Kerry for President? Give Me a Break!

video_gamer324

video_gamer324

CAGiversary!
Feedback
188 (99%)
We've got a whole thread putting our Republican users on the defensive, so here's a thread right back at you Democrats. You're seriously going to vote for John Kerry? Let's see... he wants to cut back productivity and the opportunity for many more jobs in the future just to create a handful of jobs now, and he doesn't think it's right that the wealthy are getting tax breaks even though they already pay the most in taxes? Please.
 
Anyone but Bush in 2004. Kerry is as good as anyone else. What Kerry says he's going to do, and what the republican senate and congress are going to let him do is something different, however nobody can be as bad as Bush.
The absolute worst president since Nixon... and he deserves the same treatment his father received, a single term in office.
 
[quote name='Advocatus']What Kerry says he's going to do,[/quote]

Is different than what he will actually do.

*cough*
quiz.gif
*cough*
 
[quote name='RichD1'][quote name='Advocatus']What Kerry says he's going to do,[/quote]

Is different than what he will actually do.

*cough*
quiz.gif
*cough*[/quote]

Nice graphic of that phony, RichD1. =D>
 
He had no choice but to vote yes for the Iraq war, otherwise the media and the BushCo would call him unpatriotic. He's a man and agrees that though he went to Vietnam, afterwards he didn't approve of what he and his fellow army soldiers were told to do. He voted yes for the patriotic act, because once again... if you vote no on something called the 'patriotic act' then the republicans are going to call you unpatriotic. Besides Kerry opposes extending the patriotic act, it has sunshine laws, he does not want to continue the act after it's expiration date.

I'm not a huge supporter of Kerry, but I'm a democrat, and if that's who my party has nominated, then I have to back him, because like I said, "Anyone but Bush"
 
Kerry isn't perfect but is leaps and bounds better than Bush. Kerry will hopefully try to undo some of the huge damage Bush has done to our country.
 
He voted for the Iraq war before he was even running for president. Kerry likes to say one thing then say something else that couter acts what he just said.
 
Most of these examples of Kerry's "flip-flopping" or "two-facedness" are pretty far-fetched, if you ask me. "He voted for the war in Iraq" -- well so did everyone else, except for one courageous person (who was roundly chastised, if you recall). It may very well be true that he voted for the war, and then against a bill to pay for the weapons to fight it, but what they don't tell you is what else was a part of that bill, or the circumstances behind it. I'm not sure what particular bill they are referring to, but from what I understand, the republicans in several cases have tried to get other, unrelated items passed by putting them in the same bill with some popular issue. And isn't entirely possible that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act because 1) popular support seemed overwhelmingly behind it at the time and 2) he had no idea the extent to which our civil liberties would be compromised by it? Are these cases of "flip-flopping" or being "two-faced"? Or are they cases of actually analyzing the issues at hand and making informed decisions?

I just hope you guys give your votes some thought. Don't rely on cute (and misleading) slogans or cartoons. And don't believe everything that you are told -- give it some genuine thought.
 
You can thank FDR for all the socialist programs that got instated and we still pay for today.

FDR=overrated
 
"You can thank FDR for all the socialist programs that got instated and we still pay for today."

I can understand that people with money don't want their money going to poor people... and this is based on the weathly people's misconception that all poor are lazy, drunks and druggies. Misconception. Drugs and alcohol are just as big as problems in weathly communities, and laziness is not restricted to the lower income class.

I say Thank You FDR for social programs, because it's no fun to be wealthy when the poor have so little. It's no fun to have sport cars when there are hundreds of people starving on the same streets that you drive on. Look at India, (as suggested to me by my Indian boss). India is not a enjoyable place to live, because so many have so little.

It's our place as humans and as Americans more aft, to lend a hand up, social evolution is a myth, just ask Richard Dawkins (A Devil's Chaplin).

and before you respond with a flame, just imagine if you were born to a poor family. At some point, that family would likely have benefitted from social assistance at some point. And with that thought, it's also your responsibility to pull your self up with that social help, to find a job, keep it and start to bring yourself off social assistance... as it is assistance and not a free ride.
 
I have a feeling that the 2004 election will be just as debated and heated as the 2000 election, if not more. I also think that the outcome will be similar, with both Republicans and Democrats getting very close results. I do think that Kerry has a good shot at actually winning though, based on Bush's approval ratings...
 
It's our place as humans and as Americans more aft, to lend a hand up
Click to expand...

But giving them money in the form of subsidies, welfare, foodstamps is not the right way to do it. And it certainly isn't the job of Government to do such things. I'm all for charity, it has it's place and can benefit many people. But, in a so-called "free" society, ones wealth should not be confiscated by the government in order to be redistributed to those who claim to be needy. I should decide when and where to give, not some bureaucrat or some politician trying to get elected by promising a chicken in every pot.
 
[quote name='advocatus']I can understand that people with money don't want their money going to poor people... and this is based on the weathly people's misconception that all poor are lazy, drunks and druggies. Misconception. Drugs and alcohol are just as big as problems in weathly communities, and laziness is not restricted to the lower income class.

[/quote]

Wow, you really think that's why people don't like welfare? I've been poor, but much too proud to accept a governmnet handout. I can make it on my own, thank you. And now that I can pay for myself and then some, why do some people think they are entitled to a share of MY money? Especially those arrogant MF's in congress who are more than willing to spend MY money on social programs to garner votes for them in the next election? The taxpayers in this country aren't against giving to the poor because of misconceived drug abuse or laziness or that they're undeserving, there's a principle involved. It's called private property. What's mine is mine, and not yours. When the government takes for the sake of others, it thievery, or extortion. I think you'll find that the richer people are, the more they give to legitimate charities and churches and do it out of campassion and kindness, and aren't forced to do so.

It's amazing what they teach the burgeoning liberals in school these days........ we hate the poor because they're lazy and take drugs......that's the funniest thing I've heard in a week!
 
[quote name='fifthcore']He voted for the Iraq war before he was even running for president. Kerry likes to say one thing then say something else that couter acts what he just said.[/quote]

A politician flip-flopping on issues? Goodness no! Say it isn't so!

-Matt
 
It's funny how everyone complains about all politicians, how they constantly lie, pander, promise and flip-flop yet we STILL vote for them year after year, even though we KNOW we're being lied to.
 
[quote name='Advocatus']I can understand that people with money don't want their money going to poor people... and this is based on the weathly people's misconception that all poor are lazy, drunks and druggies. Misconception. Drugs and alcohol are just as big as problems in weathly communities, and laziness is not restricted to the lower income class.[/quote]

I don't think that way. I'm not rich. In fact, years ago, my family was on welfare. Here's the thing, though...we got off welfare. Too many Americans see welfare and the various socialist programs as free money, so why work to better themselves?

Many Democrats today love this situation because it means as long as they promise to keep the free money coming, those that are on the programs will vote for them.

[quote name='Advocatus']and before you respond with a flame, just imagine if you were born to a poor family. At some point, that family would likely have benefitted from social assistance at some point. And with that thought, it's also your responsibility to pull your self up with that social help, to find a job, keep it and start to bring yourself off social assistance... as it is assistance and not a free ride.[/quote]

I have no problem with social assistance, as stated above. I DO have a problem with how it's handled today. Limits need to be set on exactly how much assistance one can recieve and for how long. That won't happen, becuase the parasites on the welfare lists will raise hell.

I challenge you to come to the area where I live and spend just 48 hours observing the typical 'families'. I promise you won't have the same opinion.
 
First of all, the country is being run by a religious fanatical group called "The Fellowship" that Bush is a part of. The Fellowship is a super secret group of religious fanatics (Christians) and they give free or low rent housing to government officials.

I feel that Bush was behind 9/11. Seriously, he was busy reading to school kids when it happened, with no TVs in the room. When 9/11 happened one of his aids whispered "A plane just crashed into the world trade center" and Bush said "I know". How did he know without having a tv on in the room, unless he was behind it. I think bush should be hung for treason. He was behind 9/11 to make him look like a good president. His popuilarity was not that high, and the majority of the US voted for Gore, but somehow bush still won. I also think that the elections are fixed. Really. I see Kerry having more of a vote in the election, but Bush will ultimately win. Why? Because this "Fellowship" group runs the country, not the president. The whole title of President is merely a facade for what is really happening, which is america being ruled by the religious fanatics, just like the taliban was in afghanistan.
 
I think both sides have forgot the real important issues. No one is trying to really solve problems but just blow enough smoke to get elected. If both parties would stop fighting each other and learn to work together to find the best person I feel we would have better people in office. We americans are a little to stuck to each party. I think there needs to besome middle ground for people to stand on. Compromise is the best answer. You can't have everything your way. Maybe a offical third party. Its just two hard with the two because they fight. Three would make it more competitive. Which is how we tend to be.

No need to flame.This is not unpatriotic and Im not down Americans in any way. Im a true American to the bone. I just tend to think we do some really werid things some times.
 
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']First of all, the country is being run by a religious fanatical group called "The Fellowship" that Bush is a part of. The Fellowship is a super secret group of religious fanatics (Christians) and they give free or low rent housing to government officials.

I feel that Bush was behind 9/11. Seriously, he was busy reading to school kids when it happened, with no TVs in the room. When 9/11 happened one of his aids whispered "A plane just crashed into the world trade center" and Bush said "I know". How did he know without having a tv on in the room, unless he was behind it. I think bush should be hung for treason. He was behind 9/11 to make him look like a good president. His popuilarity was not that high, and the majority of the US voted for Gore, but somehow bush still won. I also think that the elections are fixed. Really. I see Kerry having more of a vote in the election, but Bush will ultimately win. Why? Because this "Fellowship" group runs the country, not the president. The whole title of President is merely a facade for what is really happening, which is america being ruled by the religious fanatics, just like the taliban was in afghanistan.[/quote]

That is the most crap I have ever seen.
 
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']Bignick Do a search for "The Fellowship" and Bush and you will see.[/quote]

I did a search on google, and didnt find shit. Why dont you provide us with some links.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Ok, admit it video_gamer324, you just wanted to make a thread that would get 300 replies in 2 days.[/quote]

Not really. I just think it's only fair that if there's an anti-Bush thread, there ought to be an anti-Kerry thread as well.
 
If the dems, and kerry are so for taxing the rich to help out the poor, and keeping jobs in the USA, then why does heinze corp have more factories outside the USA then inside...also why does mr and mrs kerry pay the lower of the two taxes in mass. In MA, if you are in the top bracket of income earners you have a choice to either pay something like 5.8% and 5.3% for you state taxes...if kerry wants the rich to help out the poor, then why doesn't he set the example and pay the higher tax of the 5.8%. Yes it is messed up how in our state the rich get to decide at what rate they are going to pay, but how can someone that wants to tax the rich, not pay the higher option. Recently he has talked a lot about the enviorment and gasoline prices. He was asked on wend if he owns a SUV. His answer was I don't, but my family does. 3-4 years ago John Kerry and Terresa, had the city of Boston move a fire hydrant, due to the fact that their SUV was so big, they wouldn't be able to park in front of their home. If you want to lead, the best way to do it, is to lead by example, and the democrats made a bad decision in the primary. I didn't think john edwards had the right message in his campaign, but he would have done a lot better then kerry will. The race is close now, much like the mondale and dukakis races. Kerry will peak after the DNC, and then bush is going to bury him. I suggest we have odds on how many states kerry will win. I am going with a stretch of 6 states.
 
lets also not forget that the dems want to keep jobs in the US, and penalize companies that outsource, but at the same time want to get cheaper drugs from canada, which would mean that it might cost americans some jobs. hmm
--Shadd
 
...yawn. This topic isn't worth reading. I read the first post and that was enough to realize you didn't have an argument to start with...
 
Kerry's nothing exciting, but he isn't insane: he isn't controlled by war-happy fanatics who have plunged us into a wasteful, unwinnable war. He also isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists who want to control what you watch, play, and read.

Given the choice between this dull boy Kerry and the whacko Bush crew, the choice is easy. Kerry.
 
[quote name='ZForce317']...yawn. This topic isn't worth reading. I read the first post and that was enough to realize you didn't have an argument to start with...[/quote]

I am going to write in a vote for ZForce317! I thinki it would have been better to have one thread titled who are you going to vote for and why.
 
If you have a problem with Kerry flip-flopping then you don't understand how politics work. Kerry is a legislater, there is a reason why none of these people (excepting JFK) was ever elected president...it is because in congress everybody votes the opposite of what they believe in on occasion. Why? Because in order to get votes for a certain piece of legislation, those pushing it will make small addendums to the legislation to appease those opposed to it to gain their vote. For example say a legislater from a forested district is opposed to a certain bill. In order to gain his vote, a segment could be added that maybe makes the area of that district into a national forest, thereby giving that legislater something to say he has given the people of his constituency when it comes time for his re-election. It probably has nothing to do with the real bill in question, but only exists to gain needed votes. It's called pork-barrelling and it happens all the time in American politics. It's also why Kerry may vote for something he doesn't necessarily agree with.
 
So, he has no principles. In essence, that's what you 're saying. He will sell his vote to the highest bidder regardless of the principle involved or the consequences. Yeah, these are just the kind of people we should be voting into congress......

Since Kerry is so versed in this practice, I wonder what he would sell to the highest bidder as president!
 
OK, why doesn't everybody all just get along and say...

NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT!
THEY BOTH SUCK!
there, i said it.
now let's end these freaking political flame war debates that are springing up on this CHEAPASSGAMING site.
 
Did you guys see that bullshit on Fox that said that outsourcing was good for our country and that by supporting it Bush gave our economy a huge boost?
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']OK, why doesn't everybody all just get along and say...

NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT!
THEY BOTH SUCK!
there, i said it.
now let's end these freaking political flame war debates that are springing up on this CHEAPASSGAMING site.[/quote]

Wow so helpful, that's great advice. You're right, it is stupid to debate who should be president. I second deadzone's motion to have a dictator for president! All in favor, say AYE!
 
[quote name='meteors']Kerry isn't perfect but is leaps and bounds better than Bush. Kerry will hopefully try to undo some of the huge damage Bush has done to our country.[/quote]

And what "damage" has he done?
 
[quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='meteors']Kerry isn't perfect but is leaps and bounds better than Bush. Kerry will hopefully try to undo some of the huge damage Bush has done to our country.[/quote]

And what "damage" has he done?[/quote]

I'll give you a hint.

Think "environment" and "massive debt".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top