Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I'm asking all of you Kerry supporters to give me reasons why people should vote FOR John Kerry and not AGAINST GWB. I don't want "Ashcroft won't be AG. Rumsfeld won't be SoD. Rice won't be the NSA." etc. I don't want things like "Someone else can pick supreme court justices." or things that would be true of ANY of the Democratic candidates that won the nomination this year things like "America will be America." again are cop outs too. Tell me what it is about John Kerry and his policies as they have been laid out that have you enthused about his campaign.

I will not respond to this post in a derogatory fashion. I probably won't even respond due to it resulting in a general flame war. However at one point, probably after the RNC convention. I will list a positve list of why I think GWB is a better candidate for the job without denigrating a party or a candidate. I would like to see someone articulate enough to formulate the same thing about John F. Kerry.

Again, I am going to be very judicious in my responses to non-existant. I want this to be a chance for unbridled support to come forward. If there are other Republicans on the board, please refrain from being derogatory in your responses or snide. I think we should know why people are so gung ho for Kerry.

Kerry would solve all of the problems.

EDITED FOR KARMA

Originally Posted by Thunderscope Kerry would make people like you smart!

I'm very interested in anyone will have a good comment in this thread. But for reference, this is what's considered an example of a terrible reply.

Pretty sure Kerry is the reincarnation of Lincoln. No real proof, just looks like him. Kinda.

Did I convert you? Hope I didn't blow my one chance.

This will come off sounding somewhat like "Kerry isn't Bush" - but consider it simply as a point of reference.

Kerry isn't ideologically driven. He understands science, and the methodology behind it. What Bush did re: WMD in Iraq and their involvement with terrorism is that they drew a conclusion, then dug for evidence to support their theories. This is pretty well established, from Woodward's book, Clarke's account, etc.

Kerry's process, simply because he is less driven by a specific ideology, will be to return information gathering to a more scientfic approach. Rather than mining for data to support a hypothesis, a hypothesis will be presented, then all the available data will be used to determine whether that hypothesis is supported.

That's a huge, huge shift, and one of the single most dangerous things about the Bush administration.

He also understands the necessity of maintaining alliances, and that unilateral action is more detrimental than productive. I don't believe that that is equivalent to giving the reins to the UN, as several conservative commentators have said, but rather, that the more poeple are on your side, the easier it is to win a given battle. Had we actually had a reasonable coalition in Iraq, the post-war cleanup would have been a lot easier, if we actually *had* to go to war.

Kerry also has a better economic plan. Rather than continuing tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, he's willing to roll back cuts for those making $200K+, in order to finance a public healthcare system. Warren Buffet supports the general position, and that's saying something, given that he gets a ridiculous amount of money from Bush's tax cuts. Not that he needs it.

So, we have someone who will work with other countries, who isn't driven purely by ideology, and someone who isn't going to bankrupt our country in order to give people who make 200K+/year extra money at the expense of the working class.

seppo

Yes, I know that was crude, but I am so sick of PAD threads. Kerry will provide more funding for local schools, make sure every senior in America can afford to buy prescription drugs in their own country, and he will stop these taxcuts for the rich and for companies shifting labor overseas.

A good comment.. but you're economic assesment is flawed. First off, a national healthcare system is truly a poor idea. In every democratic country that currently has a public healthcare system (especially Britain and Canada).. the quality of care is very low compared to private systems. Most patients are also waiting a tremendously long time for "non-life threatening" situations. For example, I recently had a surgery for a condition that caused me a tremendous amount of pain for the majority of every day.. with our current system I was easily able to schedule a surgery and get it taken care of.. in Britain I could have easily waited up to 6 months for the same surgery.

Secondly, the Bush administration is not giving money to the rich. They're simply not taxing them at as high a percentage as they were before the current president. Now realize, the rich are still paying a higher percentage than the lower tax brackets. A flat rate income tax would be much more in line with a capitalistic economy, not taking more of a man's salary, simply because he makes more.

edit - The good comment was directed towards helava.

1. He supports stem cell research.

2. He supports abortion rights.

3. I believe he will do a better job as Commander in Chief (i.e. only going to war as a last resort, better military benefits, etc.)

4. He will work closer with allies.

5. He has a better environmental record.

6. He supports the assault weapon ban.

At least in Canada EVERYONE gets healthcare, I am sure the rich and upper middle class will continue to purchase private healthcare. If I was in this situation I would much rather wait a few months to get treatment than none at all. It is a basic human right everyone should have.

just being for stem cell research is more than a reason to vote for Kerry. just do it

You don't want your little hard-wired brain converted.

This is just a sad little topic about how you have nothing better to do than be an ass on a public message board.

You are a sorry little bastard, you know that?

Originally Posted by Thunderscope Yes, I know that was crude, but I am so sick of PAD threads. Kerry will provide more funding for local schools, make sure every senior in America can afford to buy prescription drugs in their own country, and he will stop these taxcuts for the rich and for companies shifting labor overseas.

Ok....

Kerry will provide more funding for local schools.
First off, I've heard no real discussion on how they will do that, that would help show your point. Secondly, that's not really the federal government's place.

make sure every senior in America can afford to buy prescription drugs
I may look like an ass here.. but if they can't afford the product, then they simply don't get it. I want a BMW, if I can't afford a BMW.. I don't ask the government to provide it for me.

he will stop these taxcuts for the rich and for companies shifting labor overseas
Ok, see my above post, but there is nothing wrong with a taxcut for the higher tax brackets. In fact there is more wrong with taxing them at a higher percentage than lower tax brackets.

And are we somehow giving corporations tax cuts for sending labor overseas.. or do you mean he'll stop them from sending labor overseas?

Either idea is a crock. We obviously don't get them tax cuts, and he has no way to stop them from sending labor overseas. Oh.. and if you take a more advanced economics class.. its actually a benefit to our economy for these low-wage, low-skill jobs to be sent overseas.

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb First off, a national healthcare system is truly a poor idea. In every democratic country that currently has a public healthcare system (especially Britain and Canada).. the quality of care is very low compared to private systems. Most patients are also waiting a tremendously long time for "non-life threatening" situations.

I found this in regards to how Canadians view their healthcare system. It's from Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada 2 years ago.

“Most Canadians, including the more economically secure, remain deeply committed to a system that guarantees all Canadians access to good quality health care.” The study states that “Canadians very much like the current Canadian health care system model, with 88 per cent saying that a strong, national, publicly funded system is important to them.”$ Canadians also indicated a willingness to expend public funds to ensure quality, and demonstrated deep discomfort with any system that would limit access to health care services due to an inability to pay.

Originally Posted by MrBadExample 1. He supports stem cell research. 2. He supports abortion rights. 3. I believe he will do a better job as Commander in Chief (i.e. only going to war as a last resort, better military benefits, etc.) 4. He will work closer with allies. 5. He has a better environmental record. 6. He supports the assault weapon ban.

1. I don't agree with stem-cell research, for many reasons I dont feel like getting into.

2. I'm pro-choice, so I'll agree with you there.

5. Environmentalists are one of the biggest threats to our way of life. For those of you that don't quite understand that...
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...le&id=7124

Thats the problem, THEY ARE NOT LOW WAGE or LOW SKILLED JOBS! They are $60,000+ a year jobs!

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb make sure every senior in America can afford to buy prescription drugs I may look like an ass here.. but if they can't afford the product, then they simply don't get it. I want a BMW, if I can't afford a BMW.. I don't ask the government to provide it for me.

No one is going to DIE if they can't afford a BMW.

Ok, maybe a 16 year old will, "Daddy, I'll Just DIE if my first car isn't a roadster" j/k

Seriously you're compairing apples to oranges here, Seniors NEED medication, that's why they were prescibed them.

Originally Posted by peteloaf No one is going to DIE if they can't afford a BMW. Ok, maybe a 16 year old will, "Daddy, I'll Just DIE if my first car isn't a roadster" j/k Seriously you're compairing apples to oranges here, Seniors NEED medication, that's why they were prescibed them.

You don't understand... it isn't our government's responsibility to provide merchandise to its people. Companys produce this product and market it for sale, it is not my job to work harder simply to provide these products to people who were unable to save money when they were working.

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb make sure every senior in America can afford to buy prescription drugs I may look like an ass here.. but if they can't afford the product, then they simply don't get it. I want a BMW, if I can't afford a BMW.. I don't ask the government to provide it for me.

You beat me to the punch with the ass thing there. The difference is you are not going to die without a BMW. And to put it in terms a mega-capitalist would understand, when people cannot afford preventative care, they develop more serious illness which necessitate more costly hospital stays that we all pay for with higher insurance and hospital bills.

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb You don't understand... it isn't our government's responsibility to provide merchandise to its people. Companys produce this product and market it for sale, it is not my job to work harder simply to provide these products to people who were unable to save money when they were working.

damn straight. govenment shouldnt be giving out any prescription drug relief, so for all you teachers, cops, fireman, mailmen, politician, public librarians and any other government workers, we want to take away your benefit packages, casue health care is an industry and the government shouldn't pay for any of that shit. you want benefits, go work for McDonalds.

*sarcas-tastic!