Kerry Supporters: "How is your candidate going to make America better?
- Thread starter Squirms
- Start date
Kerry has said he will improve the lot of our soldiers over in Iraq, first by adequately supplying them, something Bush has never done properly. He also will strengthen our international ties, which will help our soldiers if he can convince those countries to supply soldiers for the fight in Iraq. Right now 90 percent of the troops over there are ours, thanks to Mr. "Go It Alone" and his Coalition of the Feeble, and we're picking up 90 percent of the bill.
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).
I'm going to hit on a couple of issues and then I'm off to bed. So no fair attacking me after this...I won't be able to defend myself.
1) Economy and new jobs. He'd like to keep the jobs here, I think that is a good idea, don't you? His plan to create new jobs seems like a good idea.
2) Healthcare. Kerry wants to make healthcare affordable. I'd like to have that.
3) He's not Bush. That might not seem like a good agruement, but Kerry looks good in many ways simply because he's not Bush. Although that shouldn't be to Kerry's credit, but it is.
I'm well overdue to get to bed, so I'm off. I didn't hit on much but I had to at least post. This is a good topic (although a rip off of mine
)
1) Economy and new jobs. He'd like to keep the jobs here, I think that is a good idea, don't you? His plan to create new jobs seems like a good idea.
2) Healthcare. Kerry wants to make healthcare affordable. I'd like to have that.
3) He's not Bush. That might not seem like a good agruement, but Kerry looks good in many ways simply because he's not Bush. Although that shouldn't be to Kerry's credit, but it is.
I'm well overdue to get to bed, so I'm off. I didn't hit on much but I had to at least post. This is a good topic (although a rip off of mine
)fireball343
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Squirms']That's why I posted this. I have yet to hear a compelling arguement why he is better suited to run the country.[/quote]
He is suited to run this country? you got me. i couldn't come up with a reason for kerry to be in office, oh wait, i have one, so we can be attacked by terrorist and have a leader who changes his views under peer presure from other democrats.
i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet.
Bush Bashing=easy stupid pointless bashing of The President, which is all baseless lies.
kerry facting=truthful facts about kerry, his politcial plans, two-faced constant changing of sides, and ways that he can make his life and funds better while caring less about America.
great point ZForce915, that made a ton of sense, not only that, half of that is in Bush's current agenda, Kerry is a fag so the whole not being Bush isn't working. and have you ever watched any time Bush gives a speech, the democrats rebuttle, you ever notice like your statement all they do is say what they are going to do, not say one damn word on how they are going to do it. thanks for the botomless promises. on kerry's bullshit campagin full of crap.
He is suited to run this country? you got me. i couldn't come up with a reason for kerry to be in office, oh wait, i have one, so we can be attacked by terrorist and have a leader who changes his views under peer presure from other democrats.
i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet.
Bush Bashing=easy stupid pointless bashing of The President, which is all baseless lies.
kerry facting=truthful facts about kerry, his politcial plans, two-faced constant changing of sides, and ways that he can make his life and funds better while caring less about America.
great point ZForce915, that made a ton of sense, not only that, half of that is in Bush's current agenda, Kerry is a fag so the whole not being Bush isn't working. and have you ever watched any time Bush gives a speech, the democrats rebuttle, you ever notice like your statement all they do is say what they are going to do, not say one damn word on how they are going to do it. thanks for the botomless promises. on kerry's bullshit campagin full of crap.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dennis_t']Kerry has said he will improve the lot of our soldiers over in Iraq, first by adequately supplying them, something Bush has never done properly. He also will strengthen our international ties, which will help our soldiers if he can convince those countries to supply soldiers for the fight in Iraq. Right now 90 percent of the troops over there are ours, thanks to Mr. "Go It Alone" and his Coalition of the Feeble, and we're picking up 90 percent of the bill.
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).[/quote]
I just want to address the "go it alone comment" you made with an editorial from yesterday's WSJ.
I won't even comment on the 30 some odd nations participating in Iraq. I guess the only countries that count in an alliance are the ones that oppose you?
What Alliance?
799 words
28 June 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Webster's defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today's opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition.
The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO's deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan -- teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO's European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that's all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance."
The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America's security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer.
Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO's "number one priority," the allies' record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul.
Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September.
One of the Bush Administration's minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan's transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely.
Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world's third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France's total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d'Ivoire -- which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests.
This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO's reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).[/quote]
I just want to address the "go it alone comment" you made with an editorial from yesterday's WSJ.
I won't even comment on the 30 some odd nations participating in Iraq. I guess the only countries that count in an alliance are the ones that oppose you?
What Alliance?
799 words
28 June 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Webster's defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today's opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition.
The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO's deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan -- teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO's European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that's all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance."
The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America's security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer.
Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO's "number one priority," the allies' record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul.
Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September.
One of the Bush Administration's minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan's transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely.
Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world's third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France's total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d'Ivoire -- which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests.
This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO's reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.
[quote name='Cornfedwb']I have a question... how many people realize its a good thing for our economy to have low-level jobs sent overseas? I'm guessing.. three max.[/quote]
I lied. I'm not in bed.
I think there are plenty of people that would take the $9/hour customer service job in a heartbeat. Instead we send it over to India. How is this a good thing? If the (in this case, we'll say 200) 200 jobs lost were replaced with better ones, that would be awesome. If the 200 jobs are just lost, that's bad. If I'm wrong, well...I don't see how I could be wrong...
Now I swear...to BED.
I lied. I'm not in bed.
I think there are plenty of people that would take the $9/hour customer service job in a heartbeat. Instead we send it over to India. How is this a good thing? If the (in this case, we'll say 200) 200 jobs lost were replaced with better ones, that would be awesome. If the 200 jobs are just lost, that's bad. If I'm wrong, well...I don't see how I could be wrong...
Now I swear...to BED.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ZForce915'][quote name='Cornfedwb']I have a question... how many people realize its a good thing for our economy to have low-level jobs sent overseas? I'm guessing.. three max.[/quote]
I lied. I'm not in bed.
I think there are plenty of people that would take the $9/hour customer service job in a heartbeat. Instead we send it over to India. How is this a good thing? If the (in this case, we'll say 200) 200 jobs lost were replaced with better ones, that would be awesome. If the 200 jobs are just lost, that's bad. If I'm wrong, well...I don't see how I could be wrong...
Now I swear...to BED.[/quote]
Wait a minute! We lost all those horse and buggy and black smith jobs from 200 years ago!
Merely because you don't know or see how those jobs are replaced doesn't mean they aren't replaced.
Or are you going to argue with the US Dept of Labor?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab4.htm
I lied. I'm not in bed.
I think there are plenty of people that would take the $9/hour customer service job in a heartbeat. Instead we send it over to India. How is this a good thing? If the (in this case, we'll say 200) 200 jobs lost were replaced with better ones, that would be awesome. If the 200 jobs are just lost, that's bad. If I'm wrong, well...I don't see how I could be wrong...
Now I swear...to BED.[/quote]
Wait a minute! We lost all those horse and buggy and black smith jobs from 200 years ago!
Merely because you don't know or see how those jobs are replaced doesn't mean they aren't replaced.
Or are you going to argue with the US Dept of Labor?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab4.htm
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='fireball343']i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet. [/quote]
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='fireball343']i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet. [/quote]
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
Maybe because the "man of the people" really isn't the "man of the people".
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
Maybe because the "man of the people" really isn't the "man of the people".
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']Maybe because the "man of the people" really isn't the "man of the people".[/quote]
And the Connecticut Cowboy is all hat and no cattle.
And the Connecticut Cowboy is all hat and no cattle.
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='fireball343']i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet. [/quote]
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
The problem isn't that he is rich, it is rather how the money is invested. If a bill comes up that could potentially help the majority of Americans, but may cause his stocks to dip a couple of points, then it could be a problem. It's just like the Dems complaining about Haliburton.
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
The problem isn't that he is rich, it is rather how the money is invested. If a bill comes up that could potentially help the majority of Americans, but may cause his stocks to dip a couple of points, then it could be a problem. It's just like the Dems complaining about Haliburton.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Squirms'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='fireball343']i read in my local paper that mrs. kerry being the heir to the heinz family has any where from 1 billion to 3.2 billion dollars, that's from stock in other companies,heinz stock ,stock kerry has, all assesets. the point was that any decsion made by kerry in office would affect how much money he had. bush has all of his money in cds. that way his money is unaffected for his time in office. if kerry didn't put his money in cds, and his wife too, every decscion he makes in office would be baisised for his wallet. [/quote]
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
The problem isn't that he is rich, it is rather how the money is invested. If a bill comes up that could potentially help the majority of Americans, but may cause his stocks to dip a couple of points, then it could be a problem. It's just like the Dems complaining about Haliburton.[/quote]
It's a little more complicated because any bills that hit Kerry's desk will have to pass through Congress first. Halliburton was award no-bid contracts with no Congressional approval. Let me know when we go to war for ketchup and I'll be right there with my "No Blood Fro Condiments" sign.
This is the first time I have heard a Republican argue against someone because they are rich. That's very interesting and not at all hypocritical.[/quote]
The problem isn't that he is rich, it is rather how the money is invested. If a bill comes up that could potentially help the majority of Americans, but may cause his stocks to dip a couple of points, then it could be a problem. It's just like the Dems complaining about Haliburton.[/quote]
It's a little more complicated because any bills that hit Kerry's desk will have to pass through Congress first. Halliburton was award no-bid contracts with no Congressional approval. Let me know when we go to war for ketchup and I'll be right there with my "No Blood Fro Condiments" sign.
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
personally I will not vote for John Kerry unless he has John Edwards on the ticket. While I watched Bush ruin the economy in Texas(by cutting taxes on the state level and making cities raise taxes which negated this effect) and I despise Cheney (who in the hell takes over a company, fires a bunch of people, and gives themselves a 900K raise the first day?) I also loathe John Kerry as even Al Gore has more personality and the fact that he has more double talk than my sister after she got caught having the party makes me not like him at all.
I am planning on voting for Kerry because of his commitment to improving the environment. His senate voting record speaks for itself. He has a 97% League of Conservation Voter rating, which means that whenever there was a vote that affected the environment, he voted pro-environment 97% of the time. Bush on the other hand won't do anything to protect the environment because it hurts his campaign contributors. With Bush in office, White House policy is basically for sale to the highest contributor. Kerry will bring integrity back to the White House!
kev
CAGiversary!
[quote name='coffman']I am planning on voting for Kerry because of his commitment to improving the environment. His senate voting record speaks for itself. He has a 97% League of Conservation Voter rating, which means that whenever there was a vote that affected the environment, he voted pro-environment 97% of the time. Bush on the other hand won't do anything to protect the environment because it hurts his campaign contributors. With Bush in office, White House policy is basically for sale to the highest contributor. Kerry will bring integrity back to the White House![/quote]
You sir, are not a true cheapass, nor very far-sighted. If you're in California (which I hope you aren't) you would realize that the League of Conservation cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in fire damage last year because they block every forest-clearing project imaginable. I give you credit for at least having a reason to vote Kerry though.
I'm quite glad as a Republican that Edwards didn't get the nomination. I even liked that guy...
Finally, how is Kerry planning on getting France/Germany/Russia/China to back our actions? He says he'll do it, but how? I wouldn't want my country appeasing France quite frankly.
You sir, are not a true cheapass, nor very far-sighted. If you're in California (which I hope you aren't) you would realize that the League of Conservation cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in fire damage last year because they block every forest-clearing project imaginable. I give you credit for at least having a reason to vote Kerry though.
I'm quite glad as a Republican that Edwards didn't get the nomination. I even liked that guy...
Finally, how is Kerry planning on getting France/Germany/Russia/China to back our actions? He says he'll do it, but how? I wouldn't want my country appeasing France quite frankly.
i dont care that i dont know his platforms, and really, i dont support him other than the fact that i doubt he could be worse than bush. if kerry sends people to die in other countries for no clear reason, and gets us deeper in debt than bush has, feel free to bash me for electing such an idiot. i dont like kerry or bush, but i will vote for the lesser of 2 evils
and i know how you guys are gunna reply, ive seen it many times before "how can you vote like that, its stupid" so please be more creative and perhaps ill lissen to what you have to say ^^
and i know how you guys are gunna reply, ive seen it many times before "how can you vote like that, its stupid" so please be more creative and perhaps ill lissen to what you have to say ^^
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
In addition to some of the posts above:
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass!
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass!
[quote name='MrBadExample']In addition to some of the posts above:
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass![/quote]
no clue how accurate those are, but i like all of those points (especially 3 and 5)
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass![/quote]
no clue how accurate those are, but i like all of those points (especially 3 and 5)
crissy1616
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
(I know I might get burned for this one)
I am not sure who I am going to vote for, but it will likely be Kerry. Of course, I am not even sure why I am posting in this political debate anyway since I don't even like politics or really pay attention.......
however it is funny how one thing can make decision for one person. I am for gay marriage, and Bush is fighting against it, and that one thing makes me against him. I really wanted Howard Dean to be the Dem Candidate, but at this point gay marriage is a really important issue for me, and one that angers me in ways I cannot explain.
I am not gay myself, and I just want discrimination to end. This is another form of discrimination, like it or not. And that alone keeps me against Bush.
(That wasn't really defending Kerry, sorry again.)
I am not sure who I am going to vote for, but it will likely be Kerry. Of course, I am not even sure why I am posting in this political debate anyway since I don't even like politics or really pay attention.......
however it is funny how one thing can make decision for one person. I am for gay marriage, and Bush is fighting against it, and that one thing makes me against him. I really wanted Howard Dean to be the Dem Candidate, but at this point gay marriage is a really important issue for me, and one that angers me in ways I cannot explain.
I am not gay myself, and I just want discrimination to end. This is another form of discrimination, like it or not. And that alone keeps me against Bush.
(That wasn't really defending Kerry, sorry again.)
Indiana
CAGiversary!
Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.
Captain Inertia
CAGiversary!
Close loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their share* of taxes because they claim to be international.
Enforce trade laws as they pertain to worker's rights abroad, so that a company's only incentive for outsourcing is a better workforce abroad, and not dirt cheap labor who will work in conditions far less hospitable than what the American worker is accustomed to.
Utilize a multilateral, multinational approach to foreign policy. The U.N. may have little credibility to most Americans, but it has a lot of credibility to the rest of the world. While Bush's endeavors are mutli national, in so far as we DO have some allies, despite what most Dems/Lefties yell, we rarely have U.N. support. Kerry specifically wants U.N. involvement in much of what we do pertaining to foreign relations. I see a lot of arguments that we should ignore the U.N. because our national security is more important than kowtowing to a bunch of third-world countries with armies outfitted with banana catapults or something. That's all well and good, but remember the U.N. was set-up so those same banana-catapulting countries could have some say in world affairs. It was set-up so that military/economic/social giants such as the U.S. wouldn't have so much influence in dictating how those other countries should govern themselves.
The religious fanatics in this country have far less influence with Kerry than they do with Bush. I doubt Kerry's attorney general would have a problem with a statue's bare breast.
Things Bush has spent American taxpayer money on that Kerry (or any Democrat, and I think even a lot of Republicans) would not:
Faith-based initiatives- He's giving my money to religious organizations, despite the fact that I have no religious background. He's giving money taken from Muslim taxpayers and giving it to Christian organizations. And because he has to be fair with this...he's taking money from Christian taxpayers and giving it to Muslim organizations (I bet that sits well with our less tolerant citizens...they probably don't know about this, though).
Defending marriage- This goes beyond the silly idea of making a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage. I'm talking about marriage counseling and marriage CLASSES for lower income couples. While the bleeding heart inside of me likes government programs that help out disadvantaged people, I'm not comfortable with recent government involvement in the institution of marriage (See also: recent government uproars over what two citizens consent to do in their own bedrooms in private).
Alright, this is getting long-winded. Basically, I'm going to vote for the candidate who represents my views, my opinions. Kerry represents far more of my opinions than Bush does, hence he'll get my vote. But I understand perfectly well that Bush represents the opinions of a large part of this country as well. That's representative government folks!
*By fair share, I mean they enjoy easy access to US markets, US workers, and some US protections, basically privileges paid for by US tax money, but they don't contribute anything in the way of said taxes. Did you know that the Illinois state government just approved a contract that gives millions of Illinois' taxpayers money to a foreign company? And by foreign, I mean a company that will carry out all of its operations pertaining to this contract in the state of Illinois, but because their mail gets shipped to somewhere in the Caribbean ocean, they don't have to pay any taxes. Because they don't have to pay taxes, they were able to bid lower than a US company that pays its fair share. The revenue lost in taxes from the foreign company is actually more than the difference in bids between the two companies, so Illinois taxpayers really got hosed in this deal. This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about here.
Enforce trade laws as they pertain to worker's rights abroad, so that a company's only incentive for outsourcing is a better workforce abroad, and not dirt cheap labor who will work in conditions far less hospitable than what the American worker is accustomed to.
Utilize a multilateral, multinational approach to foreign policy. The U.N. may have little credibility to most Americans, but it has a lot of credibility to the rest of the world. While Bush's endeavors are mutli national, in so far as we DO have some allies, despite what most Dems/Lefties yell, we rarely have U.N. support. Kerry specifically wants U.N. involvement in much of what we do pertaining to foreign relations. I see a lot of arguments that we should ignore the U.N. because our national security is more important than kowtowing to a bunch of third-world countries with armies outfitted with banana catapults or something. That's all well and good, but remember the U.N. was set-up so those same banana-catapulting countries could have some say in world affairs. It was set-up so that military/economic/social giants such as the U.S. wouldn't have so much influence in dictating how those other countries should govern themselves.
The religious fanatics in this country have far less influence with Kerry than they do with Bush. I doubt Kerry's attorney general would have a problem with a statue's bare breast.
Things Bush has spent American taxpayer money on that Kerry (or any Democrat, and I think even a lot of Republicans) would not:
Faith-based initiatives- He's giving my money to religious organizations, despite the fact that I have no religious background. He's giving money taken from Muslim taxpayers and giving it to Christian organizations. And because he has to be fair with this...he's taking money from Christian taxpayers and giving it to Muslim organizations (I bet that sits well with our less tolerant citizens...they probably don't know about this, though).
Defending marriage- This goes beyond the silly idea of making a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage. I'm talking about marriage counseling and marriage CLASSES for lower income couples. While the bleeding heart inside of me likes government programs that help out disadvantaged people, I'm not comfortable with recent government involvement in the institution of marriage (See also: recent government uproars over what two citizens consent to do in their own bedrooms in private).
Alright, this is getting long-winded. Basically, I'm going to vote for the candidate who represents my views, my opinions. Kerry represents far more of my opinions than Bush does, hence he'll get my vote. But I understand perfectly well that Bush represents the opinions of a large part of this country as well. That's representative government folks!
*By fair share, I mean they enjoy easy access to US markets, US workers, and some US protections, basically privileges paid for by US tax money, but they don't contribute anything in the way of said taxes. Did you know that the Illinois state government just approved a contract that gives millions of Illinois' taxpayers money to a foreign company? And by foreign, I mean a company that will carry out all of its operations pertaining to this contract in the state of Illinois, but because their mail gets shipped to somewhere in the Caribbean ocean, they don't have to pay any taxes. Because they don't have to pay taxes, they were able to bid lower than a US company that pays its fair share. The revenue lost in taxes from the foreign company is actually more than the difference in bids between the two companies, so Illinois taxpayers really got hosed in this deal. This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about here.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='MrBadExample']In addition to some of the posts above:
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass![/quote]
First let me say I prefer Bush, however...
1. If there is one thing I like Kerry for, it would be that. I do not understand why so many are against stem-cell research.
2. This shouldn't even be an electoin issue anymore. The current rules won't change anytime soon.
3. I have a problem with that. Why should we wait for attacks on our soil before we protect ourselves. I do think we should be VERY careful in our responses to threats, though. For example, I do not see the need to go into N. Korea. The main reason is because China, S. Korea, Russia and Japan all can keep N. Korea in check. There was no such "check" in place with Afghanistan or Iraq.
4. He would nominate his liberal buddies just as much as a conservative would nominate his buddies so that is a matter of personal preference. I could care less who is on the Supreme Court either way.
5. We do need a different fuel supply. But the WORLD's economy is HEAVILY dependent on oil and it would have a negative impact on all those jobs Kerry would supposedly create. It has to be done gradually. A change to solar power would be nic but the government can't really charge for that and they would hate that (Dems and Republicans alike).
6. I couldn't care less about religious right so I don't know about this one.
7. Maybe, but to what end? What would be gained? We still have fair to good ties with our MAIN allies (UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, even China). Yes, Germany and France are important but they aren't THAT important. There are always countries that won't like you.
8. I don't see how when it seems like he doesn't want the troops in harms way. Bush could find Osama too but I think Osama is hiding in our new ally, Pakistan and there is no way we could just run into a nuclear power and take who we want.
1. Kerry is pro-stem cell research
2. He is pro choice
3. He will only commit troops to war as a last resort
4. He won't nominate ultra-right-wing judges to the Supreme Court (and there will be at least a couple of vacancies durint the next term)
5. He is not so tied to the oil companies so we can have a sane environmental policy as well as fund alternate fuels to lessen our dependence on the Middle East
6. He doesn't pander to the religious right
7. He will repair our foreign relations
8. He will find and kick Osama's ass![/quote]
First let me say I prefer Bush, however...
1. If there is one thing I like Kerry for, it would be that. I do not understand why so many are against stem-cell research.
2. This shouldn't even be an electoin issue anymore. The current rules won't change anytime soon.
3. I have a problem with that. Why should we wait for attacks on our soil before we protect ourselves. I do think we should be VERY careful in our responses to threats, though. For example, I do not see the need to go into N. Korea. The main reason is because China, S. Korea, Russia and Japan all can keep N. Korea in check. There was no such "check" in place with Afghanistan or Iraq.
4. He would nominate his liberal buddies just as much as a conservative would nominate his buddies so that is a matter of personal preference. I could care less who is on the Supreme Court either way.
5. We do need a different fuel supply. But the WORLD's economy is HEAVILY dependent on oil and it would have a negative impact on all those jobs Kerry would supposedly create. It has to be done gradually. A change to solar power would be nic but the government can't really charge for that and they would hate that (Dems and Republicans alike).
6. I couldn't care less about religious right so I don't know about this one.
7. Maybe, but to what end? What would be gained? We still have fair to good ties with our MAIN allies (UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, even China). Yes, Germany and France are important but they aren't THAT important. There are always countries that won't like you.
8. I don't see how when it seems like he doesn't want the troops in harms way. Bush could find Osama too but I think Osama is hiding in our new ally, Pakistan and there is no way we could just run into a nuclear power and take who we want.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Captain Inertia']Close loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their share* of taxes because they claim to be international.
[/quote]
Like making them less competitive because they can't have capital overseas and have to declare it for US tax purposes when foreign companies have that advantage?
Do people think about these issues critically? Or do they just think, hmm corporations paying more in taxes makes sense?
Hey, guess how the companies are going to cut cost?
Here's a hint: think employment.
[/quote]
Like making them less competitive because they can't have capital overseas and have to declare it for US tax purposes when foreign companies have that advantage?
Do people think about these issues critically? Or do they just think, hmm corporations paying more in taxes makes sense?
Hey, guess how the companies are going to cut cost?
Here's a hint: think employment.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote]
C'mon its not like he is not making money off giving them the Iraqi oil contracts.
cut me a
ing break
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote]
C'mon its not like he is not making money off giving them the Iraqi oil contracts.
cut me a
ing breakI will repeat -- we have 90 (NINETY) percent of the troops in Iraq and are picking up 90 (NINETY) percent of the tab. That doesn't sound like any sort of coalition to me. It sounds like us going it alone, with a few other countries included so Bush can say he's got a coalition.
Until we're paying a lot less and contributing a lot fewer troops, don't talk to me about us being in some meaningful coalition.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']Kerry has said he will improve the lot of our soldiers over in Iraq, first by adequately supplying them, something Bush has never done properly. He also will strengthen our international ties, which will help our soldiers if he can convince those countries to supply soldiers for the fight in Iraq. Right now 90 percent of the troops over there are ours, thanks to Mr. "Go It Alone" and his Coalition of the Feeble, and we're picking up 90 percent of the bill.
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).[/quote]
I just want to address the "go it alone comment" you made with an editorial from yesterday's WSJ.
I won't even comment on the 30 some odd nations participating in Iraq. I guess the only countries that count in an alliance are the ones that oppose you?
What Alliance?
799 words
28 June 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Webster's defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today's opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition.
The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO's deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan -- teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO's European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that's all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance."
The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America's security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer.
Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO's "number one priority," the allies' record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul.
Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September.
One of the Bush Administration's minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan's transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely.
Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world's third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France's total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d'Ivoire -- which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests.
This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO's reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.[/quote]
Until we're paying a lot less and contributing a lot fewer troops, don't talk to me about us being in some meaningful coalition.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']Kerry has said he will improve the lot of our soldiers over in Iraq, first by adequately supplying them, something Bush has never done properly. He also will strengthen our international ties, which will help our soldiers if he can convince those countries to supply soldiers for the fight in Iraq. Right now 90 percent of the troops over there are ours, thanks to Mr. "Go It Alone" and his Coalition of the Feeble, and we're picking up 90 percent of the bill.
Kerry also will make sure they are properly paid (Bush cut their pay) and have good medical benefits (Bush cut their benefits).[/quote]
I just want to address the "go it alone comment" you made with an editorial from yesterday's WSJ.
I won't even comment on the 30 some odd nations participating in Iraq. I guess the only countries that count in an alliance are the ones that oppose you?
What Alliance?
799 words
28 June 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Webster's defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today's opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition.
The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO's deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan -- teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO's European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that's all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance."
The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America's security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer.
Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO's "number one priority," the allies' record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul.
Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September.
One of the Bush Administration's minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan's transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely.
Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world's third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France's total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d'Ivoire -- which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests.
This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO's reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.[/quote]
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.
If Cheney's so disinterested in Halliburton, why did he improve the tone of Washington by telling that Senator who criticized the company to "Go fu** yourself"? That does not sound like a guy who could care less.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote]
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote]
http://www.flipflopper.com/Flipflops.asp
This is a good website for all of the Kerry supporters to learn the truth about their candidate.
This is a good website for all of the Kerry supporters to learn the truth about their candidate.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dennis_t']If Cheney's so disinterested in Halliburton, why did he improve the tone of Washington by telling that Senator who criticized the company to "Go fu** yourself"? That does not sound like a guy who could care less.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote][/quote]
I heard he made the comment, I did not hear what context it was in.
Can you provide a link? I am not trying to be difficult, I simply do not know.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Indiana']Halliburton is a huge mess. Dick should not have been allowed to be President (I mean Vice President) while having ties to that company. Also, there is no reason that Haliburton should have gotten that job without a bid process. They are wasting American Tax dollars and lining Dick's pockets.[/quote]
For the love of God. All his corporate holdings are held in a blind trust.
Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?
I really wish people who bring up this issue had a shred of knowledge about what they are talking about before they begin blithering on about it.[/quote][/quote]
I heard he made the comment, I did not hear what context it was in.
Can you provide a link? I am not trying to be difficult, I simply do not know.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='GuilewasNK']1. If there is one thing I like Kerry for, it would be that. I do not understand why so many are against stem-cell research.
2. This shouldn't even be an electoin issue anymore. The current rules won't change anytime soon.
4. He would nominate his liberal buddies just as much as a conservative would nominate his buddies so that is a matter of personal preference. I could care less who is on the Supreme Court either way.
6. I couldn't care less about religious right so I don't know about this one.[/quote]
These are all inter-related. The religious right is opposed to stem-cell research because they believe that fertilized cells are people hence their opposition to abortion too. The Supreme Court is important because at least a couple of justices are nearing retirement and two right-wing judges could roll back abortion rights.
I'm not saying war is never an option, but it should never be our first option.
The more allies we have, the better we are going to be able to work together to prevent future terrorist strikes.
2. This shouldn't even be an electoin issue anymore. The current rules won't change anytime soon.
4. He would nominate his liberal buddies just as much as a conservative would nominate his buddies so that is a matter of personal preference. I could care less who is on the Supreme Court either way.
6. I couldn't care less about religious right so I don't know about this one.[/quote]
These are all inter-related. The religious right is opposed to stem-cell research because they believe that fertilized cells are people hence their opposition to abortion too. The Supreme Court is important because at least a couple of justices are nearing retirement and two right-wing judges could roll back abortion rights.
I'm not saying war is never an option, but it should never be our first option.
The more allies we have, the better we are going to be able to work together to prevent future terrorist strikes.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
How dare you questioning a poster punq!
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
How dare you questioning a poster punq!
suprsaiyanMAX
CAGiversary!
[quote name='crissy1616'](I know I might get burned for this one)
I am not sure who I am going to vote for, but it will likely be Kerry. Of course, I am not even sure why I am posting in this political debate anyway since I don't even like politics or really pay attention.......
however it is funny how one thing can make decision for one person. I am for gay marriage, and Bush is fighting against it, and that one thing makes me against him. I really wanted Howard Dean to be the Dem Candidate, but at this point gay marriage is a really important issue for me, and one that angers me in ways I cannot explain.
I am not gay myself, and I just want discrimination to end. This is another form of discrimination, like it or not. And that alone keeps me against Bush.
(That wasn't really defending Kerry, sorry again.)[/quote]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Kerry isn't exactly a supporter of gay marriage either, he has said so. But if the question is will he actually fight against it, well nobody knows I don't think.
I am not sure who I am going to vote for, but it will likely be Kerry. Of course, I am not even sure why I am posting in this political debate anyway since I don't even like politics or really pay attention.......
however it is funny how one thing can make decision for one person. I am for gay marriage, and Bush is fighting against it, and that one thing makes me against him. I really wanted Howard Dean to be the Dem Candidate, but at this point gay marriage is a really important issue for me, and one that angers me in ways I cannot explain.
I am not gay myself, and I just want discrimination to end. This is another form of discrimination, like it or not. And that alone keeps me against Bush.
(That wasn't really defending Kerry, sorry again.)[/quote]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Kerry isn't exactly a supporter of gay marriage either, he has said so. But if the question is will he actually fight against it, well nobody knows I don't think.
Captain Inertia
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Captain Inertia']Close loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their share* of taxes because they claim to be international.
[/quote]
Like making them less competitive because they can't have capital overseas and have to declare it for US tax purposes when foreign companies have that advantage?
Do people think about these issues critically? Or do they just think, hmm corporations paying more in taxes makes sense?
Hey, guess how the companies are going to cut cost?
Here's a hint: think employment.[/quote]
Ah, you seemed a bit hasty in your reply and probably didn't have time to assess what I really meant with that simple sentence.
CLOSE LOOPHOLES that allow companies to afford privileges out of proportion with the amount of money they pay in taxes. I didn't say raise taxes. I was merely talking about being able to better define and enforce our laws pertaining to foreign companies, as well as domestic companies with foreign assets. Kerry's critics have taken that idea and turned it into a "raise taxes" issue. Of course I don't think foreign companies should be taxed like domestic companies. Nor should those companies be afforded the same privileges as our domestic companies. That's my argument. That's pretty much the Dems' argument as well. I even provided an example of this paradigm at the end of my post. Yeah, I know its not that great cause I don't remember the specific details, but it works well on a hypothetical level nonetheless.
[/quote]
Like making them less competitive because they can't have capital overseas and have to declare it for US tax purposes when foreign companies have that advantage?
Do people think about these issues critically? Or do they just think, hmm corporations paying more in taxes makes sense?
Hey, guess how the companies are going to cut cost?
Here's a hint: think employment.[/quote]
Ah, you seemed a bit hasty in your reply and probably didn't have time to assess what I really meant with that simple sentence.
CLOSE LOOPHOLES that allow companies to afford privileges out of proportion with the amount of money they pay in taxes. I didn't say raise taxes. I was merely talking about being able to better define and enforce our laws pertaining to foreign companies, as well as domestic companies with foreign assets. Kerry's critics have taken that idea and turned it into a "raise taxes" issue. Of course I don't think foreign companies should be taxed like domestic companies. Nor should those companies be afforded the same privileges as our domestic companies. That's my argument. That's pretty much the Dems' argument as well. I even provided an example of this paradigm at the end of my post. Yeah, I know its not that great cause I don't remember the specific details, but it works well on a hypothetical level nonetheless.
[quote name='kev'][quote name='coffman']I am planning on voting for Kerry because of his commitment to improving the environment. His senate voting record speaks for itself. He has a 97% League of Conservation Voter rating, which means that whenever there was a vote that affected the environment, he voted pro-environment 97% of the time. Bush on the other hand won't do anything to protect the environment because it hurts his campaign contributors. With Bush in office, White House policy is basically for sale to the highest contributor. Kerry will bring integrity back to the White House![/quote]
You sir, are not a true cheapass, nor very far-sighted. If you're in California (which I hope you aren't) you would realize that the League of Conservation cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in fire damage last year because they block every forest-clearing project imaginable. I give you credit for at least having a reason to vote Kerry though.
I'm quite glad as a Republican that Edwards didn't get the nomination. I even liked that guy...
Finally, how is Kerry planning on getting France/Germany/Russia/China to back our actions? He says he'll do it, but how? I wouldn't want my country appeasing France quite frankly.[/quote]
Trust me, I am very far-sighted. The environment is more important than most people realize. Don't blame fire damage on environmental regulations. The majority of the "fire control" the Bush administration has authorized is far from housing and other communities. Why? Because those areas were logged out long ago and the trees now growing are not yet big enough to be worth the logging companies' time. Yet these are the areas that need to be cleared of brush, dead trees, etc because of the close proximity to houses. Again, since the logging industry donated heavily to Bush's campaign, the American tax payer is getting the shaft from Bush's logging and "fire protection" policies.
You sir, are not a true cheapass, nor very far-sighted. If you're in California (which I hope you aren't) you would realize that the League of Conservation cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in fire damage last year because they block every forest-clearing project imaginable. I give you credit for at least having a reason to vote Kerry though.
I'm quite glad as a Republican that Edwards didn't get the nomination. I even liked that guy...
Finally, how is Kerry planning on getting France/Germany/Russia/China to back our actions? He says he'll do it, but how? I wouldn't want my country appeasing France quite frankly.[/quote]
Trust me, I am very far-sighted. The environment is more important than most people realize. Don't blame fire damage on environmental regulations. The majority of the "fire control" the Bush administration has authorized is far from housing and other communities. Why? Because those areas were logged out long ago and the trees now growing are not yet big enough to be worth the logging companies' time. Yet these are the areas that need to be cleared of brush, dead trees, etc because of the close proximity to houses. Again, since the logging industry donated heavily to Bush's campaign, the American tax payer is getting the shaft from Bush's logging and "fire protection" policies.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.[/quote]
the comparison is not that good. i mean, its friggin ketchup! sure its a big company, but its not a big industry. but just like above, i dont know what other things heinz does besides ketchup, if you could tell me thad'd be great ^^
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.[/quote]
the comparison is not that good. i mean, its friggin ketchup! sure its a big company, but its not a big industry. but just like above, i dont know what other things heinz does besides ketchup, if you could tell me thad'd be great ^^
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='CTLesq']Are you people going to demand Kerry divorce his wife or never serve ketchup at the White House because its a conflict of interest?[/quote]
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.[/quote]
the comparison is not that good. i mean, its friggin ketchup! sure its a big company, but its not a big industry. but just like above, i dont know what other things heinz does besides ketchup, if you could tell me thad'd be great ^^[/quote]
Ah, now its matters of degrees?
What happened to the issue of conflict of interest that was so gleefully (and without any proof of wrong doing) applied to Cheney?
Or is this a principle of convience?
if youre going to be that childish, y post?[/quote]
I was making a point. Can you see it?
People complain about Cheney having a conflict of interest with Haliburton, so lets take it to its logical conclusion.
Lets look at where Kerry has investments and see if you are willing to apply the same level of criticism and comparison.
Or is that childish?[/quote]
ill criticize any elected official that puts his own intrests in front of those of the people. but you gave no information at all, is kerry a big stock holder in the heinz corporation or something?[/quote]
If you don't know that one way or another I suggest you refrain from questioning my comments.[/quote]
why?[/quote]
Because he is married to Theresa Heinz (of Heinz ketchup, like THE OWNER). Thats why.[/quote]
the comparison is not that good. i mean, its friggin ketchup! sure its a big company, but its not a big industry. but just like above, i dont know what other things heinz does besides ketchup, if you could tell me thad'd be great ^^[/quote]
Ah, now its matters of degrees?
What happened to the issue of conflict of interest that was so gleefully (and without any proof of wrong doing) applied to Cheney?
Or is this a principle of convience?
bread's done