The Ultimate Kerry Ad

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"44942)</div>

If you look just at the records of the two individuals, and ignore all the political rhetoric, then Kerry ukeright: loses hands down. Kerry ukeright: has voted to increase taxes 11 times since he's been in the senate. He's voted against every major military system (i.e., the B-2, B-1, F-117, Apache, M1A1, and Aegis weapons system, just to name a few), that make our military the most technologically advanced forces in the world and is actually making our troops jobs easier and more effective. I can't see having a man as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces when he has, infact, voted against everything to support our troops and make the U.S. military the best in the world.

Bush lost jobs during his tenure, why because he was handed a country going into recession by the Clinton Administration...(remember those interest rates that just kept climbing?)...after 9/11 the American people lost faith in flying, so the airline industry suffered and thousands were laid off to keep them afloat. The stock market took a huge hit and confidence in the market was at a low, so people weren't buying as much and profits were down. What does industry do when profits are down? Lay off workers, more unemployed. What I'm saying, Bush was dealt this hand by two things, the previous administration and 9/11. He didn't create this, but he's doing an admirable job in fixing it. Jobs are increasing, interest rates were at an all time low and people are buying again, so industry is hiring more people to fill the jobs to handle the increased demand in consumer goods....it's cyclical...it would have happened to whomever was in office. Bush happened to be, and he's being bashed for something that he had no control over....but yet he's fixing it.

Personally, I like paying less taxes...I work hard for my money, but I get pissed off every time I see my pay stub and I have more money being taken out then I take home...and Kerry ukeright: wants to take more of it?? No way....I'm sorry Kerry ukeright: just doesn't have what it takes and the man scares the bejesus out of me...

Red...

 

Can you explain the purpose of taxes?

If not, you don't have a clear picture of the issues.

When spent properly, tax dollars accomplish amazing things that wouldn't have otherwise been possible. They also help balance, like providing preventative maintenance of roads for example. A tax cut would cause those roads to age prematurely requiring entire replacement much sooner... which is clearly more expensive in the long run. That is true for the other end of the spectrum too. Maintaining outdated equipment can cost more than investing in the stuff... which higher taxes fund.

You have to look at the details.

It's like the creation of new jobs. If they are lower pay and provide lesser benefits than what was lost, the numbers are skewed. There will be a net loss even though the count balances... especially if someone has to work 2 jobs instead of 1 to make ends meet.

And then you have situations like Iraq, where the public was never informed just how much it would actually cost. Knowing that and the negative effect it would have on our economy for the following decade would make some choose differently. The war was not quick & affordable, as promised. In fact, the purpose was not correct either.

Knowing the details alters your impression.

 

Red, do you really believe all that rubbish? Please, do some research before blindly quoting stuff you've heard in a Republican advert. I'll do some free research for you, just this once:

The first one appears to come from an advert that accused him of voting to increase petrol ("gas") taxes 11 times. Well, for one if you had some decent petrol taxes then you wouldn't be in the mess you're in now. Strikes me as a sensible idea. Secondly, most of those votes were multiple votes for the same bill to get it through.

Some quotes from Cheney's favourite www.factcheck.org:

Next, the weapons systems. So, as a senator you'd pass every single military spending bill that came your way, would you? With the USA already outspending the next dozen-odd countries COMBINED? And you wonder why the rest of the world sees the USA as a bigger threat than Iraq? Maybe if you spent weren't spending all those billions you wouldn't have to pay so much tax. It's a childish nonsense to attack any vote against any military spending as somehow irresponsible.

Here's a link about the allegations in question: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp. Note that Cheney also opposed many of these programs. This was after the end of the cold war; without massed Soviet armies to fight against, of course it made sense to scale back on the heavy machinery. The heavy machinery isn't helping in Iraq now, is it? You can't bomb the insurgents into submission from B-2s.

Please, do try to be more cynical about what people say in political ads. I thought you Americans were renowned for being suspicious of the motives of politicians.

As to the economy, yes, it was going to go pear-shaped whoever was in office. But Bush hasn't been implementing any sensible policies to do anything about it - he's just been handing tax cuts to rich people, thus digging a deeper hole. Jobs are increasing, yes, but not by enough to even match population growth.

Here's a link to an recent article by the renowned economist J.K.Galbraith. He understands exactly what Bush's economic policies are about: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/....galbraith.html

Do try to read and understand the complexities of the issues. The Republicans seem to be arguing at a Beavis and Butthead level: "uh huh uh - he said 'tax' - uh huh huh". This entirely fits the Straussian philosophy of the neoconservatives, which basically says that the mass of the populace "can't handle the truth", and it's the elite's job to say whatever it takes to drag the populace along. Don't fall for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VARedDevil\";p=\"44977)</div>

Reality check: Dick Cheney also proposed eliminating many of those programs, including the Apache, F-14, F-16, and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=177.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VARedDevil\";p=\"44977)</div>

Actually, the recession started in March of 2001. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers lied, announcing that it began earlier so it could more easily be blamed on Clinton.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...08/b3871044.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VARedDevil\";p=\"44977)</div>

Well, if your income is in the top 2% then yes, your taxes will be restored to the level they were at before Bush's insane tax cuts -- the only tax cuts ever made during wartime in the history of the world. Boo hoo.

EDIT: Bah, KMO beat me to it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"44987)</div>

We are, but only when they represent the other party.

 

No president has good control, rather each is delt a situation and attempts to deal with it. Bush has the worst environmental record since before Teddy Roosevelt. The Bush program is to extract and exploit by spending natural capital, with no concern for long-term sustainability.

With a 1 to 5 mpg increase (CAFE) in fuel economy, you eliminate the "need" for extracting the equivalent of 5 to 10 north slope oil fields. The Bush record is "go get more" with no concern for air quality, efficiency or long-term profits. Only short-term thinking matters.

Normally in a war situation you increase taxes. Bush provided tax cuts for the top levels - creating the largest deficit in US history. Senator McCain and others have clearly identified that we need to "bite the bullet" and decrease our spending, live within our means and think and act long term. Regardless of the name, politicians tend to act for political expediency, not long-term sustainability.

No rational person spends the capital without regard for the future. There are few rational politicians. When placed on a balance, Bush sees no alternatives to spending our natural capital. Both candidates must stop the promises and recognize we need to balance our books, not operate on ambiguous plans, and speak in specifics, not "I have a plan."

 

Ahhhhhhh, I love stirring the "muck"..... What I'm saying is both parties spin everything their way....I'm actually an independent, and don't like either of the individuals that are running for president this year, but after spending 26 years in the military, fighting for the rights for people to say whatever they want to say in this great country, I will vote for the one that I trust more........'nuff said.

 

Red,

I certainly don't trust Kerry. I don't know enough about him, or more importantly, about the team he will appoint. He wouldn't have been my choice for Democratic candidate.

But I know more than I want to about Bush and his team. I know how he acts when he needs to softpedal to get re-elected; I dread to think how he'll act when unconstrained in his second term.

But on the other hand, if Bush did get re-elected, the resulting mess after 4 more years it would probably mean the end of the Republican party for a decade. It could provide the necessary impetus for the USA to decisively reject the neocon/evangelical agenda.

If Kerry gets elected, he's going to be something of a lame duck, as he'll have to clear up the economic mess, while faced with a hostile senate+congress. He may not manage a 2nd term if faced with decent Republican opposition.

Either way, the next four years won't exactly be an earthly paradise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"45004)</div>

Unfortunately for Kerry, if he wins, he will only be a one term president. The Democratic Pary will ask him to give it up so that they can run the "darling" of the party....Hillary Cliton, ooops I mean Clinton. If you notice, she has kept mysteriously silent while most of Kerry's fellow demograts in Congress have been politicing for him. It wouldn't surprise me if she really hopes he loses, so that she can run for president in '08 without having to unseat the imcumbent in the primaries. That would probably cause the demise of the Demcrat party. I think it's impressive that you're taking this much of an interest in our politics KMO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VARedDevil\";p=\"45008)</div>

You may claim to be an independent all you want, but that hateful snide remark exposes you as the fringe right wing zealot that you really are.

 

By the way, timing needs to be considered too.

The "hydrogen" effort is a worthless diversion. Not having a well defined goal and not even having to deliver anything for 16 years is absurd.

Drilling our way out of the oil mess is a worthless diversion too. From approval to the delivery of product takes 10 years! What the heck do we do in the meantime?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VARedDevil\";p=\"45008)</div>

Proof that maturity has nothing to do with age.

I'm sorry that I mistook you for someone who is capable of intelligent discussion on the issues. It won't happen again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(10132003\";p=\"45011)</div>

You may claim to be an independent all you want, but that hateful snide remark exposes you as the fringe right wing zealot that you really are.[/b][/quote]

Wow, I've never been called that before, I'm hurt :sleeping: . Obviously, I hit a nerve in my reference to her highness. If that offends you, I apologize, but that also makes you an extreme left-wing liberal, because she makes Ted Kennedy look like a conservative.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco\";p=\"45020)</div>

You may claim to be an independent all you want, but that hateful snide remark exposes you as the fringe right wing zealot that you really are.[/b][/quote]

Wow, I've never been called that before, I'm hurt :sleeping: . Obviously, I hit a nerve in my reference to her highness. If that offends you, I apologize, but that also makes you an extreme left-wing liberal, because she makes Ted Kennedy look like a conservative.[/b][/quote]

No you didn't hit a nerve by your reference to 'her highness'. Us left wingers accept that the Right Wing and many others are frightened by powerful intelligent women. I'm no huge Hillary supporter, but I think a boorish reference to anyone like that is uncalled for and clearly marks you as someone unwilling to take a high road in discussions.

Such a sexist and nasty reference to say Laura Bush would be equally met with serious objections...even from us LWNJs (Left Wing Nut Jobs).[/b][/quote]

Okay Doc, in the interest of civility, I retract my reference to Ms. Clinton's name change. You're right, that was in bad taste. I have nothing against LWNJ as you put it, or the right-wing zealots. Everybody has a right to their opinion, and the right to voice it. That's what's so great about this country we live in...and that's what makes us so great...the diversity that we possess and the ability to share those differnces.

 

ya know...the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves because of the state of this country today...they didnt label people left wing or right wing whackos... the founding fathers and associates would be putting an end to the govt as we know it and starting over...additionally, they would be purging the press of all agendas and getting them back to reporting the news and not making it... :wave:

 

Obviously, the war on terrorism cannot be totally won. I don't believe either Bush or Kerry has ever suggested that. I doubt that KMO really believes that either of them have made that naive claim.

Iraq represented the nexus of oil money, WMD capability, support for terrorism, and imperialism. If you don't believe Iraq had WMD capability, ask the Iranians and Kurds who survived Iraqi chemical attacks in the 1980's and '90's. If you don't believe Iraq was imperialist, ask the Kuwaitis who lost family in the Iraqi invasion. Imagine what the middle east would look like right now if that invasion hadn't been defeated by an anglo-american coalition. Kerry opposed George H. W. Bush's efforts to stop Iraqi militarism, much as he opposed Reagan's efforts against the Soviet Union, although now he finds it impossible to make a speech without invoking Reagan's name.

Israel is facing a brutal, barbaric and profoundly corrupt enemy. Israelis have every right to defend themselves, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN. The terrorist faction of the palestinians has sabotaged the efforts by both sides of the conflict to create a Palestinian state, much as Chechen terrorists have defeated the legitimate efforts of moderate Chechens. If either of these peoples ever achieve nationhood, their victory will be forever tarnished by the memory of the hundreds of children they slaughtered along the way.

 

Saying "Iraq had WMD capability" and saying "Iraq had WMD capability in 2003" are very different.
Saying "Iraq was imperialist" and saying "Iraq was imperialist in 2003" are very different.
People who believe they were misled and lied to in 2003 take little comfort from facts [strike:2ce6f4c54c]suggesting[/strike:2ce6f4c54c] supporting our actions in the early 1990's.
Palestine is a country, filled with many different types of people with different agendas. Israel is a country, filled with many different types of people with different agendas.

Sorry, guys, but my standards for precision are too high. I think these statements are deceptive. Here's where I encroach on dangerous ground, so I need to phrase this carefully to avoid offending people: I believe these overbroad statements are deliberately constructed with intent to deceive -- their original authors were lying by omitting facts. Their original authors are not on this message board, though: they are the otherwise respectable media representatives, political analysts, and other experts who are influencing their audience in unusual ways, encouraging them to believe logical fallacies. Some people are so moved by these messages that they become advocates of these logically flawed positions, not realizing they have been duped by people they trust.

I am one person, with one set of viewpoints and opinions. I believe that statements like those I am replying to come from maliciously flawed sources (for example, distracting people who think THIS administration made mistakes by pointing out that what George H. W. Bush did in the 1990's was justified) but the people here in this message board influenced by these messages are good people who believe in what they are saying. I hope people aren't too emotionally invested in the outcome of this election -- when people feel like they *personally* have been defeated if the candidate they supported loses the election, logic and reason doesn't mean a whole lot to them. People should be able to change when they see new facts.

Overall, the people here seem to be pretty smart. I'm sure we won't take it too personally when we have to concede points that make our favored candidate look bad.

(I really hope that came out right. I mean no offense or insult, except to our deceptive media.)

--Spence

(edit: changed some strange wording. I left the original word as a strikeout)

 

Palestine is a country, filled with many different types of people with different agendas. Israel is a country, filled with many different types of people with different agendas.

Not at all, not in the sense that the United States is. Both societies are much more homogenous than ours, particularly the Palestinians. No criticism there, the same is true of Japan or Estonia, for example. Israel has many ethnic groups, largely diasporic Jews driven out of European and Middle-eastern countries by religious intolerance and anti-semitism.

Here's where we differ. I tend to view events from a moralistic perspective. I see the purposeful slaughter of civilians, particularly women and children, as wrong, as evil. I did not implicate all Palestinians (or Chechens) in my previous post, only the terrorist factions.

A car bomb on a crowded city street or a suicide bomber in a marketplace is evil anywhere, be it in Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Spain, Bali, India, Russia, Kenya or NYC.

 

Its a bit long, so please bear with me. Also, I didn't write this myself, it stolen... err, appropriated : P

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I haveâ€.