this thread is full of shit!!!!!

You see as anyone that has been schooled or has had a threat of going to court, that phrase has a great deal with what I was saying.

You see I worked for the last 8 1/2 years in EMS. What we always are taught and tell each other everyday is a simple statement. "If you don't put it in your report it never happened."

Lets just say a person is in a wreck, You state in your report that the patient was drunk and beligerent. Beligerent is a character judgement, drunk is a fact. Question a lawyer is going to ask you is how did you know he was drunk? Did you perform any tests to see what his blood alcohol is? No then how can you say he was drunk. Now if in your report you right that the patient said he had drank 1/2 whiskey and was beligerent. Now you can argue a case.

Now you know why I said take that statement to a court of law and see how far you get.

Now we get to the true meaning of what I said earlier, everyone on this thread is just as cock sure and full of shit as the next person!!!!!

I didn't say it was on this thread, you just assumed. I said "here" meaning the general forum.

From Kerry's speech. October 9th, 2002

Yes and I can find one or right one myself and claim it is true and accurate!!!!!

Yes and I can find one or right one myself and claim it is true and accurate!!!!!

So, whenever anything disagrees with you, it's made-up?

Do a search on the US Senate website. Do a google, I'm sure you can find multiple mirrors of this speech. I assure you, it's 100% factual. Heck, there are even GOP-related sites that display it!

Here you go, a nice little search page for it that includes sources like CNN and CSPAN.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=Kerry+Iraq+2002+Senate+October&btnG=Search

have fun!

So, whenever anything disagrees with you, it's made-up?

Do a search on the US Senate website. Do a google, I'm sure you can find multiple mirrors of this speech. I assure you, it's 100% factual. Heck, there are even GOP-related sites that display it!

And when someone says they saw him say something on TV in an interview you claim they are wrong in what they say, that they just remember it that way. Until you can show me a notorised product of that speech it will remain as fiction to me!!!!!

And when someone says they saw him say something on TV in an interview you claim they are wrong in what they say, that they just remember it that way. Until you can show me a notorised product of that speech it will remain as fiction to me!!!!!

CSPAN, a government channel, isn't good enough for you?

If you had read any of what I had said prior to that you would see that I said everyone in this thread is full of shit!!!!!

You see as anyone that has been schooled or has had a threat of going to court, that phrase has a great deal with what I was saying.

You see I worked for the last 8 1/2 years in EMS. What we always are taught and tell each other everyday is a simple statement. "If you don't put it in your report it never happened."

Lets just say a person is in a wreck, You state in your report that the patient was drunk and beligerent. Beligerent is a character judgement, drunk is a fact. Question a lawyer is going to ask you is how did you know he was drunk? Did you perform any tests to see what his blood alcohol is? No then how can you say he was drunk. Now if in your report you right that the patient said he had drank 1/2 whiskey and was beligerent. Now you can argue a case.

Now you know why I said take that statement to a court of law and see how far you get.

Now we get to the true meaning of what I said earlier, everyone on this thread is just as cock sure and full of shit as the next person!!!!!
Your years of being on the job as an EMS does not excuse your lack of critical reading skills nor project them on others. Just because you can't assess sources, thats really a personal problem.

And when someone says they saw him say something on TV in an interview you claim they are wrong in what they say, that they just remember it that way. Until you can show me a notorised product of that speech it will remain as fiction to me!!!!!

Look, I provide proof from multiple sources and you offer nothing. Grow up,

Here you go, a nice little search page for it that includes sources like CNN and CSPAN.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=Kerry+Iraq+2002+Senate+October&btnG=Search

have fun!

From your little search engine!!!!!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12215

John Kerry: Further Left Than He Lets On
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 17, 2004

When analysts look back on the moments that catapulted Sen. John Kerry to frontrunner status in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, they will acknowledge that one of the biggest turns of the campaign occurred on January 25. On that day, Kerry campaign strategists whisked Jim Rassmann from Florence, Oregon, straight to Iowa for an emotional, “surprise” public reunion with Kerry. As Rassmann’s fellow soldier in the Vietnam War, Kerry saved Rassmann’s life by dodging a hail of enemy gunfire to drag him out of a river and carry him to safety. As John Hurley, director of the Veterans for Kerry campaign, acknowledges, Rassmann’s appearance with Kerry gave the senator an enormous boost. “It was just thrilling to get [Rassmann’s] phone call out of the blue,” Hurley said. “Normally I’m a calm guy, but I was dancing and shrieking.”

Kerry has made frequent references to his military background, depicting himself as a proud American who served his nation honorably during the Vietnam War. However, what most people do not realize is when Kerry returned from combat, he became a key figure in the early-1970s, anti-American and pro-Hanoi movement personified by Jane Fonda. Like so many of those protesters, Kerry publicly maligned American soldiers, and went on to become a prominent organizer for one of America’s most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He developed close ties with celebrated activists like Fonda and Ramsey Clark, the radical Attorney General who served under President Lyndon Johnson. (Clark went on to head the pro-North Korean International Action Center.) Kerry also supported a document known as the “People’s Peace Treaty,” which was reportedly composed in Communist East Germany and contained nine points – all of them extracted from a list of Viet Cong conditions for ending the war.

By participating in VVAW demonstrations, Kerry marched alongside many revolutionary Communists. Exploiting his presence at such rallies, the Communist publication Daily World prominently published photographs of Kerry addressing anti-war protestors, some of whom were carrying banners with portraits of Communist Party leader Angela Davis. Openly organized by known Communists, these rallies were typified by what the December 12, 1971, Herald Traveler called an “abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government.”

In early 1971, Kerry organized one of the most confrontational anti-war protests of the period, in which nearly 1,000 purported Vietnam veterans gathered on Washington, D.C.’s Mall for what they termed “a limited incursion into the country of Congress.” As part of a carefully orchestrated buildup toward that demonstration, Kerry had recently testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, claiming to have personally heard U.S. soldiers boast about having raped, dismembered, tortured, poisoned and randomly executed innocent civilians – sometimes even razing entire villages in a manner reminiscent of Ghenghis Khan. During that same time period, Kerry charged that American-perpetrated war crimes in Vietnam were the norm, not the exception – and were carried out with the full awareness and blessing of officers at all levels of American military command.

Today, many American veterans and their families deem Kerry’s past public excoriation of U.S. troops as unforgivable acts bordering on treason. As a result, veterans have formed several groups opposing Kerry’s presidential ambitions. The root cause of their anti-Kerry sentiment is summarized by the publication U.S. Veteran Dispatch, which notes that Kerry’s aforementioned testimony “occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons.” Indeed, Senator John McCain has stated that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily charged that Kerry’s actions were giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.”

One anti-Kerry group, Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (VVAJK), recently formed a national coalition with two other groups: Vietnamese-Americans for Human Rights in Vietnam (VAHRV), and Vietnamese-Americans Against John Kerry (VAAJK). “We represent hundreds of thousand of American veterans,” says VVAJK founder said Ted Sampley, “who do not want to see John Kerry anywhere near the Oval Office.” A formal VVAJK statement reads, “As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain . . . Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.” In a similar spirit, VAAJK member Dan Tran says, “On behalf of tens of thousands of Vietnamese-Americans, we are determined to demonstrate against Senator Kerry all across this nation . . . John Kerry aided and abetted the Communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam.”

As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA (Prisoners Of War/Missing In Action) Affairs, which was created in 1991 to determine whether any American POWs or MIAs were still alive in Vietnam, Kerry doggedly pushed the panel to conclude all Americans were dead. According to U.S. Veteran Dispatch, “[N]o one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry.” Controversy erupted in December 1992, however, when, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, “Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is [John] Kerry’s cousin.”

Kerry’s career in the U.S. Senate began in 1984. Since then – and notwithstanding his efforts to portray himself as a political moderate – he has established a long record of support for a wide array of left-wing causes, ideologies, and associated pieces of legislation. Among the most significant features of this record are the votes he has cast with regard to national defense and security issues. During his Senate career, Kerry has voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending. Even after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists, he voted to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In 1996 he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion.

However, Kerry has been a big spender on non-defense projects, having earned a lifetime rating of only 26 percent from the organization Citizens Against Government Waste. Over the years, Kerry has voted against a Balanced Budget Amendment at least five times, and against lowering overall government spending at least three times. In 2001, he voted against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut package, marking at least the tenth anti-tax relief vote of his Senate career. By contrast, Kerry voted in favor of President Clinton’s 1993 tax hike, which was the largest tax increase in American history. In fact, Kerry recently called for “a return to the fiscal responsibility we gave this country in 1993 when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act.” Kerry’s consistent pattern of voting in favor of high taxes has earned him a meager 25.2 percent rating from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) for the period of 1985-2001. Similarly, the group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) gives him a paltry 12.5 percent rating for the years 1999-2002. The issue of taxation, of course, has enormous implications for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives Kerry a 36 percent rating for the years 1985-2001, and the National Federation of Independent Business rates him a pathetic 21.4 percent for the years 1997-2001.

Kerry’s positions on most political and social issues are consistently leftist. In 2000, he voted to expand federal hate-crime protections to include such categories as gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities. He has consistently voted in favor of Affirmative Action and set-asides in employment and contracting. With regard to environmental issues, he consistently supports the positions of radical leftist groups like the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which has endorsed him for the 2004 presidential election. During the past six years, the LCV has approved of 95 percent of Kerry’s votes on environmental matters. According to the Capital Research Center, which rates the political leanings of nonprofit organizations, this group’s rating places it at the extreme Left of the political spectrum.

Kerry has voted in favor of federal funding for abortions, and against requiring parental notification for minors’ abortions. On at least three occasions he has voted against proposed bans of partial-birth abortions. While Kerry has earned a Zero-percent rating from the National Right To Life Committee, his National Abortion And Reproductive Rights League rating is consistently 100 percent, year after year.

With regard to criminal justice, Kerry opposes the death penalty “because I think it’s applied unfairly.” After 9/11, however, he conveniently changed his tune. Said the senator, "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on [our] country. I support killing people who declare war on our country.” But this is a new position for Kerry, who, between 1989 and 1993, voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty, on grounds that anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite suspected terrorists to the United States.

As Michael Dukakis’ Lieutenant Governor from 1983-1985, Kerry supported a furlough program for hundreds of Massachusetts’ inmates, a program that many critics deemed too lenient toward criminals. In a case that garnered national attention during the 1988 presidential debates between Mr. Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, a prisoner named Willie Horton brutally raped a woman while he was free on such a furlough.



Though Kerry characterizes himself as a political moderate, his voting record is, in fact, every bit as far-Left as that of his fellow Massachusetts senator, the candidly left-wing Ted Kennedy. According to Congressional Quarterly, over the course of Kerry’s Senate career, he has sided with Kennedy fully 94 percent of the time for key votes. In a number of different years – 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1998, 1999, and 2001 – that figure stood at 100 percent. Kerry’s lifetime Vote Rating from the leftist group Americans For Democratic Action (ADA) is 93 percent. Senator Kennedy’s ADA rating is a slightly lower 88 percent; that is, a avowedly leftist group states that John Kerry’s voting record is to the Left of Ted Kennedy’s. By contrast, Kerry’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU) stands at just 5 percent – the third lowest figure in the entire Senate, higher only than the ACU ratings for Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. The ACU ratings for some other notable Democrats are: 13 percent apiece for Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Daschle; 14 percent for John Edwards; 15 percent for Dennis Kucinich; and 19 percent for Joe Lieberman. Senator John Breaux, one of the upper chamber’s few moderate Democrats, has a 46 percent ACU rating.

Kerry’s stated positions on various major political issues have, on numerous occasions, been inconsistent and contradictory. For instance, he fiercely condemns the Patriot Act as the slippery slope toward a police state, and excoriates Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating Americans’ civil liberties. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night,” says Kerry. “So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.” But in 2001, Kerry in fact voted for the Patriot Act – parts of which he himself originally wrote. He said at the time that he was “pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation as a whole.” “It reflects,” he said on the Senate floor, “an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work.”

In 1991, Kerry voted against authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf. Yet he now claims that he fully supported Operation Desert Storm, but voted against it only because he wanted the first President Bush “to take a couple more months to build the support of the nation.” At the dawn of that war, Kerry warned that the elder Bush’s “unilateral” action constituted a “rush to war” that might lead to “another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims.” “Is the liberation of Kuwait so imperative that all those risks are worthwhile at this moment?” he asked rhetorically. Eleven days later, he wrote a letter to a constituent explaining that he opposed military action and preferred to give economic sanctions “more time to work.” Nine days after that, however, he wrote to the same constituent and said that he “strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis.”



More recently, Kerry has exhibited similar shifts in his stated stance on the 2003 Iraq war. Amid his blistering criticisms of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy, Kerry has said, “We did not empower the president to do regime change.” Yet in fact, Kerry supported an October 2002 Senate resolution that specifically cited regime change as a goal. That resolution, which passed by a 77-to-23 margin, authorized President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to abide by UN mandates. Kerry had similarly voted to make regime change a U.S. objective back in 1998.



Throughout 2003 and into 2004, Kerry has condemned what he calls President Bush’s needless “rush to war” against Iraq. But in October 2002 Kerry himself addressed the Senate with a stern speech declaring Iraq “capable of quickly producing [and] weaponizing” biological agents that could be delivered against “the United States itself.” In a January 23, 2003, foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Kerry stated, “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”



Despite his consistently leftist stance on the issues, John Kerry has staked out public positions all over the political map since the early 1970s. But one thing has remained troublingly consistent: He prefers to hide his three decades of left-wing activism from the American public. We hope the American people will not be so easily fooled.

Your years of being on the job as an EMS does not excuse your lack of critical reading skills nor project them on others. Just because you can't assess sources, thats really a personal problem.

Just cause you seem to think that you are educated and can tell fiction form fact on the internet means nothing to me!!!!!

I'm just telling you to give me proof I can got to court with. Don't give me your assinine facts that aren't worth the paper they are written on!!!!!

Look, I provide proof from multiple sources and you offer nothing. Grow up,

So I guess you are saying you could win a court battle with your facts!!!!!

You need to grow up!!!!!

So I guess you are saying you could win a court battle with your facts!!!!!

You need to grow up!!!!!

Nice. I guess you're right, since you used more exclamation points. It's not my fault that you are hopelessly deluded.

Nice. I guess you're right, since you used more exclamation points. It's not my fault that you are hopelessly deluded.

No I just try to disillusion those who believe everything they read on the internet.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15471

Al-Qaeda's "Boogie to Baghdad"
By Byron York
The Hill | October 12, 2004

Before this debating season is over, would someone please, please utter the words “boogie to Baghdad?”

You remember the phrase. It was written by Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief who in 1999 was so worried about the chumminess of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that he believed bin Laden, if attacked by the United States at his lair in Afghanistan, would “boogie” on over to the Iraqi capital for protection.

We learned of Clarke’s concerns in perhaps the most-ignored passages of the Sept. 11 commission’s report — those dealing with the very Saddam-al Qaeda connection that is being so vigorously denied by Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards.

“In fact, Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with al Qaeda,” Edwards said Tuesday night during his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. “What the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything that we see every single day. It’s a continuation of ‘Well, there’s a strong connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.’ It’s not true.”

In the first presidential debate, Kerry said flatly there was “no connection” between al Qaeda and Saddam.

But if that is true, please explain the friendly relationship between bin Laden and Saddam outlined in the Sept. 11 commission’s report.

The report says bin Laden, who had arrived in Afghanistan after leaving Sudan in 1996, worried that he might not get along with his new Taliban hosts. And indeed, by 1997, the report says, the two were at odds. The tension became so great that bin Laden began looking for a place to go in case he had to leave Afghanistan.

And the place to go was ... Iraq.

“There is ... evidence that around this time bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation,” the report says.

But Saddam wasn’t interested. He was trying to get along better with the Saudis and thus chose to stay away from bin Laden.

By the next year, however, things had changed. In 1998, Saddam was under mounting pressure from the United States.

He forgot about the Saudis and opened up to bin Laden.

According to the report, “In March, 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden.”

The report cited intelligence that “one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.”

As a result of those meetings, and more in 1999, the report says, Saddam “offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq.” But bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan, where he was getting along better with the Taliban.

And that’s where “boogie to Baghdad” came in.

In February 1999, according to the report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan. But Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.

If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden’s “entire network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service” and the United States would never be able to find him.

So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, “armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”

The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.”

Now, do you still believe there was “no connection” between Saddam and bin Laden?

It should be said that the report says Sept. 11 commission investigators found no evidence that the contacts “ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship” — emphasis on the word operational — and no evidence “indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

Saddam was not responsible for Sept. 11. But where do Kerry and Edwards get the idea that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Perhaps it was from the press, which months ago, based on early, incomplete drafts of portions of the Sept. 11 commission’s report, confidently proclaimed that “Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed” (The Washington Post) and “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie” (The New York Times).

Most accounts specifically attacked Cheney’s statements on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.

The anti-Cheney slant puzzled even some Democrats on the commission. “The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government,” Democratic Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. “We don’t disagree with that.”

That’s because it is true.

So in the next debate, when Kerry starts his “no connection” riff, just remember: Boogie to Baghdad.

Notice, Cowboy EKt, what kind of source FrontPageMag (www.frontpagemag.com) is. What is the ad in the upper right corner of the page for? A book about (supposedly) how horribly liberal Theresa Heinz Kerry is. That should be an indication that the site is skewed in one direction, namely the Republican direction. Further research will show that, for instance, every book advertised on the left hand side of the front page is either anti-Kerry, pro-Bush, pro-NeoCon cause, or some combination of the above. The person who runs the website, David Horowitz, is very much a conservative. Hell, he wrote a book titled How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas. Sound unbiased to you? Things like these should be indications that this source is most likely biased and inaccurate. Now turn to C-SPAN (www.cspan.org). Notice something different? Like no advertising for anything but itself? Also notice that instead of offering just articles of various kinds, it includes things like links to TRANSCRIPTS (which, just so you know, generally have to be verified or notorized in some fashion to claim them as official), which do not provide commentary but only what actually happened. This source, generally speaking, seems unbiased and accurate. While you can claim that it is not, you better be able to back it up with multiple unbiased and accurate sources that say so in the same way. It is also good to note that the vast majority of reliable fact sources, especially media outlets, will retract and publicly apologize for any error that you point out to them and is provable to be incorrect. The things you posted above are biased, inaccurate interpretations from a biased, inaccurate website. They are not facts. What people like Gymoor have been posting are unbiased, accurate, direct, verified factual information from unbiased, accurate sources. That is the difference that people are trying to point out to you. And yes, if you wanted to, for instance, sue Kerry for slander for something he said in a presidential debate, a transcript of the debate from C-SPAN would definitely be accepted as evidence in court. Using something from a source like FrontPageMag, on the other hand, would get you laughed out of court. Thus, by your own test, your sources for your information and (presumably) opinions are invalid, whilst those trying to point out the mistakes in your arguments on this thread are in the right.

It should be a .2% change though. The time during the Clinton admin where it was in the 3% range was at the very end of his second term, whereas if you look at Bush's term now and Clinton's corresponding numbers, the difference is .2% - 5.4% for Bush in Sept '04 and 5.2% for Clinton in Sept '96.
You can spin those numbers all you want but the fact remains this:

Clinton = + 22 Million jobs

Bush = - 1.8 Million Jobs

In other words, Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a NET job loss while in office.

AND Clinton did not spend $700 Billion on tax cuts, which Bush stated would create 5 Million NEW jobs.

AND Clinton handed over a $230 Billion SURPLUS
Bush's DEFICITS are running around $500 Billion.

AND Clinton handed over a $230 Billion SURPLUS

What it truly means: you and I paid way too much in taxes.

Yeah, it really sucks that he has a resource where you can see his detailed, point-by-point plans first-hand that in no way can be expressed in a 2 minute debate speech.

/sarcasm
I disagree. If it is possible for a knowledgeable chap like my AP US History teahcer to give a breakdown of the Civil War, with major losses and victories, and turning points and all, in less than 5 minutes, when the events took place over a period of 4 years, then I do believe Kerry, if knowledgeable enough, could easily explain his plan in two minutes. However, I sincerely doubt he created that plan, or that he even understands it. More likely, he just has staff that is a lot smarter than him. That would make him no different than any other politician.

You can spin those numbers all you want but the fact remains this:

Clinton = + 22 Million jobs

Bush = - 1.8 Million Jobs

In other words, Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a NET job loss while in office.

AND Clinton did not spend $700 Billion on tax cuts, which Bush stated would create 5 Million NEW jobs.

AND Clinton handed over a $230 Billion SURPLUS
Bush's DEFICITS are running around $500 Billion.

AND Clinton artificially inflated the market by allowing corrupt companies to falsify records culminating in scandals such as the Enron events, along with encouraging outsourcing. Well done Clinton! You ruined the economy! Remember, the Roaring Twenties were responsible for the Great Depression, not the President that was currently in office at the time. Same situation goes here.

What it truly means: you and I paid way too much in taxes.
What it truly means is that Bush has squandered prosperity:

http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bushecon.htm

Papa Bush was right about "Voodoo Economics" :eek:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=1000

Kerry to soften opposition to outsourcing if elected: Clinton official


NEW DELHI, Sept 21 (AFP) - US presidential candidate John Kerry is unlikely to be as negative about outsourcing if he wins the election, a veteran of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton's administration said Tuesday.

"His government's attitude towards outsourcing would be very different to his campaign," former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott told a meeting of policymakers in New Delhi, as quoted by the Press Trust of India news agency.

Kerry in the campaign has blasted President George W. Bush for the relocation of jobs abroad and pledged to reform international tax law to discourage firms from shifting positions overseas.

India, with its ample supply of English-speaking graduates willing to work for a fraction of the wages of their Western counterparts, accounts for some 80 percent of the global outsourcing market. It earned 2.3 billion dollars in 2003, acccording to US-based Gartner consultancy.

Talbott negotiated with India in the late 1990s to improve relations that had been uneasy since the Cold War, when New Delhi tilted to the Soviet Union, and after Washington imposed sanctions over India's decision to go nuclear.

The Bush administration has continued Clinton's enthusiasm for improving relations with India. The United States announced Friday it would lift export controls on equipment for Indian nuclear facilities after India gave assurances it would address US concerns over non-proliferation.

But Talbott worried that ties between India and the United States were becoming a "bit too narrow".

"There is a fixation in the Indian side on the acronym NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership). But it would be wrong to judge the health of Indo-US relations exclusively on the basis of how fast or slow was the progress made on it," he said.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1757.cfm

I suggest you read this, its quite good.
For instance, this line "Most labor measures show real gains over the past three years and even some record highs. Real earnings are up; the rate of unemployment is low; jobless claims are 10 percent below the 25-year average; and the household survey—the only direct employment survey of Americans—indicates that 2.2 million more Americans are employed now than were employed before the recession ended in November 2001. Never before have this many Americans—138.6 million to be exact—been employed.[3]"

HMM? More Americans employed? Odd...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1757.cfm

I suggest you read this, its quite good.
For instance, this line "Most labor measures show real gains over the past three years and even some record highs. Real earnings are up; the rate of unemployment is low; jobless claims are 10 percent below the 25-year average; and the household survey—the only direct employment survey of Americans—indicates that 2.2 million more Americans are employed now than were employed before the recession ended in November 2001. Never before have this many Americans—138.6 million to be exact—been employed.[3]"

HMM? More Americans employed? Odd...
No kidding...aren't the Libs whining about the "lost" jobs?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1757.cfm

I suggest you read this, its quite good.
For instance, this line "Most labor measures show real gains over the past three years and even some record highs. Real earnings are up; the rate of unemployment is low; jobless claims are 10 percent below the 25-year average; and the household survey—the only direct employment survey of Americans—indicates that 2.2 million more Americans are employed now than were employed before the recession ended in November 2001. Never before have this many Americans—138.6 million to be exact—been employed.[3]"

HMM? More Americans employed? Odd...
Perhaps you could provide a web site that actually deals in FACTS, rather than Conservative ideology, such as the Heritage Foundation?:

http://www.heritage.org/About/images/about-FEATURE.gif

The figures you quote are wrong and misleading.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=1000

Kerry to soften opposition to outsourcing if elected: Clinton official


NEW DELHI, Sept 21 (AFP) - US presidential candidate John Kerry is unlikely to be as negative about outsourcing if he wins the election, a veteran of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton's administration said Tuesday.

"His government's attitude towards outsourcing would be very different to his campaign," former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott told a meeting of policymakers in New Delhi, as quoted by the Press Trust of India news agency.

Kerry in the campaign has blasted President George W. Bush for the relocation of jobs abroad and pledged to reform international tax law to discourage firms from shifting positions overseas.

Um, there is no warrant given in this article for why Kerry would soften his stance on outsourcing. Can this fellow Democrat provide any other reason than just Strobe's personal opinion? Yes, undoubtedly people are skeptical about these things, but I've seen literally no basis for these kinds of claims, other than people's inherent distrust of politicians. If that's the warrant, why aren't these same people just as skeptical about Bush? Or is this one of those special kinds of arguments that only applies to Kerry?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1757.cfm

I suggest you read this, its quite good.
For instance, this line "Most labor measures show real gains over the past three years and even some record highs. Real earnings are up; the rate of unemployment is low; jobless claims are 10 percent below the 25-year average; and the household survey—the only direct employment survey of Americans—indicates that 2.2 million more Americans are employed now than were employed before the recession ended in November 2001. Never before have this many Americans—138.6 million to be exact—been employed.[3]"

HMM? More Americans employed? Odd...

I read the article. I haven't yet had a chance to examine the methodology of their Economic Freedom Index or other works from their own foundation that they use to support their conclusions, but I have already found logical inconsistencies and flawed reasoning within the article itself.

First, their claims that outsourcing "only makes things more efficient" is a misstatement. Think about this: company A wants to produce a product. They outsource the actual production to company B in a foreign country. In this foreign country, there are poor standards for occupational safety, lax envrionmental regulations, and extremely low wages. Hence, company B can produce the product much, much more cheaply than if company A had someone in this country produce it. Hence, every single job that is shipped to company B is a job that is not created in the US. Additionally, the impacts of company B's poor environmental record, low wages, etc, all serve to negatively impact the employees of company B, while keeping domestic companies here from giving good-paying jobs to US citizens.

Yes, if all countries protected their workers and the environment, outsourcing wouldn't matter. It would encourage competition. But as long as developing nations are trashing their standards in order to attract foreign investment (look at Argentina for an example of how this fails), it IS having a negative impact on us and them. Yes, company A may then be able to charge less for its product, but the people that can buy the product are people who are already employed, not the people that don't have a job because it was sent overseas. The logic is not difficult.

Additionally, the increased jobs argument made in this report ignores a couple key facts: 1. the labor force has increased (by the reports own admission) by 2.3 million, and yet there are supposedly only 2.2 million new jobs. That means there's still more people entering the job market than jobs being created for them. That's what we call unemployment. And it's increasing. Additionally, the fact that more people are working now than in November 2001 doesn't mean a whole lot. The article doesn't cite what TYPES of jobs are being created, and given the fact that overall poverty numbers (and the rate of poverty, as well) is increasing, it seems safe to say that the jobs created are not jobs that pay a living wage. Net result: more people working minimum wage jobs and not being able to adequately support their families. That's not something to be proud about.

Those are the most obvious examples of how the report you cite overstates its claims, but there are others. These, however, seems to be the crux of the outsourcing debate, so I'll just make them for now.

And when someone says they saw him say something on TV in an interview you claim they are wrong in what they say, that they just remember it that way. Until you can show me a notorised product of that speech it will remain as fiction to me!!!!!

1. What is a notorised product of a speech?

2. Yes, anyone can write anything on the internet. Your arguments are almost slipping into an espitemological discussion, which serves no useful purpose. How do we know that Kerry really exists? How do we know that 911 happened? Can you find me proof that isn't 2nd or 3rd hand? These could all be figments of other people's imaginations. Even if you've personally met Kerry, how can you prove it to me in a court of law? You're wasting time with ultimately tautological arguments instead of addressing the substance of the arguments being made.

3. The quoted Kerry speech shows a lot of context for what Kerry actually said. The articles you post show snippets and tidbits that feed what the author is trying to convey. Until you can show how what Kerry said in his speech is untrue or a flip-flop. you're out of luck.

Um, there is no warrant given in this article for why Kerry would soften his stance on outsourcing. Can this fellow Democrat provide any other reason than just Strobe's personal opinion? Yes, undoubtedly people are skeptical about these things, but I've seen literally no basis for these kinds of claims, other than people's inherent distrust of politicians. If that's the warrant, why aren't these same people just as skeptical about Bush? Or is this one of those special kinds of arguments that only applies to Kerry?
I believe that one of the problem's is due to the sources that are being provided by HadesRulesMuch, such as Heritage Foundation and this article that you refer to, which comes from a "personal" web site:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/about.html

It can also be called the "Bob Hoffman" project.

This site was started in November of 2002 after I lost an election for County Commissioner in Broward County Florida.

It was my first election and it taught me a lot of things. What stuck in my mind most was how I always portrayed the media to myself. Considering the media as a source that 'informs' was wrong, what I learned was the media only presents news. Their job was not to inform.

Nice cats on the page though? :eek:

Lacks credibility just a tad?

Unfortunately for Kerry, his economic "plan" seems to be Mondale-lite: all the tax hikes, but none of the advance notice (at least Mondale had the decency to let people know in 1984 that he planned to raise taxes!) Maybe that's why 368 leading economists have issued a statement warning that his policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”

Mind you, this group includes 6 Nobel Prize winners: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott.

Read more about it here (http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp).

Unfortunately for Kerry, his economic "plan" seems to be Mondale-lite: all the tax hikes, but none of the advance notice (at least Mondale had the decency to let people know in 1984 that he planned to raise taxes!) Maybe that's why 368 leading economists have issued a statement warning that his policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”

Mind you, this group includes 6 Nobel Prize winners: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott.

Read more about it here (http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp).
Considering that the article you reference comes from a decidely Pro Repulican web site, perhaps you should consider the grim facts?

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/

"There's little cheer in the employment picture. That was evident on Friday when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its September employment report, and it was just plain ugly. But, please, don't blame those meteorological serial nasties, the hurricanes. There was kind of a wash, if you'll pardon the expression, between the number of folks who couldn't get to work and those who, in the wake of the big winds, hired on to clean up the mess and rebuild.

Actually, as Philippa Dunne and Doug Henwood point out in their excellent review of the data in the Liscio Report, the overall tally doesn't by any means tell the story of just how skimpy job creation in the private sector was last month -- all told, it accounted for only 59,000 of the total. The rest -- more than one-third -- came by grace of the federal and state governments.

Using history as a guide, Philippa and Doug reckon that "we're now 9.3 million jobs below where we'd be in a 'normal' recovery." Adding in the benchmark revisions still leaves the count nine million below the aggregate payroll addition we should have seen.

They also offer some pertinent observations on the incredibly shrinking labor force, a phenomenon that's largely responsible for the deceptively modest unemployment rate. The labor market seems to be suffering, in their parlance, "serious withdrawal symptoms." In September, even though the population grew by 264,000, the labor force shrank by 221,000. Over the past year, it has expanded less than half as rapidly as has the population and a mere one-third of the rate it enjoyed from 1980 to 2000.

Thanks solely to what they term "the massive withdrawal" from the labor market, the unemployment rate has held steady. Suppose, instead of contracting, the labor force had grown over the past two months at the same pace as it did in the previous two. Further suppose the dropouts had been counted in the ranks of the unemployed. The result would be a jobless rate of 6.2%, not the relatively benign 5.4% that was reported. And, we might add, if one includes the so-called marginally attached workers and part-timers who really want to be working full time, the unemployment rate weighs in at a formidable 9.4%.

The future job picture doesn't shape up as exactly rosy, either. The placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas tallies some 107,000 planned lay-offs announced in September. That was up 45% from August and 41% from September 2003. What's more, the dirgeful bell continues to toll: Last week Bank of America targeted 4,500 jobs for jettisoning and AT&T, 7,400.

Pretty grim stuff."

AND Clinton artificially inflated the market by allowing corrupt companies to falsify records culminating in scandals such as the Enron events, along with encouraging outsourcing. Well done Clinton! You ruined the economy! Remember, the Roaring Twenties were responsible for the Great Depression, not the President that was currently in office at the time. Same situation goes here.
Try doing a search for Ken Lay Enron. You will see that HE accepts responsibility for Enron's collapse. To suggest that Bill Clinton ruined the economy is totally absurd. :eek:

Try doing a search for Ken Lay Enron. You will see that HE accepts responsibility for Enron's collapse. To suggest that Bill Clinton ruined the economy is totally absurd. :eek:

I never blamed Clinton for ruining the economy, nor did I give him credit for the boom of the 90's. With this said, it is just as absurd to blame Bush for the recession, especially considering 9-11. Bush's tax cuts did help, I think that we are doing quite well considering the recession, 9-11, and rising oil prices due to economic booms in India and China. Do I think that that the tax cut plans were flawed? Yes. Do I believe that Kerry's plan is any improvement? No. Do I wish that we had other candidates? Hell yes. Unfortunately, we have to play the cards that we were delt. [/rant]

I have a plan too. But mine involves a fiifty gallon drum of pudding, a catapult and the GoodYear Blimp. I don't know what my plan will do for the economy, but at least it's a plan. :)

Sounds fun...

Although I think your plan could be even a bit better if you added a gross of glass jars filled with maraschino cherries.

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**
That is the whole point of the Kerry Campaign. Be as vague as possible, and promise the sheeple whatever it takes to get elected.

That is the whole point of the Kerry Campaign. Be as vague as possible, and promise the sheeple whatever it takes to get elected.
Sheeple? Do you listen to the Savage Nation?

That is the whole point of the Kerry Campaign. Be as vague as possible, and promise the sheeple whatever it takes to get elected.

So, because you aren't willing to listen to Kerry's plan as Kerry has stated it (I take you to be agreeing with the post you quoted), he's doing something wrong? That doesn't make sense to me. If your complaint is that you want to see independent analysis of Kerry's plan before you would even consider approving it, that is fine and reasonable, but if Kerry himself cited said analysis chances are that a lot of people would automatically consider it to be a biased source whether it was or not, thus defeating the whole purpose. Further, giving short and/or vague explanations of what his plan does under time constraints in a debate does not mean that his plan taken as a whole is either vague or empty promises. Same thing applies to Bush: if I remember correctly, the Republican party platform (what I take to be the full plan for a given party) for this campaign is somewhere around 90+ pages. In comparison, were Bush's answers in the debate vague? Yes. Does that mean his plan is vague? No. Is his plan a bunch of empty promises? Beats me; I can't read his mind to tell if he will carry them through if reelected or not.

All this being said, I don't understand this unwarranted harsh criticism of Kerry for doing something that Bush (and any other politician that has been in a debate setting) does as well and for which no reason has been given for considering it to be a bad thing.

So, because you aren't willing to listen to Kerry's plan as Kerry has stated it (I take you to be agreeing with the post you quoted), he's doing something wrong? That doesn't make sense to me. If your complaint is that you want to see independent analysis of Kerry's plan before you would even consider approving it, that is fine and reasonable, but if Kerry himself cited said analysis chances are that a lot of people would automatically consider it to be a biased source whether it was or not, thus defeating the whole purpose. Further, giving short and/or vague explanations of what his plan does under time constraints in a debate does not mean that his plan taken as a whole is either vague or empty promises. Same thing applies to Bush: if I remember correctly, the Republican party platform (what I take to be the full plan for a given party) for this campaign is somewhere around 90+ pages. In comparison, were Bush's answers in the debate vague? Yes. Does that mean his plan is vague? No. Is his plan a bunch of empty promises? Beats me; I can't read his mind to tell if he will carry them through if reelected or not.

All this being said, I don't understand this unwarranted harsh criticism of Kerry for doing something that Bush (and any other politician that has been in a debate setting) does as well and for which no reason has been given for considering it to be a bad thing.

I read his "plan" from his web site. It is still rathar vague. He is telling us what he plans to do and the results he plans to achieve, but does not explain how his planned actions will achieve the planned results. (AKA: how raising taxes and minimus wage will create jobs, I would really like to know this) All we can do is guess.

I watched the talking heads (political debate) last night, and I couldn't help but notice Kerry saying that he has a "plan" for various "problems." Help me out here, I didn't hear him elaborate on any of these plans. Well, elaborate past the point of the huge amounts of money he plans to add to this and that and the tax hike only on the top tax brackets. This wont work unless he has some miracle plan. He supports a minimum wage increase and a tax increase on many of our nations employers while promising to create jobs. I study economics, raising taxes and minimum wage distroys jobs, it does not create them. From the information that I have gotten so far, the only way that he can keep his promise is to turn us into a socialist country.

Am I mistaken in my info here? Can anyone link me to a NON-BIASED site with the details of Kerry's plan?

**prepares marsh mellows for when the flaming begins**

He certainly gives you more detail than President Bush.