John Kerry

[Lefty]

Kinda looks like Kerry will be the Dem's nominee. The Dems on this board instead of singing his praises see fit to just dump on Bush. Can anyone tell me why this giy would be a good Pres when he voted to take millions from CIA budget, wanted to cancel B1, B2 Bomber and Apache Helicoptor and Patriot Missile?Also in Regan adm when Reagan fighting the "cold war" Kerry voted for a nuclear freeze. The guy was in Vietnam and did some brave things but aside from that how can he help? Remember Audie Murphy was most decorated soldier of WW11 but was he President Material? Prob. Not. And we have a very liberal voting record to say to me Kerry not the man for the job.
Here's a link to very nice picture of Kerry with Jane Fonda.
www.rushlimbaugh.com

[ljb]

Lefty,
I was reading your post with due dilligence then I saw the link to that doper on the bottom and had to exit. I didn't think anyone even listened to him anymore, do you perhaps attend sessions with him?

[Lefty]

lbj, it's a picture. Afraid to look? Rush has 22million listeners, how many do your lib idols have?
This is thread where you get so say why Kerry would be a good Pres. Guess you can't think of any reasons and reason you gave on wmd thread just a childish "copout" Try and do better.

[ljb]

LeftyTruth be known, we need no other reason.
ABBA

[Lefty]

lbj, thought so. Just a Bush hater with no positives to articulate about the dem presumptive nominee.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
I was reading your post with due dilligence then I saw the link to that doper on the bottom and had to exit. I didn't think anyone even listened to him anymore, do you perhaps attend sessions with him?

LJB.....I assume you refer to John F. Kennedy as a doper also?

[Dave Schwartz]

Ralph,

You misspelled "reefer." <G>


Dave

[ljb]

Jr,
Hate to bring you to reality but, John F. Kennedy has been dead for many years now. Has little influence on the upcoming election.

[Lefty]

lbj, JR referring to fact that JFK also was in pain and used "pain killers" You referred to Rush as a doper when all he's trying to do is escape his pain. You like most liberals really have no compassion. BTW, Rush not running for office although Howard Dean surely seems to think so. I set this thread up so people could explain Kerry's credentials in keeping this country safe and to keep the economic picture bright, but so far no posts along those lines. How in the hell can he win?

[ljb]

Lefty,
Suggest you get your data from someone other then a doper when you make your decisions.
Who in the hell do you think you are trying to fool.
"I set up this thread so people could explain Kerrys blah blah blah blah."
Let me repeat.
HE AIN'T BUSH!
No other credentials required.

[Secretariat]

Bush and Kerry actually have an extensive policy record now, and I think Lefty's questions about Kerry are legit. But it is large record with a lot of issues, so I propose Lefty tell us which area he is particulary interested in reviewing - defense, environment, economy, social security, health care, etc..

I'll start with Bush's own words on budget surpluses in a speech in 99 when he was running for president against Gore:

"I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to decline if I’m the president. I think they’re going to increase, because my plan will increase productivity by cutting marginal rates.
Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999

Reality Check: WRONG AGAIN. HIS FISCAL POLICIES HAVE LEAD TO THE LARGEST DEFICITS IN US HISTORY IN A VERY BRIEF TIME.

[Lefty]

lbj, I hope someday you're in the pain Rush experiences. Might teach you something.
But, still no positives for Kerry. Hmmmm.

[Lefty]

Sec, you come in with a perceived negative about Bush.
Still no positives for Kerry.
Tick, tick, tick...

[Lefty]

and sec, compared to the gnp the deficits not that big a deal Leave Republicans in two more terms and they probably vanisgh during the biggest economy in history.
I was watching some stock analysts last night, they think Bush great for the mkt and Kerry bad.
But, here I am looking for positives for Kerry.

[Show Me the Wire]

According to ljb I am in the minority according to some poll, so Now I am taking the established minority mantra.

kerry is a liar.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[bill]

if the economy so great how come so many foreclosers and vegas is in the top 5 cities

not to start a fight just a question

[Lefty]

bill, newsflash: they gamble here, an awful lot and some people can't control it. I have personally known people who've lost their homes because of their gambling; nothing to do with the economy.
My wife just got a raise. Her joint must be doing well.

But, still no positives for Kerry.

[ljb]

Kerry is better then Bush, course most everyone is.

[Secretariat]

lol...yeah Lefty, that deficit is great for the country...

I asked you to name one area you want Kerry's record on. I'd be glad to, but you refuse to even suggest one to begin. Economy? Budget? Health Care? Social Security? But you keep up with the diversions. It's what I would have expected.

[Lefty]

lbj, you didn't post a Kerry positive. You are not getting this.

Sec, I asked a simple thing: Given Kerry's voting record why would he be good for the country? Where's the positives. Your choice.
I don't see any diversion or tricks there. If you can't understand it, then sadly, you're in same boat as poor lbj.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
Hate to bring you to reality but, John F. Kennedy has been dead for many years now. Has little influence on the upcoming election.

Answer the question....by YOUR own definitions, was JFK a doper?
His influence on the election has noting to do with it. We want to see if you apply the same standards to dem as repubs.
Was JKF a doper?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, you didn't post a Kerry positive. You are not getting this.

Sec, I asked a simple thing: Given Kerry's voting record why would he be good for the country? Where's the positives. Your choice.
I don't see any diversion or tricks there. If you can't understand it, then sadly, you're in same boat as poor lbj.

Ok Lefty. Then I'll pcik. How bout this one?

Kerry Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.

Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress.
Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003

He's not talking about drilling in our national parks, but becoming energy independent. Something Bush would never do. The US only has 3% of all the world's oil reserves. We've got to find a different way than current fossil fuels. Kerry voted above to work toward that goal in a very realistic timeframe.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat

Reality Check: WRONG AGAIN. HIS FISCAL POLICIES HAVE LEAD TO THE LARGEST DEFICITS IN US HISTORY IN A VERY BRIEF TIME.


Reality check is right-a lot happened since 1999. Like 9-11-01.
In spite of that, the economy is rebounding and the FACT is that the recession started before Bush was ever sworn in.
SO what if we have a deficit? We will survive it, we will come out of it. You trolls have so little faith in opur counrty is is amzing!
You do not measure the worth of a nation by its bank account.
You measure it by its deeds. Name me one country that has done anythingclose to what this country has done to help others in need throughout the last 100 years.
In spite of theis super large deficit, we are still the greates nation on earth, the wealthiest, the most givng, the stongest, the most fruitful, and the most technological. We have been to the moon, survived, and are going back. We are looking a photos of Mars in real time, and are going to go there some day.
Time for a reality check, Sec. There is no nation on earth, nor has there ever been one, that is as well off as we are. Instead of griping about it, I would think you would rejoice in your good fortune.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Reality check is right-a lot happened since 1999. Like 9-11-01.
In spite of that, the economy is rebounding and the FACT is that the recession started before Bush was ever sworn in.
SO what if we have a deficit? We will survive it, we will come out of it. You trolls have so little faith in opur counrty is is amzing!
You do not measure the worth of a nation by its bank account.
You measure it by its deeds. Name me one country that has done anythingclose to what this country has done to help others in need throughout the last 100 years.
In spite of theis super large deficit, we are still the greates nation on earth, the wealthiest, the most givng, the stongest, the most fruitful, and the most technological. We have been to the moon, survived, and are going back. We are looking a photos of Mars in real time, and are going to go there some day.
Time for a reality check, Sec. There is no nation on earth, nor has there ever been one, that is as well off as we are. Instead of griping about it, I would think you would rejoice in your good fortune.

First off Tom, the quote is based on Bush's own words, not mine. I never made that claim about the Clinton surpluses as Bush did. He said it, not me.

OK. As to the economy rebounding ,the verdict is still out. Deficits are expected to get larger according to the GAO. Just because Bush's tax cut to the wealthiest gave them more money to spend on the stock market, do not think this economy is growing. Job creation is at an all time low, and this despite the fact that Congress did not extend unemployment benefits which kicked many people off the roles. Our dollar is devalued considerably due to the deficit meaning our goods are now cheaper abroad, and this helps with the deficit temporarily, but creating a poor dollar is not a good long term option as most economists will tell you (even Greenspan). So what if we have a deficit you say, and then you put some garbage in with the implication that I am a troll or some such name calling nonsense. Frankly, I feel that responsibly addressing the deficit rather than rhetoric about it is showing my concern for the country. I don't consider it my good fortune to borrow money from young nephews to pay for a couple extra bucks in my pocket today. I don't appreciate a president who attempts to make people think they're making more money when he is simply borrowing it with interest to pay in the future. It is simply irresponsible and shameful, and those who support it are pretty darn greedy towards future generations welfare. I have a lot of faith in this country, and that's why I beleive they'll vote this man out of office and get our country moving in the right direction again where we are admired by the rest of the world, rather than viewed as a stubborn bully forcing our opinion onto eveyone else without their regard. Your comment about the great things our country has done leave me perplexed. I know of no one in this country who doesn't treasure the accomplishments of our nation, our freedoms, our humanitarism, but to equate lack of support for Bush's polices with lack of pride in our country is without any logic whatsoever. Where do you come up with an analogy like that?

[Lefty]

Sec, that's the best thing you've got? He wants us to become less dependent on energy? Well, hell, yeah, we all want that, but the govt can't make it happen. Govt can't wave a magic wand and make great inventions happen. Only the private sector can do that; inventors in their garages, etc. The Wright Bros. were not part of a govt prgm. So, I don't view this as a positive. It's just wishful thinking and govt intervention. The govt should keep their noses out of business.

How is a man with his voting record on national security and wanting a nuclear freeze and wanting to cancel all our most effective weapons prgm going to keep this country safe?

Sec, says Kerry would like the govt to interfere in business and demand a hydrogen car. You really think that'll get the guy elected? He better come up with more than that.

Buy the way, on energy Kerry against drilling for oil in Alaska. Don't ypou think having our own oil would make us less dependent on oil? Yet, Kerry against that.

So far the big positive for Kerry is wishful thinking.

[Lefty]

Say, Sec, what's Kerry's plan for reducing the deficit? Since that's your particular hot button what do you think he'd do to make it all better?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, that's the best thing you've got? He wants us to become less dependent on energy? Well, hell, yeah, we all want that, but the govt can't make it happen. Govt can't wave a magic wand and make great inventions happen. Only the private sector can do that; inventors in their garages, etc. The Wright Bros. were not part of a govt prgm. So, I don't view this as a positive. It's just wishful thinking and govt intervention. The govt should keep their noses out of business.

Sec, says Kerry would like the govt to interfere in business and demand a hydrogen car. You really think that'll get the guy elected? He better come up with more than that.

Buy the way, on energy Kerry against drilling for oil in Alaska. Don't ypou think having our own oil would make us less dependent on oil? Yet, Kerry against that.

So far the big positive for Kerry is wishful thinking.

First, the government CAN make it happen. The technology doesn’t need to be invented, it’s already there. I already drive a hybrid car and get 50 miles to the gallon on the highway. Government can do a LOT to make it happen. Passing fuel efficiency standards reducing reliance on foreign oil is a start; mandating the change to hydrogen based cars can happen, after all if we can put a man on the moon in less than a decade we can certainly use existing technolgies to reduce our reliance on oil from the mid-East; additionally significant tax incentives to switch technology is good for business and consumers (you’re favorite here – tax relief). As to governemnt keeping its nose out of business, that’s wishful thinking. Business lobbies government daily with their wish lists, and successfully instills candidates that will do their bidding. If you actually think that business and government are not inter-connected, you are much more naïve than I thought. Personally, I think this is a huge issue as it eliminates our vast reliance on Arab nations to supply us with energy, and reduces that large sucking sounds of funds going to a Saudi monarchies and businesses who in turn find ways to funnel it to groups such as sponsored the 911 attack. If government doesn’t oversee businesses and just lets them to their own devices we have Enrons, and worse.

Lefty, you state "By the way, on energy Kerry against drilling for oil in Alaska. Don't you think having our own oil would make us less dependent on oil? Yet, Kerry against that."

AGAIN, you illustrate your ignorance of the facts in the above comment. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. There is no physical way for the US to drill its way out of this problem. We have to invent our way out of this problem. The sooner that we commit America to the science & discovery of renewable alternatives, the better off America will be, the better our health will be, the more effective our economy would be, the better our national security will be, and the better world citizen we will be. We need to commit ourselves to energy independence now. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge won't provide a drop of oil for 20 years. And the total amount of oil, if it were to come through at the level that some people in the oil industry predict, will amount to about a 1% to 2% reduction in the total dependency of the United States on oil.

Lefty, you then state, ""So far the big positive for Kerry is wishful thinking."

Beleiving we can drill our way out of this is the wishful thinking my friend.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Say, Sec, what's Kerry's plan for reducing the deficit? Since that's your particular hot button what do you think he'd do to make it all better?

Here's Kerry's reduction on deficit reduction. A bit different than GW:

The first thing Kerry suggests is rolling back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Fiscally responsible tax cuts for working families can grow the economy, but there is no excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. Then we can create jobs and invest in our people. With the right economic plan, we can turn our economy around, invest in people and reduce deficits all at the same time.

One of Senator Kerry's very first votes in the Senate was for the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction plan, the first serious attempt in the 1980s to rein in the growth of the federal budget. Kerry was an original co-sponsor of this legislation -- and one of the first Democrats.

In 1993, Senator Kerry voted for the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the largest and most specific deficit reduction plan ever enacted. In l994, John Kerry introduced legislation to make $85 billion in specific program budget cuts over five years, and also led a group of five Senators in sponsoring another package to cut $43 billion from the deficit over the same time period. In 1995, Senator Kerry built on his deficit reduction record by authoring The Responsible Deficit Reduction Act -- which proposed to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending by more than $90 billion. In addition, he fought alongside Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to reduce more than $60 billion in wasteful "corporate welfare" from the federal budget.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
How is a man with his voting record on national security and wanting a nuclear freeze and wanting to cancel all our most effective weapons prgm going to keep this country safe?


Before answering this one Lefty, I am curious as to what you are referring to as "our most effective weapons program" that he is going to cancel.

[Secretariat]

Also Lefty, just to show I'm not blind sided to Kerry, I dislike some of his trading policies very much ,specifically his support of globalization and NAFTA. However, given the alternative, namely GW, it's a no -brainer.

[Lefty]

sec, raising taxes never the answer and never will be the answer. Yes, saying raising taxes on wealthy might fly with athe unthinking knee-jerk class envy types but raise taxes on the wealthy and it's the middle class and poor who pay. More taxes for the wealthy and prices for goods and services go up and jobs either disappear or are not created. Congrats on your hybrid car but it's up to to American car manufacturers to make them appeal to the people. Govt. can't and shouldn't interfere. John McGlaughlin is predicting the doom of the hybrid already. Too bad, but the govt in our bus. not an answer. For a long time Japan was successful in the world economy because of a "marriage" between Govt and Bus. but it finally crashed on their heads. A more energy efficient car that's practical and more energy efficent heat and other things will come about in due time but it's up to the private sector to invent them and make them palpable to the public not the govts.
Drilling in Alaska will lesson our dependence on foreign oil RIGHT NOW and not in some faraway future.

What weapons prgms does John Kerry want to cancel? He voted to cancel the B!, B2 Bombers, the Patriot Missile and Apache Helicoptor, among others.

[Lefty]

sec, you said it, not me, nobrainer.
He'll cede our national security to UN. He'll raise taxes. Our war on terror will stop and the terrorists will regroup become stronger and more 9-11's in this country a certainty. A real nobrainer.

[ljb]

Lefty,
If you could borrow a couple bucks from your wife, you could pick up a copy of this week's Newsweek magazine. It goes into detail regarding the failure of star wars intelligence gathering. Perhaps then you would understand why some vote against such pipe dreams.

[Lefty]

Don't need to borrow the dough, but here's the thing: The automobile, airplane, computer, space exploration,and the list goes on and on... all once pipedreams. I know, Newsweek and you prob. would have advised those pioneers to give it up after a couple failures but this country based on daring and imagination. Thank God.
lbj, I need to remind you this thread about positives for John Kerry. You haven't posted any.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I have posted many times the most positive thing about Kerry. Namely HE IS NOT BUSH.
You keep repeating this is a thread about positives about Kerry "lbj, I need to remind you this thread about positives for John Kerry. You haven't posted any". Well ok then ,how about you post a few?

[PaceAdvantage]

"He is not Bush" is a cop out.

[Lefty]

lbj, I have many positives about whom i'm going to vote for, Pres. Bush. Kerry is the presumptive nominee. I thght it'd be nice if someone, instead of "just Bush hating" could post some positives about John Kerry. He has a lousy voting record on funding the CIA and our weapons prgms. I wondered if anyone could address that and possibly defend it. I can't. I guess, you can't either.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Well then why don't you start a thread titled George Bush?
The way I read this you did not start this thread for people to post positive things about Kerry, you just wanted a thread where you could bash Kerry. Did I read this right?
If so do you want me to start a thead for you to post your positive things about Bush ? Just trying to keep the board operating smoothly here.

Pa, He is not Bush is a fact.
Feel free to post your opinions also.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Pa, He is not Bush is a fact.

Hee...Hee......yeah.....I guess that is true....not that it is Germane to the statement by PA. Once again you have no answer........

Heidi Fleiss ain't Betsy Ross.............but I still won't buy a flag from her...........




that makes about as much sense as your reply LJB........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, raising taxes never the answer and never will be the answer. Yes, saying raising taxes on wealthy might fly with athe unthinking knee-jerk class envy types but raise taxes on the wealthy and it's the middle class and poor who pay. More taxes for the wealthy and prices for goods and services go up and jobs either disappear or are not created.

Guess what Lefty. The middle class and poor are already paying more, and the prices for goods and services are going up and jobs are disappearing. Something’s missing here. Buying into the old supply side reasoning is what keeps the wealthy – wealthy. The facts are Lefty that taxes on the wealthiest Americans have already been cut from a high of 90% during Eisenhower to about 35% today, and most of the wealthiest find loopholes to write off much of that percentage. Who makes up that difference? The middle class. The rich wil always cry too much taxation and will continually try to pit the middle class against the poor. Raising taxes on the wealthiest is the only way to “begin” to reduce the deficit, and unless it is done, it is going to get far worse. GW’s solution – let’s give the wealthiest even deeper tax cuts. Get real.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Congrats on your hybrid car but it's up to to American car manufacturers to make them appeal to the people. Govt. can't and shouldn't interfere.

Who says they shouldn’t interfere if it is the interest of the nation? Didn’t Chrysler get a bail out by the government a decade or so back? Hasn’t the airline industry been propped up the government? Hasn’t Halliburton made billions thanks to the no bid government contracts? The issue isn’t the government shouldn’t interfere. They always HAVE interfered when they believe it is in the best interests of the nation.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
John McGlaughlin is predicting the doom of the hybrid already. Too bad, but the govt in our bus. not an answer. For a long time Japan was successful in the world economy because of a "marriage" between Govt and Bus. but it finally crashed on their heads. A more energy efficient car that's practical and more energy efficent heat and other things will come about in due time but it's up to the private sector to invent them and make them palpable to the public not the govts.

Well, I don’t know if McLaughlin drives a hybrid, but I’ve never had a problem with mine, it’s comfortable, and gets great mileage. How can you even make a claim that it is not practical? Truth is, you really don’t know. I’m all for more efficient energy sources – so is Kerry, and his voting record shows it (a REAL POSITIVE), but imagine if we all got 50 miles to the gallon right now. Put a dent on those rising gas costs, wouldn’t it. Waiting for the “private sector” to come up with it without incentive is that “wishful thinking” that you keep accusing Kerry of. Hopefully, government leads, rather than praying for business to help. We already have government science programs in NASA anyway, or should that now be privatized? Why can’t we do the same for energy?

[ljb]

Jr,
I really hate it when I have to spell everything out for people.
Lefty asked for positive things about Kerry
I am a member of the ABBA crowd.
so being not Bush is a fact and a positive for me.
If there are other notes you don't understand just reply, I will try to explain them to you.
Just trying to keep the board running smoothly here.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Drilling in Alaska will lesson our dependence on foreign oil RIGHT NOW and not in some faraway future.


Did you even read my previous post. I’ll put it again since you didn’t. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge won't provide a drop of oil for 20 years. And the total amount of oil, if it were to come through at the level that some people in the oil industry predict, will amount to about a 1% to 2% reduction in the total dependency of the United States on oil. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. There is no physical way for the US to drill its way out of this problem. Please explain to me how this is “right now”, and shows any kind of foresight for even the near term future. Your response in this regard is just silly.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
What weapons prgms does John Kerry want to cancel? He voted to cancel the B!, B2 Bombers, the Patriot Missile and Apache Helicoptor, among others.

National security and defense are long issues, so we’ll take it one at a time. First, let’s talk about something meaningful John Kerry did vote for. He supports a living wage for actual soldiers doing the fighting:

He voted to pass a bill authorizing a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty.
Bill S.4 ; vote number 1999-26 on Feb 24, 1999

Enough said on that. Second, why did Kerry vote against those weapons systems you note above? Well, we have to remember that a few things happened. First, the Cold War supposedly ended in the 80’s, and maintaining a huge anti-Soviet WW II style defense was considered unnecessary. Second, there was a real attempt to reduce the deficit and Congress cut the budget in an attempt to be fiscally responsible. It was called the Peace Dividend. Third, those cuts on weapons systems in no way had any impact on dealing with 911. Remember, it was a bunch of guys with box cutters and hijacked commercial planes. All the Apache Helicopters in the world wouldn’t have helped. Fourth, as Kerry has said, "Unfortunately, there are people who have never met a weapons system they didn't like. I have," Fifth, high ranking officials in the Pentagon said themselves in 1999 that they didn’t need additional funding. Sixth, and I take issue with Kerry on this, he voted to continue funding of the STAR WARS technology. Something I strongly disagree with him on. Seventh, I think he shows real leadership in the Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Below is a link to Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll’s assessment of the miltary needs in 1999.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/Hellman050199.html

As to the weapons – Apache Helicopter first:

Five out of the seven Apache attack helicopters sent to attack al-Qa'eda terrorists during Operation Anaconda two weeks ago were disabled by machinegun fire or ancient Soviet RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers fired from the ground.

Doesn’t sound like a real effective weapon against terrorists.

The US has restricted its Apache helicopters to firing missiles only during wartime and to launching them only from the right-hand side of the aircraft to try to ensure that the debris does not hit the tail rotor which is on the left-hand side.

Patriot Missles next –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/689329.stm

As to defunding Intelligence I think Kerry was wrong on this issue, and he does have some questions to address in this regard. I would much rather have seen the amounts of money going to STAR WARS being put into real intelligence work.

But Lefty, overall, I think Kerry's positives FAR outweigh the bill of goods we've had to take from the joker in charge now, and I'm not sure whether that is Bush, Cheyney or Rove.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
"He is not Bush" is a cop out.

The well is dry. Reality is setting in! LOL

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
I am a member of the ABBA crowd.


Great band. Love "Take a Chance on Me", but "Dancing Queen" is overplayed. Any news on their next album?:confused:

[Tom]

Damn right the technology is there right now. All that is needed is to give the auto industry a reason to roll it out full force. How abnout this one-outlaw all fossil fuel engines by 2010?
That would fairly give the industry time to mconvert, since most 2006,7,8 models are already well into development. And offer incentives to OTHER businesses to get in on this. The money the auto industry spends now on coming out with new colors, a hair off of existing ones would probably finance the whole project!
(These are real colors: Neutral. Light Neutral. Med Neutral. Dark Neutral. Med Dark Neutral. Very dark neutral. This all boild down to "beige."
Here's one I love.....there is color ebony and a color black. And dark ebony. And light black......LIGHT BLACK!!!!)
Why is it the president's job to get this rolling? We have congress that is paid very well and they should be carrying the ball on this.
The sooner we reduce our need for foreign oil, the sooner we can make the wholle damn middle east unneccessary to anyone.
Make it hapeen.

[Secretariat]

Well said Tom. Let's get both Congress and the President behind it. Kerry's already voted for it. A positive Lefty?

[Lefty]

lbj, I got tired of the Bush bashing. Instead of bashing Bush I asked for positives about Kerry. You are bereft in this area.
Sec, at least trying to make a case for his candidate.
Sec, you might like your hybrid and I prob would too, but I don't blve in govt forcing things on a free society. I don't think the public going for em in big nos. But I guess since you drive one everybody else should be forced to follow. I like free choice.
Anwar, might be over 20 yrs to develop[ the kind of energy, free of oil, that we need. Drill now and let the inventors and companies work on alternatives at their pace. If we don't need it, great, but it'll be ready if we do. How long will it take if we don't start now?The good energy stuff will come, the govt can't wave a wand and make it happen now.

Good thing Kerry didn't get his way on the weapons otherwise we might be in trble. Such a shortsighted man doesn't get my vote. The bad news is he did get his way in stripping the Cia of millions which is why we're having these intelligence investigations now.

lbj, please feel free to start that Bush positive thread yourself.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
I really hate it when I have to spell everything out for people.


Spell this out for me....Was JFK a doper?

[Lefty]

Sec, I think the Pres already has addressed the alternative energy problem and has put some money there, but govt an inept bus. partner at best and should let the mkt decide. When people clamor for the hybrids they will be produced in great numbers at competitive prices. Meanwhile drill in Anwar and other places. We still have oil here. I don't think this is gonna be a big election issue. The problem is that oil is still the cheapest and most practicle form of energy. When that changes it will be because some ordinary people like the Wright Brothers make a big breakthrough that will change the world. But the election will not hinge on energy.
Sad truth is, this country will be a "sittin" duck if Kerry gets elected. Safety first, hybrids later.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Raising taxes on the wealthiest is the only way to “begin” to reduce the deficit, and unless it is done, it is going to get far worse. GW’s solution – let’s give the wealthiest even deeper tax cuts. Get real.

Now we are getting down to it! You LIBS think that you have the right to take a persons money just because they are successful. The rich pay more taxes than any other group in this country. It all comes back to the same old crap. You are the one's who pit classes against each other. This info is from the IRS

http://www.justralph.com/taxes_pie.jpg

It comes back to money and telling people how to live their lives. You really think you know better and worse than that, you think you are better. I spent an hour with my accountant today trying to figure out better ways to reduce my tax liability. People like you think that since my wife and I have worked our asses off for 20 years and we finally have some money, we need to pay more so we can help support those who we watched make bad decisions for the last twenty years. It defies logic that we should pay more because we "did the right things" and didn't get involved in drugs, we didn't become drunks, we didn't have illegitimate children. We didn't go through messy divorces and we actually understood that you have to show up for work and do a good job to get ahead. I came from nothing and worked hard to get what little I have. I have endured being shot at, Criminal Car chases and scores of drunks and drug addicts. I have been discriminated against because I didn't go to the right schools, and come from the right part of the country. Don't curl your lip, it has happened. I don't scream and bitch about it. I keep working.

I have endured the kind of crap you posted above for too long to have to now help support those miscreants who I watched act like fools while I worked two jobs (and actually three jobs once early on) and help clean up the messes that these idiots created. And now you tell me that since we are making a little money, and by no means am I rich, that successful people should pay more. When you start bumping tax brackets and talking about taxes going up it works its way down to local taxes and sales taxes etc. I welcome every damn break I can get from the punitive tax system. So go sell that Crap somewhere else.

You guys scream about jobs not being created. Economists say there is a direct correlation between job creation and tax rates. Sorry, they may not be economists from your side. But many believe it to be true. Now when jobs are running overseas we need to keep tax rates low more than ever. But all you can do is call for more taxes. Don't you understand.........it all rolls down hill. The people on the bottom pay for it either way. Quite often they pay for it with their jobs. Companies all have one pool of money to do things with. If you whack off more of the pie in taxes they have less to work with. They don't care where it goes or why they don't have it. They have less. So they move....often to other countries who won't tax them out of business. * See California

http://www.fumento.com/caliregulatory.html

There are businesses that refuse to do business in California because of the tax rates and awful regulations that keep their profits low. Don't you get it? We all pay for it anyway........

Off soapbox.............

[Secretariat]

Well Lefty, we totally disagree on the energy issue. No big surprise there. You beleive in destroying the last vestiges of our wilderness and relying on OPEC to cut us a break and foreign wars to address our energy issues. The oil found in Arctic is estimated to last less than a year under a best scenario, not to mention the destruction to the environment. Lefty, this Texas approach to energy is just wrong. Government must be a leader, and not cowtoll to big oil whether you approve of govt getting involved with business or not. . This is National Security, not just energy.

And if we wait for the world to be "safe" then we will be waiting forever. It will never be safe, this is the hubris of the Bush administration. Saw today that the Russians are working on re-igniting the arms race with Bush's continual saber rattling.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_re_eu/russia_military_exercise_6

We can't bankrupt our nation with fear.

[Lefty]

Sec, I have always been in support of alternative energy. A few yrs ago I read up on Solar energy. The truth is you can't produce a solar kilowatt as cheaply as a oil generated kilowatt. And Solar Energy brings its own pollution problems. The pollution that ensues producing Solar panels is great, not to mention battery disposal. Windmills in Ca are starting to be outlawed because of birds being killed when they fly into them.
Sec, i'm waiting for that big breakthrough too, but the Govt can't force it and shouldn't. Meanwhile we shouldn't burn our bridges behind us and giveup oil exploration. That's irrational. Anwar is just that, a wilderness. Oil exploration and drilling need not ruin it. You're livimng in the dark ages of oil derricks in Tex and other places. The wilderness wasn't destroyed when the pipeline was put in Alaska and i've heard the animals huddle near it for warmth.

JR, well written. I too am sick and tired of the Class argument and pitting one class against the other. We will never be rid of poor people. We can raise taxes 100% on the wealthy and it wouldn't be enough. The poor will persist in being poor. We have spenr over 5 trillion on poverty and we still have poverty. Only our poor people have color Tv's.

[Lefty]

Sec, no the world will not ever be totally safe but we are safer developing the best weapon systems in the world and developing the best intelligence our money can fund. To not do these things is crazy. To cede our safety to the UN is totally insane.
You may call chasing terrorists and disposing of a madman dictator "saber rattling" I call it the responsibilty of the Pres. no matter who he may be. To lay dn our arms because we are afraid of what another country may do is just plain cowardice and the cowards get enslaved. Reagan knew what to do and so does Geo. W.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Now we are getting down to it! You LIBS think that you have the right to take a persons money just because they are successful. The rich pay more taxes than any other group in this country.

Suggest you read this book and link from BUSINESSWEEK, JR.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2004/nf20040113_3831_db028.htm

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, no the world will not ever be totally safe but we are safer developing the best weapon systems in the world and developing the best intelligence our money can fund. To not do these things is crazy. To cede our safety to the UN is totally insane.
You may call chasing terrorists and disposing of a madman dictator "saber rattling" I call it the responsibilty of the Pres. no matter who he may be. To lay dn our arms because we are afraid of what another country may do is just plain cowardice and the cowards get enslaved. Reagan knew what to do and so does Geo. W.

Yes, but just which terrorists, and which madmen, which seem to appear every other year, and they are still aplenty in the world. It seems you're talking about the US as the World's Policeman. Something Bush said we would never be.

It is amazing that some Arab terrorists got on a plane with $1.99 box cutters, and have devastated our nation's psyche to this extent. The lives lost were a horrible, horrible tragedy. But to bankrupt this country and fight wars based on no proof has got to stop. We've not got the main culprits behind the attack. We've spending BILLIONS on dollars against their thousands. We are losing this battle of dollars, and all the apache helicopters and patriot missles, and B1 bombers may make us think we're safer, but we're not. The last ricin letter showed that. And we're gonna take care of all the world's problems, and do this all without raising taxes and Bush is still going to cut the deficit in half in five years (while he hasn't cut a penny even before 911), and we're gonna build our energy supply by drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wilderness which will build our energy reserves in 2020 by a full year "maybe", and then we will have none.

Lefty, after reading your last few posts, I realize that Kerry must be elected. He's not perfect, but my God, to blindly follow the path we're on is like being on a runaway train heading for a cliff.

[Lefty]

sec, the piece is about an opinion book from a reporter from the new York Times. Get real!
The facts are the rich pay most of the taxes and the libs want their blood too. Not only that the rich have been defined by some as people making a hundred grand a yr. Al Gore once said 200,000 cause those people would be millionaires in 5 yrs. What a dope.
JR, is right, you want to dump on the very people that make free enterprise work. Just admit you're a socialist and be done with it. Confession is good for the soul.

[ljb]

Tom,
I like it when you get juiced up and start posting.
Listen real good now..... JFK is DEAD, who cares what he was?

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

"It's a prime example of how government rarely ever really cuts taxes for anyone but the rich and powerful. Because the Bush tax cuts didn't include any provisions to rein in the AMT, the U.S. Treasury Dept. predicts that the number of households paying it will soar from 1.3 million in 2000 to 35.6 million by 2010. By then, 30.4% of all taxpayers will be paying the alternative tax, estimates the Tax Policy Center, and it will add an average of $3,751 annually to their tax bill.

Typically, the wealthy will get the best break: Only 24.3% of people making over $1 million will pay the tax by 2010, the Tax Policy Center estimates"

You never really do address the facts in your responses, just general attacks against the writers credentials.

[ljb]

Tom,
Spelling it out again.
Anybody
But
Bush
Again

Let me know if you need anymore help.
Just trying to keep this board running smoothly.
;)

[ljb]

Lefty,
You have commented on Kerry's votes concerning military funding. Reminds me of another positive for Kerry.
He helped Clinton create a lean mean fighting machine that just kicked ass in Iraq.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
I like it when you get juiced up and start posting.
Listen real good now..... JFK is DEAD, who cares what he was?

More personal attacks?
Accussing me of being drunk?
You sink lower and lower. With every post, you reveal more of your self. How low can you go?
As stated before, we are trying to get a handle on your accusations. Why are you afraid to answer the question?
By YOUR standards, was JFK a doper?
Since you obviously (again) missed the point, it is not about JFK at all. It about YOU.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Audie- A bigger war hero than Kerry, better actor than Reagan or Arnold, much better thinker than baby Bush, but not Pres Matl?!!LOL!! / Pix- Left of Jane is Clinton; right of Fonda is Bush!LOL!! / Positive about Kerry- At least he waited until Heintx was dead to start screwing the wife! And I heard he had prostate surgery so he can't spill "ketchup" on some intern's dress!! / Do we really want Herman Munster in the Whitehouse? His wife looks like Lillian! ( Of course now we have Pres. Pugsley and VP Uncle Fester complete with explosives!!

[ljb]

Tom,
Sorry but I did not say you were drunk, i said you were juiced up.
And I'm also sorry but, JFK does not mean anything to me. I don't care anything about him, he could have been a republican for all i care.:)
I do suspect however the rightys are trying to use him to take a little sting out of the fact that their mentor is a doper. But JFK is history, means nothing in relation to current conditions.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom, Sorry but I did not say you were drunk, i said you were juiced up. And I'm also sorry but, JFK does not mean anything to me. I don't care anything about him, he could have been a republican for all i care.:) I do suspect however the rightys are trying to use him to take a little sting out of the fact that their mentor is a doper. But JFK is history, means nothing in relation to current conditions.

Tom.......it's amazing isn't it? now that all the dirt has come out on JFK the rats are jumping from the ship.

[ljb]

Jr,
Making assumptions is not becoming on you.
For the record I did not vote for JFK, never thought much of him.
As a second thought are the rats jumping ship on Limbo?

[Lefty]

lbj, not drunk but juiced up? Symantics symantics. Shades of your idol Bill Clinton.
Limbaugh a great man and you should go through the physical pain he's gone through. Limbaugh is often referred to by the left, they still fear him immensely. For a while there I think Dean actually thght he was running against Rush he mentioned him so much.
I guess you still haven't found a Kerry positive other than your "copout" answer which isn't even worthy of a 5 yr old.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Nothing to say this morning hey!
Oh and I did add another positive for Kerry. He helped Clinton create the lean mean fighting machine that just layyed a little whup ass on Iraq.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Nothing to say this morning hey!
Oh and I did add another positive for Kerry. He helped Clinton create the lean mean fighting machine that just layyed a little whup ass on Iraq.

kerry voted against almost every piece of equipment that today's military uses. Now you are really reaching................are your eyes brown?

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, whether it is Kerry, Bush or Clinton we choose to discuss we will not see sterling military examples.

It appears that Bush and Clinton certainly did not want to risk their lives for our country. And Kerry is a "much decorated" soldier - well, perhaps much decorated over nothing.

The quote I recall from one of Kerry's fellow soldiers on that river boat he served on went something like - Between his three purple hearts he did not miss 5 days of duty. Kind of addresses the seriousness of his "wounds" rather directly.

It reminds me of the MASH episode where Frank Burns put himself in for a purple heart for "shell fragments." The story was that while opening his boiled eggs one morning, he got a piece of shell in his eye. Since this happened in a combat zone, he felt he was entitled.


And the story of Kerry's bronze star is even less impressive.

Of course, one could argue that coming from an undecorated and unwounded soldier (me) this criticism does not have much merit.


I think my biggest complaint is not that he used an "legal excuse" to get out of town, but rather that he did not support what his fellow soldiers did (and do) when he was in a position to do so (i.e. elected to office). This is hard for a combat vet to accept.

Make no mistake... there will be wars and soldiers will fight and soldiers will die. The better equipped they are they greater their chances of survival.

Sending ill-equipped soldiers into battle will not reduce the chances of war. It will only reduce the chances of a favorable (and less painful) outcome for the U.S.

"Gentlemen" have always been accorded special privledges (to one degree of another) in times of war. Those privledges include everything from not being put in harm's way in the first place to better treatment by the enemy. (I read somehwere that in the early part of the revolutionary war the British expected that officers would not be shot at by the enemy. - Don't know if that is true or not.)

(Note: In recent times "gentlemen" officers have spilled blood just as red as the rest of us, so I am not suggesting a general disparagement of officers. In fact, I served with some really top notch officers myself.)

My point to all this rant is that the "gentlemen" of our country have not typically had the same lot in war as the "common man."

IMHO, avoidance of duty is just not an okay thing for a leader. Neither is ignoring the needs of soldiers. Frankly, I could easily forgive Clinton for such a thing because he never experienced combat. Kerry should know better.


Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ljb]

Jr,
Key word "ALMOST". This results in the lean mean fighting machine I was reffering to.
Thank you for helping me make my point.

[Lefty]

Only in a lib's mind, can you defund and downsize the military and when it's successful in spite of the defunding and downsizing because of good leadership and brave men and women., can the victory be credited to the men responsible for the defunding and downsizing. We succed in SPITE of CLINTON and KERRY and 'ol LBJ wants to give those vision challenged men the credit.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Sorry I have to do this but, if you are going to continue to spout the same right wing rhetoric, I have to give the same response.

"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-----Dick Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies, August 2000

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Nothing to say this morning hey!
Oh and I did add another positive for Kerry. He helped Clinton create the lean mean fighting machine that just layyed a little whup ass on Iraq.

You count as a positive the fact that Kerry helped build a war machine that illegally (your story) invaded a soverign nation and murdered inocent people? And to back up your claim, you quote a man you have labeled as a liar! But this one time, he was truthful, eh?

:confused:

[Lefty]

lbj, by your logic if you sent your kid out in traffic to play and he survived you would conclude that the traffic was the perfect place for your kid to play. You really need to air that brain out a little or sumpin'

[ljb]

Tom,
First I never said the invasion of Iraq was illegal. I have complained that it was done under false pretenses, and not necassary.
As far as Cheney lying, I'll let you be the judge.

[ljb]

Lefty,
What are you talking about?

[Lefty]

lbj, it was an analogy. I didn't expect you to get it.
Lefty, you're right again.

[ljb]

Sorry Lefty,
Your analogy does not fit anything I wrote. Maybe you meant to post it on some other thread.
Try again.

[Lefty]

Read what you wrote about the Clinton military, read the analogy, think real hard, then ask someone to'splain it to you.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
IMHO, whether it is Kerry, Bush or Clinton we choose to discuss we will not see sterling military examples.

It appears that Bush and Clinton certainly did not want to risk their lives for our country. And Kerry is a "much decorated" soldier - well, perhaps much decorated over nothing.

The quote I recall from one of Kerry's fellow soldiers on that river boat he served on went something like - Between his three purple hearts he did not miss 5 days of duty. Kind of addresses the seriousness of his "wounds" rather directly.


To even place John Kerry's accomplishments in Vietnam in the same perspective as Clinton or Bush is absurd. A man [Bush] who cannot verify any appearance at the base in Alabama "that he requested" so he can be involved with a political campaign, with a man who served his country in major combat earning three purple hearts and a bronze star. Now we are in the process of determining just how badly Kerry was wounded. For shame. Look, the Republicans have already questioned Max Clelland's patriotism whether he had both legs blown off or not. Trying now to question whether Kerry should have received purple hearts for his wounds is the height of bad taste. Could it also be that he did not miss 5 days of duty because he felt a loyalty to his buddies. Dave, comparing Kerry's record to Bush's political record is a big negative for the Bush campaign, a BIG negative. I am sure that Bush will NEVER bring it up directly.

But what I am interested in is what exactly has Bush done for the Vets LATELY.

President Bush likes to talk about the tremendous sacrifice offered by American veterans to defend the country. But words are all he's offered them in return. Bush's record has been one of disrespect towards the nation's military, cutting health care expenditures for veterans and other benefits for members of the military and their families.

Bush VA Spending Fails To Grow With Health Care Costs
Despite Bush's claims, "the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans' health care is 5.4 percent -- hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA's health care budget just to maintain the status quo." [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]


Veterans Forced To Wait Months For Initial Visits to VA Doctors
At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."

The "Independent Budget," an analysis of the VA budget provided by veterans groups, has said "The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system is in critical condition." Meanwhile, the Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care. [Air Force Magazine, 10/02; http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/IB_04excsum.pdf; OMB Director Joshua Bolton to Rep. David Obey (D-WI), 10/21/03]

Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:

Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.
Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]

In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]

Bush Proposed Doubling Costs Of Prescription Drugs For Veterans
This year Bush proposed increasing prescription drugs costs for veterans. The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000. On July 21, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee increases and recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Reuters, 7/14/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03]

Bush Decided To Cut Benefits For Middle-Income Veterans
On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it would cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans due to budget constraints. John Pettyjohn, an Oklahoma veteran who served in Vietnam, said of the cuts, "On one hand, we're sending our sons and daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the other hand we're punishing a certain class of veterans who've made money in their lives. The government made a promise to us. What they're doing now is wrong." [Associated Press, 1/16/03; The Daily Oklahoman, 1/18/03]

Don't ever tell me Bush cares about veterans. He'll use young soldiers and talk a lot about sacrifice, but when push comes to shove, he's at a fund raiser. His actions have constantly belied his words as illustrated above. He likes weapons systems which help his defense contract buddies, but he sure doesn't seem to care that much about the soldier in the field as illustrated by the medical and financial assistance he "really" provides them. I'm interested in what he's done, not his BS.

[ljb]

Sorry Lefty but the analogy would be one hell of a stretch.
Perhaps if you said.
You install street lights out in the street and then later allow your kids to cross the street by themselves. They would be safer because of the lights you installed.
That would be more fitting.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Tom.......it's amazing isn't it? now that all the dirt has come out on JFK the rats are jumping from the ship.

JR,

What else can they do? They sure can't attack the message.
All the trolls can do is throw mud and point fingers at people because they pale by the light of the meassage. Like vampires, they shy away from sunlight, libs turn to dust in the presence of
Count Rushula! :eek:

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Sorry Lefty but the analogy would be one hell of a stretch.
Perhaps if you said.
You install street lights out in the street and then later allow your kids to cross the street by themselves. They would be safer because of the lights you installed.
That would be more fitting.


And waste money lighting streets all night long for no reason?
your kids shouldnot be at night anyway. You are wasting energy. And your own children will have to pay for those street lights.
:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

lbj, I knew this thread would be too advanced for you. You have proven me right, several times over.

[Dave Schwartz]

Sec,

I did not mean to make it sound as if I was condoning the actions of Bush or Clinton. I am not. I was merely pointing out that wealthy men, and the sons of wealthy men, have been getting preferential treatment for centuries. Why would it be any different now?


And, as for what has Bush done for vets... well, I have a hard time finding anyone doing much of anything for vets. At least nothing remotely close to commensurate with what the vets did to deserve... reward(?).

I did not discuss Bush (or Clinton) at length because this thread was about Kerry.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[kenwoodallpromos]

I got VA mail today- my 10% VA disability payment just got raised 3%!

[Secretariat]

You're doggone right it did kendallwood. Bush likes weapons systems, not soldiers.

OK, let’s compare Bush and Kerry on how he treats vets:

John Kerry supports ending the ban on Concurrent Receipts for disability and retired pay. In the Senate Kerry has cosponsored the legislation to end the ban and strongly supported its unanimous passage—despite the threat of veto from the Bush-Cheney Administration. Kerry and other vets also “wrote to President Bush to express their deep concern with public reports that the White House staff may recommend to the President that he veto the FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act if the conference report includes strong language authorizing the concurrent receipt of veterans' disability pay and military retirement pay.” [107th Congress, S.2051]

John Kerry’s “Veterans’ Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003 will allow veterans who are currently being forced to wait for their first visit with a Department of Veterans Affairs physician to use the VA pharmacy to fill prescriptions written by a private physician. Today, there are approximately 235,000 American veterans who are forced to wait at least six months for their first visit with a Department of Veterans Affairs physician. Kerry states, “Our nation’s veterans put their lives on the line for our country and earned these health benefits. This is not a time to be nickel and diming our veterans, or to make them jump through hoops. It amounts to a broken promise with men and women who have served in our armed forces.” [Kerry release 5/30/03]

John Kerry has a long history of supporting better veterans’ health and he has worked in the Senate to increase spending on veteran health care. In 2001, Kerry voted to increase funding for veterans health care by $1.7 billion. In 1999, Kerry also voted to increase medical care for Veterans Health Administration and to give another $1.3 billion for overall veterans’ health care. Kerry is continuing to work for veterans and, “in calling for greater access to health care for veterans, cited estimates of nearly 235,000 veterans on a waiting list for Veterans Administration services, with tens of thousands waiting to access their prescription drug benefit. Kerry is sponsoring legislation that would permit veterans already on the waiting list to fill a prescription written by a private physician at a VA hospital.” Kerry repeated his commitment to veterans’ health recently during a trip to Iowa: “Co-founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Kerry made frequent reference to his war service. Thousands of veterans are now being denied promised health care benefits, he said. "I'm particularly sensitive that we keep faith with those who have worn the uniform of their country." [Senate Roll Call Vote 1999, #285, #286; 2001, # 84; AP 5/30/03; The Hawk Eye, 6/1/03]

Kerry personally wrote the Agent Orange legislation that gives Agent Orange coverage to veterans, and helped lead the effort that created the first psychological outreach program for veterans. He’s voted for and fought for increases in the VA budget throughout his political life.

Now what has Bush done for veterans. Nothing!!! He “uses” soldiers and buys expensive weapon systems, but he doesn’t care about men. Kerry’s record shows he does. If that ain’t a positive Lefty, I don’t know what is! Problem is people are too diverted by stories from 30 years ago, on Bush’s AWOL issue and Kerry’s medals, but what is important is what does one do NOW for our soldiers who fight or have fought. Bush is a “user” of men not caring about them after their service, and his "deeds" prove it, whereas Kerry has fought his whole life to aid in veteran benefits.

This link shows Bush and his Vet policy in comparision. Read it and feel the shame this man felt.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1222-01.htm

There is so much out there on Bush’s disregard for the vets I’m only listing a bit of it. From not even keeping thier wages and benefits above inflation to refusing to restore benefits to WW II and Korean veterans, not to mention his funding for Reservists.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=141

If anyone can defend GW Bush's polices regarding veteran benefits, let him speak. And please let's get past the "it was Clinton crap." This man's had three years to get his act together, and he's done nothing for the vet's cause.

[ljb]

Tom,
If you have nothing to say, do not say anything.
Toms post:
Originally posted by JustRalph
Tom.......it's amazing isn't it? now that all the dirt has come out on JFK the rats are jumping from the ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JR,

What else can they do? They sure can't attack the message.
All the trolls can do is throw mud and point fingers at people because they pale by the light of the meassage. Like vampires, they shy away from sunlight, libs turn to dust in the presence of
Count Rushula! " end of Tom's post

Tom this is nothing but name calling.
I had responded earlier that I was never on the JFK ship, did not vote for him, he never impressed me.

[ljb]

Tom said
"And waste money lighting streets all night long for no reason?
your kids shouldnot be at night anyway. You are wasting energy. And your own children will have to pay for those street lights."

A good analogy for:
And waste money having star wars all the time for no reason? Your kids should not be in Iraq anyway. You are wasting energy and your own children will have to pay for those satalites.

Aside to Lefty,
Aint analogys fun!


:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Without the weapons systems wouldn't be as many soldiers survive to get those payments. Is Bush doing less for the Vets than Clinton? Will Kerry, the man that called his own comrades "baby killers" do more? Doubtful. But one thing, based on his own words and beliefs is not doubtful: He will Cede our safety to the UN. No thanks.

[ljb]

Lefty said
"Is Bush doing less for the Vets than Clinton?
Yes

[Lefty]

lbj, can you verify that yes?

[ljb]

Some where back in this thread there is a list of the veterans hospitals Bush is closing. Also Bush is cutting benefits to vets.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, can you verify that yes?

Lefty,

Did you read any of my documented” posts on Bush’s record on vets versus Kerry’s? Obviously not. I’ve already posted some of Kerry’s actions. But, yoou are so blind to this Son of a Bush, that you even accept his blatant disregard for our fighting men in the field. This is only part of his legacy below.

OK,want more documented accounts. Here goes:

Army Times Called The Pay Cuts "Maddening"
The Army Times, an independent paper distributed to Army personnel, criticized Bush, saying "The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today." The Times said the Bush administration "undermined" support for the troops, and called the pay cuts "maddening." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called the Pentagon's plan "heartless" and "simply unacceptable." [Army Times, 8/18/03; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/15/03]

Bush Budget Cut Millions From Education Funds For Military Children
Bush's 2004 budget cut $200 million from Impact Aid, a program that helps military children receive a quality education. The military portion of Impact Aid would fall in Bush's budget from $635 to $435 million. Bush tried to cut $3 million from Impact Aid in 2003 as well. [House Appropriations Committee, Minority Staff, 6/17/03, 6/16/03; Washington Post, 6/17/03; Omaha World Herald, 2/5/02; State News Service, 2/4/02]

Bush's Tax Cut For The Wealthy Excluded Military Families
Bush's 2004 tax cut failed to extend a child tax credit to 200,000 low-income military families. Soldiers whose "with taxable incomes below $26,625 are ineligible for the increase in the maximum child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 that was part of a tax bill signed into law in May." Among those whose families are left out of the Bush tax cut are soldiers serving in combat zones. [Washington Post, 6/17/03; Army Times, 8/11/03]

Pentagon Objected To Extending Full Benefits To Part Time Reservists
A bipartisan Senate push to extend benefits to part time reservists has met stiff resistance by the Bush Administration. In July 2003, "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent a letter to House and Senate leaders stating the Bush Administration's opposition to" legislation that would extend full benefits to part-time military reservists.
A Pentagon memo dated July 26, 2003 revealed that the Bush Administration would veto any Defense appropriation request that included the benefits. The legislation is strongly supported by the National Guard Association, the Adjutants General Association, and Enlisted Association of the National Guard. [Army Times, 8/13/03; http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/Sec%20523%20Letter.pdf]

Bush Has Yet To Attend Soldiers' Funerals
The Washington Post noted that a "White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances." [Washington Post, 10/21/03]

Army Investigating Complaints Of Poor Treatment For Iraq Veterans
UPI learned that "hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments.
One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.... One month after President Bush greeted soldiers at Fort Stewart...as heroes on their return from Iraq, approximately 600 sick or injured members of the Army Reserves and National Guard are warehoused in rows of spare, steamy and dark cement barracks in a sandy field, waiting for doctors to treat their wounds or illnesses."
After the initial UPI reports surfaced, the Army announced it was rushing doctors and funds to Fort Stewart to alleviate the situation. [United Press International, 10/17/03; 10/20/03]

Veterans Forced To Wait Months For Initial Visits to VA Doctors
At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."
The "Independent Budget," an analysis of the VA budget provided by veterans groups, has said "The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system is in critical condition." Meanwhile, the Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care. [Air Force Magazine, 10/02; http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/IB_04excsum.pdf; OMB Director Joshua Bolton to Rep. David Obey (D-WI), 10/21/03]

Bush Proposed Doubling Costs Of Prescription Drugs For Veterans
This year Bush proposed increasing prescription drugs costs for veterans. The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000. On July 21, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee increases and recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Reuters, 7/14/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03]

Bush Decided To Cut Benefits For Middle-Income Veterans
On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it would cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans due to budget constraints. John Pettyjohn, an Oklahoma veteran who served in Vietnam, said of the cuts, "On one hand, we're sending our sons and daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the other hand we're punishing a certain class of veterans who've made money in their lives. The government made a promise to us. What they're doing now is wrong." [Associated Press, 1/16/03; The Daily Oklahoman, 1/18/03]

All I can say is Bush’s record on this account speaks for itself. And Kerry’s does as well. I’ve already posted a LOT on what he’s done for veteran causes, but I’ll keep posting it. But Bush’s record in this regard is so egregious it needs to be known! And please stop bringing out the Clinton crap again. He's not running, and GW can't excuse his own performance over the last three years in terms of his aid to veterans on Clinton. You're getting very desperate with that Lefty.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
Some where back in this thread there is a list of the veterans hospitals Bush is closing. Also Bush is cutting benefits to vets.

LBJ,

This one's for you.

LBJ,
This one below is for you.

Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:
Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.
Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]
In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]

Generally, the conservative press doesn't cover this stuff.

[Lefty]

I was asking what Clinton did for Vets that was so great? You've already gave the Bush stuff. Was it Bush or congress? Knowing you guys you have distorted the whole thing with half truth's.
What did Clinton Do?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
I was asking what Clinton did for Vets that was so great? You've already gave the Bush stuff. Was it Bush or congress? Knowing you guys you have distorted the whole thing with half truth's.
What did Clinton Do?

Lefty,

You asked for proof. You got it. And now, it's back to what did Clinton do? Guess what? He aint' running for office. I didn't like the jerk either that much. But get with it. Kerry is goign to be running against Bush. And from the article below, I'd rather have these kind of guys on my side:

Veteran brothers back Kerry

By DICK JOHNSON, Of The Globe Gazette

MASON CITY — Almost 40 years after they fought together during the Vietnam War, the four Bolanos brothers are back in action.

Louie, Ben and Rick Bolanos of El Paso, Texas, and Bill Bolanos of Phoenix, Ariz., are campaigning for another decorated Vietnam veteran — U.S. Sen. John Kerry — in his presidential bid.

“We’re going around stumping for a man we feel really has a vision for the United States,” Rick Bolanos said Thursday during a stop at Kerry headquarters in Mason City.

“If you’re going to vote for a true patriot, then vote for John Kerry. If you have a passion for the U.S., you have to go out and work for that man,” he added.

The Bolanoses served a combined 60 months in Vietnam. Louie was in the Navy, Ben was a Marine, Bill was a Green Beret in the Army and Rick was in the Army Airborne division.

Bill, Rick and Ben fought together in Dong Ha, South Vietnam. Louie joined them for a joyful reunion in Da Nang in 1968.

“It was awesome,” Ben said. “It was glorious. But yet we were scared for each other.”

It’s believed the Bolanos family was the nation’s most decorated during Vietnam.

On Tuesday they attended a Kerry campaign event in Waterloo honoring the five Sullivan brothers of Waterloo, who fought and died together during World War II.

“But the story is not about the Bolanos brothers,” Rick said. “It’s about a senator who is a caring senator. He has a common-sense platform. I’m absolutely certain we’re going to do well in Iowa.”

[schweitz]

Kerry has alleged affair with intern!

www.drudgereport.com

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by schweitz
Kerry has alleged affair with intern!
www.drudgereport.com

This is going to get good.............are they all JLJFK?


JLJFK= Just Like John F. Kennedy

[Lefty]

Sec, no it's not now it's back to Clinton. That was the original question. I asked, What did Clinton do for the veterans that was so great, and you give me more Bush Bashing. Typical.

[Secretariat]

Ya gotta love it. Multiple articles from independent sources on Bush's Veteran Benefit policies, in contrast to Kerry articles on what he's done for veterans and what is the response. Lefy, you asked for Kerry positives, and I posted them. Part of that posting is contrasting Bush's performance in regards to that positive. If it appears like Bush bashing, it is. But I didn't make those policies that are posted, Bush did.

What's the reply?

Hey, what did Clinton do? or even worse Hey, Kerry had an affair with an intern? or Hey, he probably wasn't really wounded that badly when he got those three purple hearts.

You aren't interested in policy. You're interested in scandal. But you know what? I can't blame you. It's about all you guys got. Huge Deficits. Jobs going overseas in droves. Lack of verifable proof regarding the main reason for invasion in Iraq. A failed environmental policy. Educators complaining about mandates without proepr funding. And ripping off our veterans. But hey, we got STAR WARS, even though Rumsfield says it may not work, we'll just deploy and fix.

I really don't have time for this. Lefty, once you start posting some real information I'll be back. I do think you for one thing though. Has made me do my homework, and now I'm more sure than ever, Dubya has got to go.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat



.....Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:

Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.



The jury is still out on Canandaigua. The final word comes down Friday, 2/13/04. Friday the 13th!
We have fought hard here to keep it open. Tens of thousand have signed petitions, turned out to show solidarity to every high muckety up that comes here on the topic. We got support from Hillary and Chuck Swimmer - Both have worked hard. This has been truly bi-partisan. Chenney was 30 miles away, in Rochester, on the day of a key hearing here. He didn't show up. Too busy raising money, I guess.
Anyway, we hear tomrrow, and if the close it, I will make some hard decisions about Bush , and about America itself. I can't support a country that doesn't suppor its vets. And I won't.
We shall see...

[PaceAdvantage]

This politics stuff is way too funny....

I knew there was a reason I was a poly sci major in college....LOL

[Rick]

Since both Bush and Kerry have made some major bonehead decisions in the past, I'm not going to get in on the argument about which one is the lesser of the evils. However, I keep seeing so many comments about taxes that I want to remind people that increases in state and local taxes and fees are a much bigger problem to most than any changes in federal taxes. The problem is especially severe during a recession since most states aren't allowed to deficit spend. There is also a tremendous inequity in how much of each federal taxpayer's dollar is returned to their state of residence. Both of those problems need to be addressed by whoever winds up winning the current popularity contest.

[Lefty]

I'm interested in scandal? I never posted a thing about the Kerry/intern thing. I don't care about it. His voting record scares me in regard to his being President. I don't feel he will adequately protect this country.
You say i'm interested in scandal but you are the one that brings up Bushes National Guard absentee bullcrap that means nothing and has been vetted over and over. The only thing scandalous about Kerry is how he betrayed his own men after he used a little known law to get out early and "badmouthed" them when speaking to congress. I know Vets that call him a traitor.
For me, it's the voting record. If he had had his way, all the weapons systems we need to protect this country would not exist. That's SCARY.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Please do not degrade Kerry's war record. While he was getting shot at in the steamy hot jungles of Viet Nam, your man was quaffing a few cold ones in Alabama.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Please do not degrade Kerry's war record. While he was getting shot at in the steamy hot jungles of Viet Nam, your man was quaffing a few cold ones in Alabama.

Where do you see anything about Kerry's war record in this post?

Lefty wrote.....
".....The only thing scandalous about Kerry is how he betrayed his own men after he used a little known law to get out early and "badmouthed" them when speaking to congress. I know Vets that call him a traitor.
For me, it's the voting record. If he had had his way, all the weapons systems we need to protect this country would not exist. That's SCARY."

He doesn't refer to anything in Viet Nam, he doesn't say anthing about Kerry 's war records. Read the post , slowly this time.
Allow the fact and the words to sneak past your Bush-blinders and filters.
And BTW, as far as Bush's case is concerned, WHO CARES! OLD NEWS! We are supporting him for his years in office as president, not what he said/did/thought in the 70's. That is as unrelated as you claim JFK being a doper or not is. Please try to remian in the 21st century when you post. It kind of helps this board flow smoothly when you don't time travel.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
LBJ,

This one's for you.

LBJ,
This one below is for you.

Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:
Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.



Just heard...Canandaigua is not going to close. Sounds like 50 beds might move out, but overall, the facility, and more importantly the promise and comittment are staying. I'll know more after I get a hold of a paper.
No word on the other hopitals yet. This needs looking into, though.

[ljb]

Tom,
From Leftys post
"The only thing scandalous about Kerry is how he betrayed his own men after he used a little known law to get out early and "badmouthed" them when speaking to congress. I know Vets that call him a traitor."
I would think this refers to his war record.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
From Leftys post
"The only thing scandalous about Kerry is how he betrayed his own men after he used a little known law to get out early and "badmouthed" them when speaking to congress. I know Vets that call him a traitor."
I would think this refers to his war record.

It speaks to his duplicity, a Clinton quality.

I bad bringing Clinton in this topic.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

[ljb]

Duplicity....
A nice way of saying he lied hey! Well then I guess this falls into the same category.

In the run-up to the war, President Bush said that the United
States "must not ignore the treat gathering against us. Facing
clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -
the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud... We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an
urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." [Washington
Post, 1/28/2002]

My bad for bring Bush into this topic.
Regards

[PaceAdvantage]

Wel, I for one say that Bush's CURRENT military experience as COMMANDER IN CHIEF not only MAKES UP for any deficiencies in the past, but certainly BLOWS away anything Kerry can bring to the table in terms of qualifications to RUN OUR MILITARY.

Funny how nobody mentions this little fact. The most obvious thing in the world, and I have yet to hear anyone mention what I just mentioned.....boggles the mind.

Case closed.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Duplicity....
A nice way of saying he lied hey! Well then I guess this falls into the same category.

In the run-up to the war, President Bush said that the United
States "must not ignore the treat gathering against us. Facing
clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -
the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud... We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an
urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." [Washington
Post, 1/28/2002]

My bad for bring Bush into this topic.
Regards


I don' t see any lies, I read the "operative words" - "we cannot wait for final proof" and we didn't, "that could come in the form" and "every reason to assume the worst" as opinions.

All of these statements are opinions based on beliefs pursuant to Saddam's past actions and Saddam's perceived behavior at the time. Opinions cannot be lies. Opinions can be erroneous. Erroneous opinions cannot be defined as duplicity, because duplicity is intentional.

If President Bush stated, we in fact know the worst is coming in the form of a mushroom cloud from Iraq then I would agree with you, he lied. Fortunately, I don't have to agree with you, because I understand the difference between opinions and intentionally misstated facts.

President Bush, according to those words, acted on opinion of what he thought was in the best interest of his country. I know you do not agree with his opinion, but your disagreement does not qualify the president as a liar and does not fall into the same category as Kerry’s duplicity.

Okay, I know you are going to say Pres. Bush had a hidden agenda, that is what most of the implications are from the Democratic side. So what is this hidden agenda? And most importantly where is the factual proof you specifically have about the hidden agenda?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Just heard...Canandaigua is not going to close. Sounds like 50 beds might move out, but overall, the facility, and more importantly the promise and comittment are staying. I'll know more after I get a hold of a paper.
No word on the other hopitals yet. This needs looking into, though.

That's great news Tom. I know Charlies Schumer and Hilary were working hard to maintain Canandaigua. Looks like their lobbying paid off. That is good news. Now if we can just stop the Bush adminstration from cutting the others, and hope they don't replace Canandaigua with a new VA. Maybe we can get Cheyney involved.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Wel, I for one say that Bush's CURRENT military experience as COMMANDER IN CHIEF not only MAKES UP for any deficiencies in the past, but certainly BLOWS away anything Kerry can bring to the table in terms of qualifications to RUN OUR MILITARY.

Funny how nobody mentions this little fact. The most obvious thing in the world, and I have yet to hear anyone mention what I just mentioned.....boggles the mind.

Case closed.

PA,

You state that Bush's current military experience makes up for his past deficiencies and blows Kerry's qualfiications away, and state it as "a little fact." Can you list some supporting evidence to back up that claim? Because from where I'm sitting, I'm seeing one blunder after another.

[ljb]

Bush's current military experience:
9/11
Rudy on the streets of New York cheering on the troops
Bush hiding in a hanger in southern U.S.
Iraq war
Thousands of troops on front line
Bush in safety of whitehouse "Bring em on"

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
I don' t see any lies, I read the "operative words" - "we cannot wait for final proof" and we didn't, "that could come in the form" and "every reason to assume the worst" as opinions.

All of these statements are opinions based on beliefs pursuant to Saddam's past actions and Saddam's perceived behavior at the time. Opinions cannot be lies. Opinions can be erroneous. Erroneous opinions cannot be defined as duplicity, because duplicity is intentional.

If President Bush stated, we in fact know the worst is coming in the form of a mushroom cloud from Iraq then I would agree with you, he lied. Fortunately, I don't have to agree with you, because I understand the difference between opinions and intentionally misstated facts.

President Bush, according to those words, acted on opinion of what he thought was in the best interest of his country. I know you do not agree with his opinion, but your disagreement does not qualify the president as a liar and does not fall into the same category as Kerry’s duplicity.

Okay, I know you are going to say Pres. Bush had a hidden agenda, that is what most of the implications are from the Democratic side. So what is this hidden agenda? And most importantly where is the factual proof you specifically have about the hidden agenda?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Lefty keeps posting the same old unsupported stuff, so I thought this issue of Bush "lies" LBJ and ShowMe are engaged in is an interesting post.

Is an intentional omission of information considered a lie? At the very least it is an act of deception.

I've posted two links to examine this. The first is by the non-partisan Annenberg Foundation with Fact Check.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=129

The second link below highlights David Corn's new book, The Lies of George W. Bush, Mastering the Politics of Deception, and highlights Bush's top ten deceptions or what Corn refers to as lies.

http://www.bushlies.com/topten.php

I haven't read it yet, but looks like it's well researched.

[hcap]

Just posted this on the David Kay thread. Seems appropriate here as well in light of Secretariats' comment...
"I'm seeing one blunder after another."

Arms Issue Seen as Hurting U.S. Credibility Abroad

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27978-2004Jan18&notFound=true

" But a range of foreign policy experts, including supporters of the war, said the long-term consequences of the administration's rhetoric could be severe overseas -- especially because the war was waged without the backing of the United Nations and was opposed by large majorities, even in countries run by leaders that supported the invasion.

"The foreign policy blow-back is pretty serious," said Kenneth Adelman*, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board and a supporter of the war. He said the gaps between the administration's rhetoric and the postwar findings threaten Bush's doctrine of "preemption," which envisions attacking a nation because it is an imminent threat.

The doctrine "rests not just on solid intelligence," Adelman said, but "also on the credibility that the intelligence is solid."

Already, in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, China has rejected U.S. intelligence that North Korea has a secret program to enrich uranium for use in weapons. China is a key player in resolving the North Korean standoff, but its refusal to embrace the U.S. intelligence has disappointed U.S. officials and could complicate negotiations to eliminate North Korea's weapons programs."

Were talking about a real threat with real WMDs-Korea! But thanks to the preznit we just blew our load on a paper tiger.

* Ken Adelman better known as "cakewalk Ken"

[Show Me the Wire]

Talk about bias "The econony is growing", however president Bush failed to state the economy has failed to recover all the gains it lost prior to his taking office.

Give us all a break. Only a moron would expect someone to qualify every statement made and enough of us have the common sense to understand the economy is starting to recover and has not recover all the gains it lost.

Common sense a commodity most democrats are lacking at this time (my opinion).

I enjoy a good debate, but, articles, of this ilk, are simply nitpicking trying to blow items out-of-proportion.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Show Me. An expected response. I can't blame you though. Those are just 10 of Mr. Corn's comments. I will have to read his book to comment further? I intend to though as the reviews look to be very good.

However what about the Annenberg non-partisan Fact Checks? And my real question I want to ask your opinion on: is someone who consciously omits information from the public that he knows will refute his claims, lying, or is he just being manipulative? And if just being manipulative, is that worse than lying to the public?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
And my real question I want to ask your opinion on: is someone who consciously omits information from the public that he knows will refute his claims, lying, or is he just being manipulative? And if just being manipulative, is that worse than lying to the public?

I think I first heard this question posed during the rein of Clinton.

Funny How they wouldn't answer it then........but demand that it be answered now.

[Secretariat]

JR,

So you choose not to answer it as well. I don't know where you guys get the idea that every Democrat blindly supported Bill Clinton. And if someone didn't approve of Clinton omitting information, why would they approve of this President doing the same. To get even? Tit for tat? Just curious if that is the rationale. One wrong deserves another?

[Show Me the Wire]

Secretariat:

you expected my response, then you must agree the man is a moron. I apologize for missing your oter question about intentional omissions of facts.

If it is a material fact that is omitted with the intent ot deceive it is duplicity. Judgment comes in determining what a material (important fact) is, just ask Clinton and Kerry.

How come Kerry did not tell the public he had an affair with an intern or at the very least he is being investigated by national news publication for having an alleged affair. You know the answer to that don't you?

I know you are displeased with our Pres. Bush's policies so vote against him next election, as of now I am in accord with his opinions and I am voting for him.

No posting is going to change your mind or mine. I belive a certain religious faction wants me and others like me dead, because I am an infidel in their minds. In my mind I must protect myself from them and I want a leader that is willing to do it. I do not want to depend on France, Iran, Syria, etc to do it for me.

That is the bottom line, either you believe these terrorist want to kill you or they want to be your friends. Through their terrosist acts I choose to believe they want to kill me.

Regards.
Show Me tne Wire

perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Secretariat:

you expected my response, then you must agree the man is a moron. I apologize for missing your oter question about intentional omissions of facts.

If it is a material fact that is omitted with the intent ot deceive it is duplicity. Judgment comes in determining what a material (important fact) is, just ask Clinton and Kerry.

How come Kerry did not tell the public he had an affair with an intern or at the very least he is being investigated by national news publication for having an alleged affair. You know the answer to that don't you?

I know you are displeased with our Pres. Bush's policies so vote against him next election, as of now I am in accord with his opinions and I am voting for him.

No posting is going to change your mind or mine. I belive a certain religious faction wants me and others like me dead, because I am an infidel in their minds. In my mind I must protect myself from them and I want a leader that is willing to do it. I do not want to depend on France, Iran, Syria, etc to do it for me.

That is the bottom line, either you believe these terrorist want to kill you or they want to be your friends. Through their terrosist acts I choose to believe they want to kill me.

Regards.
Show Me tne Wire

perception is reality

I don't know if David Corn is a moron or not. I stated I had not read the book. I'm open to reading the information he presents. He's got some excellent reviews from people I respect so I'll take a look and not prejudge.

As to Kerry, this intern "accusation" has little impact on our national problems, but I hope he comes clean if anything occurred. We really don't know that yet though and to "assume" that is finding a man guilty prematurely. In this land you are innocent until proven guilty, thank god.

But again to the core question you seem to be evading. Of course, I know you're going to vote for Bush, and you are fearful of a terrorist attack by Al Quada in this country. I don't think you are alone in the fear of a terrorist attack, but that's not the question. The question was about "omission" of information to the public that is known to refute your case. Does that constitute lying, or is it just manipulation and is manipulation of the public or deception of facts worse, or becoming to the President of the United States?

You stated:
"No posting is going to change your mind or mine."

Not sure I agree with that. I would not vote for Bush (because I think the record shows that he has deceived by omitting facts), but then again I might not vote for Kerry, if someone here could prove deliberate deception. Most likely I would abstain from voting or write in a candidate more to my liking.

[Show Me the Wire]

I answered:

"If it is a material fact that is omitted with the intent ot deceive it is duplicity. Judgment comes in determining what a material (important fact) is, just ask Clinton and Kerry."

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Secretariat]

Show Me,

Thanks. Well, I won't go so far as to call Bush a liar, he is just very, very duplicitous.

[PaceAdvantage]

All of the military actions carried out under the present administration have gone swimingly well....there is no debate.

Militarily, it couldn't have been any easier.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
All of the military actions carried out under the present administration have gone swimingly well....there is no debate.

Militarily, it couldn't have been any easier.

500+ soldiers killed
Over a thousand wounded.
An average of one killed a day
10,000 Iraqi civilians (who we were supposed to be liberating dead)
Afganistan a wreck according to Powell
Hints of civil war among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
No weapons of mass destruction
Bin Laden still not captured
Soldiers forced to stay way beyond their required enlistments
The National Guard used on foreign soil which even Johnson refused to do.
Lack of sufficent body armor for our soldiers for almost a year.
No exit strategy. Elections still not on the horizon, but we're planning on leaving by June 30..

Yeah, I would describe that as "swimmingly". Give me a break. Look, I admire our soldiers. I was one. These guys deserve better from our government. Those bozos in Washington screwed up, and they're now scrambling.

It doesn't matter though, as many of them will be joining the unemployment lines after the election.

[schweitz]

Kerry's war record means nothing when used to demonstrate his ability to lead our military. His voting record however does. He doesn't want to lead our military ---he wants the UN to lead it. Hoe can anybody believe that is in the best interest of our country?

[schweitz]

No, Johnson didn't use the National Guard---he used the draft!

[Lefty]

sec, hard to have a war without people getting killed. Unlike Vietnam this war accomplished something. Kerry and the intern; remember it was a Dem, We Clark that leaked that tidbit. I agree it's not important but neither is the Bush a.w.o.l. thing, but you didn't say that.
National Guard used and soldiers staying overtime? Well, thank your revered Clinton for that. He decimated the military budget.
Bin ladin on the run, Saddam captured, 60% of Al Quaeda captured or killed and 50,000,000 freed; and no more attacks on U.S. soil.
Yes, it has gone swimmingly.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
500+ soldiers killed
Over a thousand wounded.
An average of one killed a day
10,000 Iraqi civilians
They don't call it WAR for nothing you know. People die in wars. I don't recall a war in recorded human history that did not have casualties. Get real....you're playing to a higher audience here, whether you want to believe it or not.

Afganistan a wreck according to Powell
References please....

Hints of civil war among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
hints don't count


No weapons of mass destruction
Not yet....but it doesn't change the fact that the MILITARY ASPECT OF THE WAR WENT SWIMMINGLY WELL.

Bin Laden still not captured
I don't recall ever hearing that we went into Iraq to capture Bin Laden.

Soldiers forced to stay way beyond their required enlistments
The National Guard used on foreign soil which even Johnson refused to do.
Lack of sufficent body armor for our soldiers for almost a year.
No exit strategy. Elections still not on the horizon, but we're planning on leaving by June 30..
Once again, you miss the point. I was talking strictly militarily. The actual battle for Iraq went swimmingly.

As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush is now battle tested and full of valuable experience in leading the country militarily. You can't put a pricetag on experience. Kerry can't touch this with a ten foot pole.

Talk all you want about other issues, but I can't for the life of me believe we are even debating the military records of these two individuals. Bush is PRESIDENT and COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

How in the world can Kerry's military record in Vietnam possibly compare to the service and experience Bush has put in these last 4 years? Can any sane man or woman debate this point?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, hard to have a war without people getting killed. Unlike Vietnam this war accomplished something. Kerry and the intern; remember it was a Dem, We Clark that leaked that tidbit. I agree it's not important but neither is the Bush a.w.o.l. thing, but you didn't say that.
National Guard used and soldiers staying overtime? Well, thank your revered Clinton for that. He decimated the military budget.
Bin ladin on the run, Saddam captured, 60% of Al Quaeda captured or killed and 50,000,000 freed; and no more attacks on U.S. soil.
Yes, it has gone swimmingly.

Yes, it is Lefty. It is hard to have a war with out people being killed. That is why it is so important that leaders make decisions carefully, not knee jerk pre-emptively.
500+ soldiers killed
Over a thousand wounded.
An average of one killed a day
10,000 Iraqi civilians (who we were supposed to be liberating dead)
Afganistan a wreck according to Powell
Hints of civil war among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
No weapons of mass destruction
Bin Laden still not captured
Soldiers forced to stay way beyond their required enlistments
The National Guard used on foreign soil which even Johnson refused to do.
Lack of sufficent body armor for our soldiers for almost a year.
No exit strategy. Elections still not on the horizon, but we're planning on leaving by June 30..

[Lefty]

Guess you never read my post that answers your post, you know, about Clinton downsizing the military and all that?
If you can call going into Iraq knee-jerk after all these yrs of defiance by Saddam I guess going into Kosovo most stupid thing ever done by a President? And we're there wayyyyy beyond what Clinton told us aren't we?

[ljb]

Lefty's standard post:
"Guess you never read my post that answers your post, you know, about Clinton downsizing the military and all that?"



ljb's standard reply:
"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-----Dick Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies, August 2000
Hate to do this Lefty but, if you are going to continue with your bs i have to continue correcting it.

[Lefty]

What b.s? Bush had to use the National Guard because Clinton downsized the military. Reagan built it up and Clinton decimated it. We won the Iraq war handily in spite of the downsizing not because of it and your density and/or b.s. on the matter is nothing short of amazing. It will take the Republicans at least 8 yrs to rebuild our miltary to where it was when Clinton took office.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty's standard post:
"Guess you never read my post that answers your post, you know, about Clinton downsizing the military and all that?"



ljb's standard reply:
"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...And when that war (the first Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-----Dick Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies, August 2000
Hate to do this Lefty but, if you are going to continue with your bs i have to continue correcting it.



WAIT A SECOND!! Since when do you put any stock into what Dick Cheney has to say??? In one post, you condemn everything and everyone in the current administration....in the next post, you're using one of the condemned to bolster your claims!!

Geez man, be consistent at the very least!

[Rick]

Blah, blah, blah, etc. My guy's better than yours, etc.

[Boris]

Originally posted by Secretariat
10,000 Iraqi civilians (who we were supposed to be liberating dead)



http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

From article:
"In San Francisco, my support for the disarmament of Saddam makes me a pariah among my peers. My sixteen years of study of Iraq, doctoral work on Saddam, and time spent in the Middle East make no difference. I am daily condemned by the mantra that the US is taking "hundreds of thousands" of civilian lives in Iraq-- and that my support makes me an accomplice to murder.

For my own part, I am embarrassed to watch the daily "Showdown with Iraq" news graphics that turn human suffering into a Steven Segal movie. I know that what is at stake are precious human lives. I know that many who oppose the war do so out of deep respect and concern for human life.

Let me say that there are those supporting the disarmament of Saddam who do so for the same reason.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."


I don't think you can look at the number of civilians killed in the war without remembering what this place was like.

[ljb]

PA said
"WAIT A SECOND!! Since when do you put any stock into what Dick Cheney has to say??? In one post, you condemn everything and everyone in the current administration....in the next post, you're using one of the condemned to bolster your claims!!

I am just posting the quote, I'll leave it up to you to tell me if he was lying or telling the truth.

[ljb]

Lefty said
"What b.s? Bush had to use the National Guard because Clinton downsized the military.
Bush used the national guard because he bit off more then he could chew in an ill concieved, unplanned, uneeded invasion of Iraq.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
That's great news Tom. I know Charlies Schumer and Hilary were working hard to maintain Canandaigua. Looks like their lobbying paid off. That is good news. Now if we can just stop the Bush adminstration from cutting the others, and hope they don't replace Canandaigua with a new VA. Maybe we can get Cheyney involved.


Not all is won yet. The recommendation is not to close. The final decsion is still pendig.
Don't hold your breath open Chenney...unless they are raising funds in the VA, he won't be there.


I would love to as these Washington morons to show me the list where fullfilling our promises to our vets, and taking care of those who gave so much for us, is less important than such things as:
1. National Public radio
2. Endowments to the arts.
3. The new visitor center in DC,
4. Advertising the new $20 bill

Maybe Tim Russert missed the chance for some real intersting TV last week.
In fairness to Bush, ignoring and turning your back on our vets is a presidential custom shared by all.
This is a bigger issue that terrorism, to me. The whole point in a war on terror is that your country is worth saving. Issues like this cast serious doubts.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
How in the world can Kerry's military record in Vietnam possibly compare to the service and experience Bush has put in these last 4 years?



"Swimmingly" bad!:p

[Rick]

Let's see now. We've got the anti-war war hero with a confusing voting record running against the conservative who thinks that deficits don't matter and sounds confused whenever he speaks. Wow, what a choice!

[Derek2U]

yeah 2 morons i think we should switch 2 one-term pres .. lets
say 6 years then OUT

[Lefty]

Most economists, Alan Greenspan included think shortterm deficits not that big of a worry. Bush sometimes sounds a little confused when he speaks but he has taken the war to the terrorists while the "glib" Clinton just talked and talked and talked. As my Daddy used to say, "actions speak louder than words."

[schweitz]

Derek2U, I don't agree about the two morons part, but I couldn't agree more about having 6 yr. 1 term for prresident.

[Lefty]

Term limits for any body of Govt will never happen unless the Republicans can gain a Super Majority in the House and Senate. Back during the 94 Congress, Knute, true to his promise, got the term limits up for a vote. Over 80% of Republicans voted for term limits but the dems defeated it.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Derek2U
yeah 2 morons i think we should switch 2 one-term pres .. lets
say 6 years then OUT
Groovy! Can we tack on the extra 2 now? hehehe

[Rick]

Short term deficit? Sounds like somebody believes in the tooth fairy here.

[Lefty]

Rick, no I don't blve in tooth fairy, but if I do, so does Greenspan Truth is, and it's been proven, deficits can be managed through economic growth. If our growth continues at the pace it's going and we keep spending at 4% or less, as Bushes budget suggests, then the budget is manageable. After all, we owe a lot of this money to ourselves via bonds etc. It's not the end of the world. But if we elect a President(Kerry)that turns our safety over to the the impotent and corrupt U.N. the deficits gonna be the least of our problems.

[ljb]

Lefty,
The republicans have a majority in both the senate and congress. Where are the term limits?
All that bs you are spreading about Bush balancing the budget is just bs also. CLINTON balanced budget, republicans are BORROW and spend, even ahnold has the plan.
Try to get real for just a moment Lefty, it wont kill ya!
ps if you haven't checked out my latest predictions, you should they are good ones.

[Rick]

Lefty,

It depends on what the deficits are caused by. Tax cuts are usually OK since they stimulate growth and get paid back later on. Some ways of doing it are better than others, but I won't argue that now. What's really damaging is increasing spending on government programs that don't pay for themselves, like the recent Medicare prescription giveaway. I can't believe that true conservatives think that these kinds of expensive programs are good for the economy. If you support this kind of thing just because Bush favored it then you're just being blindly partisan. There are plenty of responsible Republicans around that would be enormously better than Bush, but we don't have that choice now.

As for me, I don't like either guy but I'll probably vote totally according to my own selfish interest. I don't need a job now and most of my income is from investments, so I won't support anyone who'll take away the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains. But, I don't want anyone messing with my Social Security either. I probably put in 3 times as much as I'll ever get out and I don't want to hear about raising the retirement age or lowering the payouts. And I don't want a big spender in there who'll cause inflation by running up huge deficits. As for whether the guy's religious, or is for or against gay marriages, or for or against abortion, I couldn't care less. Those are not issues that the President gets involved in much anyway. I might care about who he may appoint to the Supreme Court, but those people don't quit until they either die or have the right guy in office according to their own partisan beliefs anyway.

[Lefty]

lbj, your post shows you don't know much about congress. The republicans have too slim a majority to get term limits passed. They tried hard in the congress of 94 but couldn't get enough dems to vote for it and, lbj, that's a fact.

Rick, deficits caused by a lot of things; the war and homeland security included. The only thing i liked about the medicare act was the part about medical savings accts. If you've read a lot of my posts you know I think medicare the biggest crime ever foisted upon the american people. The dems been screaming about the prescriptions so b
Bush gave it to them. You elect Kerry and you'll most likely get another attempt at Universal Health care. If he can pass such a thing, watch that deficit soar.
Kerry will also cede our defense to the U.N. that scares me, how about you? You thght Clinton downsized the military, watch Kerry do the same and try to quit funding needed weapons systems too. SCARY.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Yeah, I think it's scary either way. It'll be a tough decision for me, probably not for you though according to what you always say. I don't think there's anything that Bush could do to cause you not to vote for him. I understand, my Mom is the same way. She's a lifelong Republican and religious, and would never vote any other way. She doesn't read the newspaper (like Bush) and doesn't know anything about how his policies are affecting her. I was a steadfast Republican when they actually stood for conservative, small government solutions. But it ain't that way anymore and I don't have any requirement to vote for any party always if they don't act like I think they should. It seems today that all politicians are damaging to our well being in one way or another and I'm conservative in the way of not wanting them to change too many things because they always seem to f*** everything up. Bush is hopelessly incompetent. Kerry may be dangerously wrong. I don't think either one is good for the country.

As to the health care argument, Bush has already spent more on the BS Medicare prescription plan than Kerry is planning to spend on a complete overhaul of the system. Your guy is spending money to no useful purpose. There's no defending that.

[Rick]

You know, it looks to me like tax and spend versus don't tax and spend more. Kinda reminds me of my ex-wives.

[Lefty]

No way can Bush be spending more than an overhaul of system. Universal Health care means 85% of Americans will have their current plans yanked from them for the priveledge of having taxes raised and waiting eons for mediocre healthcare service. Of the 15% not insured now a lot are young people who are working at entry level jobs. Once again it's not "raise all boats" but bring everyone down to same low level.
I was raised a Democrat but I gave up on that promise everything deliver nothing but high taxes and lowered expectations a longtime ago.
Bush could be better but he can only be as good as the people let him and sad truth is, people expect a lot of entitlements.
Republicans not about to yank your social security away but want to fix it so there's some for you to collect. As it stands, it's a Ponzi Scheme and will collapse under it's own weight. I have kids and grandkids and pity them and their expectations of SS if Dems get elected, not to mention their safety.
Here's to our ex-wives, Rick.
And here's to your mom, you'd do well to listen to her.

[Rick]

Lefty,

So, you admire people who vote for a party regardless of whether they know anything about what they stand for? You do realize that Social Security is funded by CURRENT contributions, which don't have anything to do with what you or I put into it. If the Republicans manage to privatize Social Security, those current contributions will go away, there'll be a big crisis, and they'll decide that it's OK to just make you wait to receive benefits. You're living in the past if you think that Republicans are going to watch out for your best interests. I totally agree that some of the absolute worst politicians have been Democrats in the past, but the Republicans are at least equally repugnant to me now.

[Lefty]

Rick, I fully realize that. That's why I call it a Ponzi scheme. More and morepeople retire every day and soon it will be dn to 2 workers for every retiree. Do you realize that?You think that itwon't collapse under its own weight? If we privatize part of it now my kids and their grandkids will have a shot. You and I will only lose our SS if something's not done. If no form of privatization takes place SS is doomed. I love it when the Dems say to privatize a part of SS is risky> It's a joke. To do nothing is riskier because this Ponzi scheme will collapse.
I know the Republicans will come closer to my best interests than the Dems i.e. Kerry. At least Bush is fighting terrorism and lowering taxes and not "diddling" the help.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Fear not I have it from good sources the Bush team is working on privatizing SS right now.
They already have the team set up. I believe they have Ken Lay set to head it up and are putting some exfund managers on the board of directors.
Like I said, fear not corporate America is going to take care of you.

Your children and grandchildren are going to have enough to worry about paying off the deficit, we don't want them to have to worry about retirement.

[Lefty]

I give reasoned arguments and then you come in with a load. Rush is right, lbj, don't try this at home. In case you don't get it(cause you never do)"not funny M'gee"

[Secretariat]

If we could only get some of those damn workers from India, and China to contribute to our Social Security we might be able to prop up Soc. Sec for a few more years. About 20% of 0.35 cents an hour. After all they took our jobs, at least they could help us out a bit.

[Lefty]

cry, cry cry. I couldn't be a lib, far too negative an outlook.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Your arguments have no reason. Read my lips "Voodoo economics"

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
cry, cry cry. I couldn't be a lib, far too negative an outlook.

Want some hard facts. As usual, you never supply them. Ok, here's one. How bad has our loss of manufacturing jobs been over the last 40 years, and how has GW Bush measured up?

Take a look:

Manufacturing jobs in America– U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics
All employees, Thousands
1960 – 15,438
1970 – 17848
1980 – 18733
1990 – 17695
2000 - 17263
2003 - 14524

US Population – US Census
Total population, Millions
1960 – 179.3
1970 – 203.2
1980 – 226.5
1990 – 248.7
2000 - 281.4
2003 - 292.6 (based on U.S. Census PopClock Projection)

Percentage of total Manufacturing Jobs to total US Population
1960 – 8.61%
1970 – 8.78%
1980 – 8.27%
1990 – 7.11%
2000 - 6.13%
2003 - 4.97% (based on Census PopClock Projection)

Since Reagan's move away from a manufacturing nation to a service economy, we've lost manufacturing jobs which had been fairly constant from 1960 to 1980. Between 1980 to 1990 we saw a dip of 1.16% or 0.116 average each year. Under Bush Sr. and Clinton from 1990-2000 we lost 0.98% or a dip of about 0.098 on average each year. Under GW Bush Jr. from 2000-2003 we've lost 1.16 over three years or 0.387% on average each year.

In other words, Bush's performance per year in terms of the loss of manufacturing jobs has been nearly four times worse than Clinton and GH Bush, and about three and a half times worse than Reagan and GH Bush. and we've almost lost over 40% of our manufacturing jobs as a percentage of population since 1970.

GW Bush Jr. performance over the last three years is the most abysmal for manufacturing over the last fifty years. Those are the facts. I ain't happy about it, but the statistics come directly from Government agencies.

[ljb]

Secretariat,
Good job compiling those stats but, Lefty does not believe anything unless it comes from Rush.

[PaceAdvantage]

LJB, that last post serves absolutely no purpose except to flame. What was the point of posting that?

You're nothing but a flamer....

[Lefty]

Sec, of course you blame the loss on GW Bush. Let's see, jobs go overseas, must be Bushes fault.
I still see over 94% employed.
When the buggywhip bus disappeared did not another opportunity appear?
Hasn't GW. Bush been busy dealing with some pretty important issues? Like the war on terrorism?
If Kerry elected I guess all those jobs will magically come back?
I don't think so.
It's up to the unemployed to reeducate themselves, move on to other areas of opportunity. Are they can cry in their beer and blame the President. All my kids got a better education than I did and have great jobs. They sought the opportunities this great country affords and found them.
All the jobs are gone, nobody's working, things are a mess, according to you and other libs, but the Clinton recession has been dealt with and the economy chugging along at a record pace. Even old dour Greenspan predicts 4-5% growth. Now with everything that's happened last 3 yrs i'd say that's pretty damn good; but no, you still have a negative outlook.
Just happy i'm not a lib.

lbj, you never did answer my question: How many listeners does your favorite liberal talk show host have?

[Tom]

Get real, guys!
Manufacturing jobs are leaving the country because of greedy corporations, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush1, not Regean.
As long as there are people out there who will do it cheaper, corpoate America willl gravitate towards them. Corporate America is a misnomer-they care not a thing about America, only profits for themselves. Gloabal economy means we got ours! Instead of bitching about Bush losing jobs, do something constructive-boycott any company that manufactures anything outside the country and brings it back here to sell. Ford, GM, Kodak, Xerox, stop buying ffrom them and let them knwo why. Support compamies who come here and build plants and make and sell here, even if they are foreign based. Toyota, Honda, come to mind. And a second bonus you get-beter quality to boot.

[ljb]

Pa,
The post was a compliment to Secretariat on his work in compiling those stats. I added a comment as to the futility of his efforts as they are falling on deaf ears when communicating with Lefty. Hope this clarifies the issue.

[ljb]

Tom,
I sorta agree with your thesis. However one should investigate the financial doings of Toyata, Honda etc. before jumping on there support group.
I read in the past that they use various manufacturing techniques that allow them to put their cars together in the U.S. while paying little or no taxes.
Also you may include the corporations that have set up off shore bases to avoid paying any U.S. taxes in your boycott.
And lastly this area sort of touches on the fact that we are living in a small world, we must learn to get along with others.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I don't know of any liberal talk shows, so I can't answer your question. Now here's a question for you.
How many lemmings walk off the cliff before they realize whats happening?

[Rick]

My advice is to cover yourself no matter what happens. If they privatize Social Security then current benefits will be decreased, no question in my mind about that. But, my investments in the stock market will undoubtedly soar in value with all of that extra money coming in. The biggest winners will be businesses and people heavily invested in stock. Oh yeah, those are the large Republican donors now.

If Kerry gets elected, not too much will really happen for a while since there is a Republican Congress and he'll be vetoing everything they propose. That's fine with me because I don't want either Republican corporate welfare programs or Democratic social welfare programs to proliferate. Then, slowly throw the bums out of Congress and replace them with others. If the result is a Democratic Congress, then elect a Republican President.

Mainly though, try not to act too much like a dopey middle class wage slave too much. Those are always the guys who get screwed by both parties.

[Rick]

To further elaborate on the Social Security thing, the return on investment of those who get in after the privatization happens will be much lower than it is now. It's a simple case of suppy and demand. Get in before it happens and then cash out after the huge wave of new investments hits. Any smart horseplayer should know that you don't want to be doing the same thing that everyone else is doing. Does anyone really think that government regulated and sponsored investments are going to wind up making everyone a winner? It can't happen. Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. Think about it.

[Lefty]

lbj, that's the point. No liberal talk show hosts. Guess nobody wants to hear their bilge.
Rush expresses my views not the other way around and then he does the unthinkable, he brings the facts. You are prob. one of those guys that knock huim because other libs do. Talk about lemmings! Take the challenge, listen for 6 weeks and try to do it with an open mind. You just might learn something.

Rick, so the solution to SS is do nothing? You are afraid of what might happen? If it's not privatized it's doomed to collapse as all Ponzi schemes do, and that's a sad but true fact.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You didn't answer my question. I listened to Rush for six weeks years ago. Found him to be a biggoted hate monger, no more for me. Some learn by their mistakes and go on to the next race, others keep making the same mistakes.

[Lefty]

lbj, something must be wrong with them there ears. I've been listening to Rush for years and he is neither bigoted nor a hate monger. Like I say, and you know if you listen, the most hateful things i've ever heard come right out of the libs' mouths. If you don't agree with a lib, you automatically become a racist or homophobe. Just open your ears and listen to where the real vitriol is coming from.
Kerry was here in Vegas and a guy with a Bush sign was attacked and then thrown off the University property. The left just doesn't believe in free speech.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Get real, guys!
Manufacturing jobs are leaving the country because of greedy corporations, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush1, not Regean.
As long as there are people out there who will do it cheaper, corpoate America willl gravitate towards them. Corporate America is a misnomer-they care not a thing about America, only profits for themselves. Gloabal economy means we got ours! Instead of bitching about Bush losing jobs, do something constructive-boycott any company that manufactures anything outside the country and brings it back here to sell. Ford, GM, Kodak, Xerox, stop buying ffrom them and let them knwo why. Support compamies who come here and build plants and make and sell here, even if they are foreign based. Toyota, Honda, come to mind. And a second bonus you get-beter quality to boot.

Originally posted by Lefty

Sec, of course you blame the loss on GW Bush. Let's see, jobs go overseas, must be Bushes fault.
I still see over 94% employed.
….



First Lefty.

Whatever happened to the buck stops here, Lefty? Every other President has accepted the strength or weakness of the economy "on their watch", but this President remains immune in your mind. Absurd. Bush goes to a rally in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and talks a big game, saying "he'll do something about the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs overseas." But the reality is he's a bag of wind. The statistics I posted (and thanks lbj for the compliment, but they were right there in the US Dept. of Labor and the US Census, not some stupid radio commentator pontificating without basis) display that as a percentage of population the loss of manaufacturing jobs is four times worse under "this" President than Clinton and Bush's father. 3.5 times worse than Reagan and Bush's father while manufacturing job loss from 1960-1980 was minimal. Manufacturing "makes" things. It is one of the things which made our country great. We are not making things anymore Lefty. We are importing them. You still don't get it when the statisics are right in front of your face. Your partisanship is so evident that you list that we have 94% unemployment, yet you fail to mention the type of employment we do have which is my point. This "good" jobs that people wanted are lost. They are replaced with working at McDonalds. Real wage growth is down. Ask a steel worker, or a Detroit assembly worker how he's making it today. Even textile workers. There are only so many McDonalds to go around. Ask a white collar programmer who sees his job exported to India. Don't be so blind politically that you'll defend "all" of bush's record. This evidence doesn't have a leg to stand on.

OK, Tom.

Yes, there are greedy corporations. Why? Obviously, during 1960-2000 there was not nearly the massive job loss in manufacturing we're seeing over the last three years. Why? You'd think after the Enron scandal, and the SEC chief being replaced that corproations would be more careful than ever, but not according to these statistics. Corporations pay a fraction of what they paid in taxes in 1960, "a fraction", and yet they still insist in locating overseas. So what' the problem, and why now? Could it be that Americans want a standard of living for their kids, and health care? There was a thing called slavery in the south that used cheap labor, and indentured servitude in the North. These corproations are using these tools overseas, violating morality, and avoiding even having to pay minimum wage, benefits, all in the name of their profits. The argument is it keeps prices low. At what cost, and why are CEO's of these companies making huge salaries compared to the normal worker? You are correct "greed", but a government that looks the other way is "blind to the concerns of its citizen workers." The problem with boycotting any company that does this Tom, is it has gotten so bad, you'd be boycotting just about "every" company. No, I will not accept that Bush is "exempt" from every other president's responsibility before him, because he says the word" globilization". That's a cop-out phrase. It does not show leadership. It hides behind what he's said he was gonna due. Guarantee "good "jobs for Americans.

He can quote the stock market all he wants. The question is who are the profits going to, what kind of jobs are Americans getting, what kind of jobs can America train for? For gods sake he was speaking to a school here locally touting his No Child In America Left Behind, and suggesting kids go to community college to learn how to be "Fork Lift Operators". Now I've got nothing against fork lift operators, but there is a limit to the number of Fork Lift Operators in America. I checked the want ads after his speech, and there wasn't one for a fork lift operator. What ever happened to kids hopes and dreams? This is what we are reduced to. We are losing quality jobs and good wage earning jobs. IF this President "fails to accept" his responsiblity for that, and we acquiesce, then we are all responsible. Lefty, I'd like to ask you what job a 51 yeard old fellow "retrains for" who has three kids, a wife, and has worked in an auto plant his whole life? I hear they need nurses? What do you think?

A president who shirks his duty, such as this, to "working" Americans is no leader I want on my watch

[Secretariat]

btw ...Rick, excellent post on the privatization of Social Security.

[Lefty]

sec, you say Bush says he's gonna try to do something about the jobs and before he even gets a chance you call him a windbag. The man can do nothing to please you because like most libs, you're just a pesssimist at heart. 94%+ employment does mean most people employed. Good stockmarket helps us all as over 50% of us involved in stockmarket one way or another.

And when it comes to SS you guys wring your hands but are afraid to take a tiny step towards partial privatization that can save the Ponzi scheme by taking it partially out of the realm of the Ponzi scheme.

So you see impartial observors, nothing changes with the libs or Dems. Man trys to do something, he's a bag of wind.
Privatize SS, oh gosh it may not work, they say.
They handwring, complain, but when a Pres steps up, trys to do best for the country, well, no good. He's not one of them.

Buck stops here? Never noticed that with Clinton. He constantly averted blame for everything that went wrong and took credit for every good thing the 94 congress did that he was formerly against.
Tell you what guys, take your votes to Kerry, and if he wins, Duck.
The terrorists are not afraid of Democrats.

[ljb]

Secretariat,
Excellent post. Well thought out and written.
Your statement concerning Bush taking responsibility for what happens on his watch is a point well made.
Bush wins the award for buck passing by far over any President in my lifetime.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I don't know what the answer is for Social Security but here's what I'm afraid is going to happen if they "privatize" it. The government will set up rules about which investments are allowable so that people don't invest in anything too risky. They can't allow a large percentage of people to lose their shirts because we'd wind up having to pick up the tab through welfare, etc. for the big losers. So, there would be government preferred, "safe" investments. And, they'd have a big time vested interest in making those successful, so our economic policy would tilt toward making financial markets successful rather than creating jobs. No doubt they'd create incentives (subsidies) with our taxpayer dollars. Yikes, you know what happens when the government tries to run anything. Nope, it's not the right answer.

[Rick]

I guess there's one scenario that would be OK with me. That would be letting people invest in treasury bonds. In that case, the huge influx of money would lower rates and make it cheaper to finance the deficit. In general though, I'm totally against the government interfering in supply and demand in any area because of their history of nothing but failure. Also, isn't it this kind of thing that bankrupted the Soviet Union? Anyway, whatever the government does, I want to be able to opt out of it because it's sure to be a bad investment.

[Lefty]

Rick, don't look now, but Govt already involved in SS. If it's not privatized it will vanish, begone and then nobody gets any. Treasury Bonds one alternative. So you, see, something positive can be done and needs to be done. To do nothing is fatal to SS.
The Govt. runs the show now, privatization is opposite of Govt interference.
Soviet Union bankrupted cause Reagan put them in an arms race they couldn't win.

Lbj, guess you already forgot Clinton.
One ex: Waco: Clinton when asked about it said "you'll have to ask Janet Reno about that." C'mon, you guys sure got a set of selective memories on you.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I didn't say other presidents have not passed the buck, I said Bush is the worst in history.
As an excuse for Bush I will say, he really can't be held totally responsible for his mis-deeds as he does not read and only reacts to the information gleaned for his ears.

[Lefty]

lbj, Clinton worst or best, guess it's how you looked at it, buckpasser in history.
But this thread about Kerry.
What's his economic plan?
How will he keep this nation safe?

[ljb]

Well I'll be go to hell. Point out one of Bush's flaws and Lefty wants us to get back on topic. Who woulda thunk? From the spinmeister him self.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Yes, you're right about the arms race being the final straw for the Soviets but the whole idea of the government managing the economy was the root cause. We probably get a lower rate of return now than we would on the safest investments (such as treasury bonds), so I'm OK with that. I just don't want to allow massive amounts of SS money to be invested in stocks because the returns are so volatile. I want SS to be a guaranteed absolute minimum income in retirement, like an annuity. That way we don't have the government messing with the stock market and we don't have a big welfare case load for those who invested unwisely. So, there are some positive things that could be done but that's not what's being discussed. Those who want privatization are still talking like they think that everyone can make 10% annual return by investing in the stock market.

Here's an example of what could happen. In the last few years, stock index funds have become very popular since there's so much research that suggests that it's very hard to beat the averages. So, a lot of money now goes into funds that track an index, usually the S&P 500. When companies are added or removed from the index, these funds are required to adjust their holdings. Since a company removed from the index MUST be sold and a company added MUST be bought, doing the opposite is now a profitable strategy. And, because of this, an S&P 500 index fund does WORSE than the S&P 500 index! Extrapolate that to the effect of a large percentage of current Social Security funds moving in or out of government approved investments and you'll see what I mean.

[Lefty]

Rick, I guess do nothing and let the thing collapse because you're afraid of what might happen? Keep the Dems in and SS goes bye bye or they just raise the hell ourt of taxes some more or find another industry to attack and raid for money. And remember, it's too late for full privatization which is way it shoulda been set up at start, but this is just a partial privatization. I guess this why Dems been so successful, it seems preying on fears seems to work. Too bad.

lbj, guess you haven't a clue as to what Kerry's economic plans or national defense plans are?

[ljb]

Lefty,
I ask you to follow your own instructions and stay on topic. This debate on SS is off topic.
Kerry will not continue with the borrow and spend bankrupt America, economic policy that the current administration is using.

[Lefty]

lbj, I didn't start the SS topic, but did answer it. Don't tell me what Kerry won't do, what's his plans? If he's not going to do what Bush does then how is he going to make it all better?
Do you even have a clue about his economic and foreign affairs plans?
I defended Bush, I know he fights terrorism and cuts taxes. I like that.
Now how what will Kerry do?

[Rick]

Sorry for going off-topic here but I'd really like the candidates to talk more about what they'd do on things like Social Security and spend less time talking about what we'd do about Iraq if we knew then what we know now. What we WILL do in Iraq in the future IS an important issue however. The old racetrack saying, "woulda, coulda, shoulda" comes to mind when I think about what's been said by most of the candidates.

[Rick]

Another funny thing to me is how shocked people are that politicians will lie to get elected. Well, the truth is that most people lie at least a little bit in order to get hired for a job. Remember all of those stupid questions they asked you in your interview where you had to think about what answer they'd want to hear instead of what you really felt? Same thing my friend.

But trying to cover up when something goes wrong doesn't work well at all. Clinton wouldn't have gotten in any big trouble, except with his family, if he hadn't tried to cover up. Bush is having trouble trying to cover up for bad intelligence and an imperfect Air National Guard record. Consequently, many people think he's a liar now and won't trust him on anything. Probably neither of those issues is really as bad as he's making them look.

[Rick]

Hey, it's tweedle dee (as in deny any responsibility) versus tweedle dum (as in dumb decisions). You decide which one is which.

[Secretariat]

I found your SS analysis excellent. Maybe you should start a new thread on this issue of privatization.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, you say Bush says he's gonna try to do something about the jobs and before he even gets a chance you call him a windbag.

He's had three years to do something Lefty. All he does is talk about it while the manufcaturing figures get worse-(look at them again). That is a wind bag. Talk is cheap. He ain't gonna be around the political scene in 2005 so he's got a few more months to do something, about it not just talk about it. He's good about talking about reducing the deficit as well, but that's headed south. We want action Lefty, not talk.

[Lefty]

Rick, I agree. SS important. We know where Bush stands and what he wants to do. Now let's hear Kerry's plan. So you see, you're not offtopic in offtopic at all.

[Lefty]

Sec, Clinton had 8 yrs and all he did was talk and diddle. Now Bush has kinda had his plate full, don'tcha think? You're not gonna like Bush no matter what. Now pray tell me what Kerry will do to bring back those jobs?

[ljb]

Lefty said:
"Clinton had 8 yrs and all he did was talk and diddle. "
Lefty I have asked you in the past not to bring up those years of peace and prosperity, makes me wish we didn't have term limits for President.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Well, it's difficult to find out any specifics about where anyone stands on any of the issues. They never ask any of the important questions in the debates and what little can be gleaned from speeches is very vague. Especially if someone says they're for a new idea like SS privatization, I want to know the details so that I can decide whether it's a good or bad change. If someone says they're just totally against an idea, that's easier to evaluate I guess.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty said:
"Clinton had 8 yrs and all he did was talk and diddle. "
Lefty I have asked you in the past not to bring up those years of peace and prosperity, makes me wish we didn't have term limits for President.
Peace, if you close your eyes to the numerous terror attacks, WTC for one, and the Cole, and the many deaad soldiers killed in thier bunks. Yep peace was running amouk.
Prosperitey, if you ignore the fact that the economy was heading south before W took the reighns.
If you close your eyes, click your heels together, say to yourself three times, "There's no rant like ignorant, there's no rant like ignorant....."
You might find yourself back in Kansas.

[ljb]

Tom,
I am short of time here just give me body counts and dollars spent thank you,
:)

[Lefty]

lbj, I am still waiting for you to post one positive reason of why Kerry deserves to be Pres, sans your usual copout answer, please.

[ljb]

Lefty, I have posted more then one positive thing about Kerry in this thread. Of course we all know the standard "HE AIN'T BUSH".
But I may have mentioned he served in the jungles of Viet Nam while your man was quaffing a few cold ones in Alabama.

[Lefty]

lbj, don't remember you posting one positive thing about Kerry. Just your standard copout.
Did you vote for Geo. H Bush or Bob Dole? They were both war heros too.

[Lefty]

Oh, and Clinton dodged the draft altogether and I bet you voted for him twice. You libs highly inconsistent.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
But I may have mentioned he served in the jungles of Viet Nam while your man was quaffing a few cold ones in Alabama.

And serving in the jungle qualifies him how?

[ljb]

Tom,
And you prefer quaffing cold ones? Oh wait a minute the fellow said he was serving in the national guard at the time. Not quaffing cold ones.

[Tom]

Think about it...which one was the smarter of the two?
the one getting shot at in a rice paddy of the one quaffing cold ones on Beloxi?
:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

lbj, why can'yt you give a straight answer? What qualifies Kerry to be Pres? What's his economic plan? How will he protect this country from terrorists? One straight answer, that's all I ask.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I hate to upset you but, I am not on Kerry's platform committee or connected to Kerry in any other way. I do not know exactly what his economic or defense plans are. I just know that anything is better then what we have now. It doesn't have to be Kerry, if you have someone else you like, let me know, maybe we can team up and work together instead of this constant bickering.

[Secretariat]

LJB,

Don't let Lefty badger you. I've posted numerous positives about Kerry, and of course to Lefty, they're all negatives.

A person who has made up his mind isn't interested in facts, only the sound of his own voice.

He has consistently failed to back up any of his opinions, except to either (a) blame everything on Clinton or (b) declare that Kerry will cede our entire country to the UN, or (c) pray that GW will give Lefty his $0.50 a week tax cut.

That kind of general stuff. Bottom line, he has nothing to back up his claims except his opinions.

His man will soon be out of the White House. That's the bottom line.

[ljb]

Tom Said:
"Think about it...which one was the smarter of the two?
the one getting shot at in a rice paddy of the one quaffing cold ones on Beloxi?"

Funny I heard the one quaffing cold ones used his political ties to achieve the safety of his position. So much for Lefty's courage statement. hey!

Think about it...which one was the patriot and which one was the chicken ?



__________________

[Lefty]

Well, there you have it ladies and gentlemen. I opened this thread so Kerry supporters could post positives about their candidate. So far, more Bush bashing, and "he's not Bush" and "he's for a hydrogen car."
I don't think Pres. Bush has much to worry about if these guys typical of the Kerry supporter.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
A person who has made up his mind isn't interested in facts, only the sound of his own voice.

Now THERE is a quote that perfectly describes many of the frequent posters in the off-topic section....THANK YOU!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
And serving in the jungle qualifies him how?

That is a TERRIFIC question! How does serving in the jungle give Kerry the upper hand over the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF who has SUCCESSFULLY campaigned TWO major military battles in the MODERN WARFARE ARENA?

Forget EVERYTHING else about the two men for a moment. If your mind is not closed enough to do this, and you focus SOLELY on what is needed to be COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the armed forces, Kerry has no legs to stand on after Bush's 4 years of HANDS ON experience.

Work experience, most would agree, is the BEST experience.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
That is a TERRIFIC question! How does serving in the jungle give Kerry the upper hand over the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF who has SUCCESSFULLY campaigned TWO major military battles in the MODERN WARFARE ARENA?

Forget EVERYTHING else about the two men for a moment. If your mind is not closed enough to do this, and you focus SOLELY on what is needed to be COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the armed forces, Kerry has no legs to stand on after Bush's 4 years of HANDS ON experience.

Work experience, most would agree, is the BEST experience.

OK, let's look at this Comander in Chief thing. Thomas Paine lambasted Washington for taking credit during the Revolutionary War and said it was subordinate Generals who really won the war. Lincoln made the decision to go to war, but didn't fight the war. Same with Roosevelt.

Bush first. Bush was not the strategist behind the actual miltary maneuvers, the Pentagon was. He made the decision to go into battle, so I think we need to examine the decision to go to war foremost, because that was the Bush decision. Even if Bush's intentions were good (and I'm not buying into that yet, but I'll play devils advocate), his decision has proved to be (a) internationally divisive (b) lacking in his primary reasons for the war (WMD's and linking Hussein with al-Quaida) (c) the anticpated Iraqi post-war response was not what was described by us prior to the war- one of welcoming Iraqi's throwing flowers in the street (d) American soldiers were not budgeted to afford proper equipment - body armor (e) longer than anticipated enlistments and the overuse of the National Guard Reservists (f) more casualties and wounded than predicted (g) collateral damage in killing over 10,000 Iraqis

Now, if his intentions were to (a) capture Hussein (b) stop Hussein's torture and murder, he has succeeded in that regard. But terror has not stopped, and the Iraqi people are very divisive about their country at present, from the Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, and remnants of the Bathists. So, I think while he captured a despicable despot, I don't think the price tag has been worth it, nor the reasons for going to war justified by his pre-war assertions (whether it was intelligence failure or not).

Kerry, on the other hand, has not had to make those kind of decisions, and as such benefits from not having those negatives or positives. So we judge him by his war record, which everyone is tired of hearing about. The man served honorably in combat, and if people want to denigrate his oppostion to the war, fine, but I think he was correct. If they want to denigrate stuff like his service and medals though, that is where I draw the line. The stuff about his purple hearts not being wounded enough crap bothers me. I know a lot of guys from that period, and they'd sure as hell give those medals back in a second to bring one of their buddies back. I like that Kerry's been there. Yes, it matters to me. He's seen war close up. That is important to me. I think he will handle Commander in Chief well because he's served on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, he knows how Congress works, and he's been in combat, and I don't think he'll use soldiers needlessly or for any personal gain. He' familar with weapons systems, and he is prudent fiscally in that regard. THe pentagon will not railroad him into buying anything without justification including 6000 toilet seat covers. I hope he appoints Clark to Secy. of Defense. How will he do? We don't know, because he's never been the Commander in Chief, but neither was Bush before this, and frankly, I don't see how you can make poorer decisions than him. Some feel he's done swimmingly. I believe he's done poorly. That's opinion. I don't think it is any great feat for a nation with our military might to conquer Iraq. That was never in question. My God, if we can't beat Iraq, what chance would we have against China or Russia? My concern is that the leadership by the Commander in Chief also requires great restraint, building alliances, and acting when only absolutely necessary. I think Bush has failed on all three of these accounts.

I also am offended that Bush can find the time to attend a NASCAR rally for political points, but can't find the time to attend the funerals of our dead soldiers which a Commander in Chief should do.

[Lefty]

Kerry prudent on defense systems alright. If he'd gotten his way we wouldn't hardly have any. Kerry's got a voting record and ultimately that's what the voters will be made aware of and looking at.

[JustRalph]

First off I don't want the Commander in Chief attending funerals......it is a circus everytime the POTUS goes anywhere. These funerals would be a nightmare hoisted upon the families of soldiers and the President and his people know this..........think before you suggest this kind of crap, would you?

Generals always plan the war strategy, I suppose you would want Bush and Clinton planning our war stategy? Don't you know that the Pentagon is constantly planning attack stategy ? They make changes and adjustments every day based on the current climate and a thousand other things. These people are full time war planners. Right down to the localized commanders, they are constantly changing and adjusting. It is what they do for a living 24 hours a day. They are ever vigilant and ready. Each area of the world is constantly reviewed and adjustments made. To assume that the POTUS could walk in and give them a war plan is idiotic. They usually have multiple plans available to present to the President.

In response:
1. Bush was divisive internationally: I admire his willingness to not listen to the U.N. It took a layer of protection away from those who think we won't act.
2. I don't care if the WMD's were there and neither do people who understand that we needed to flex our muscle over there. It has brought great benefit. You can argue why all you want. These benefits will be around a long time.
3. the throwing flowers in the street you refer to is a damn lie by you. I watched a report two days ago where two men spontaneously approached an Army Captain and offered him gifts (this was just a few days back) and looked right at the camera and told the camera crew "you saved us from Saddam, we thank you" Just because you want to characterize it differently doesn't mean it is true. I have talked to two different guys who have come back from Iraq and they both relate the same info. The Iraq's were thankful for our presence.

I can answer this crap with just a few lines:
"(d) American soldiers were not budgeted to afford proper equipment - body armor (e) longer than anticipated enlistments and the overuse of the National Guard Reservists (f) more casualties and wounded than predicted (g) collateral damage in killing over 10,000 Iraqis"

Resource management, and extended enlistments (it happens sometimes in peace time too) are normal parts of running a war.
The Guard and reserve are being used more because that was part of the "force management downsizing" that was implemented in 1994. I won't remind you who did that.
Collateral Damage is part of war. Get used to it. You people who think that you can have a war without civilians getting killed are just plain fooling yourself. Get used to it.

Your next points:
"Now, if his intentions were to (a) capture Hussein (b) stop Hussein's torture and murder, he has succeeded in that regard. But terror has not stopped, and the Iraqi people are very divisive about their country at present, from the Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, and remnants of the Bathists. So, I think while he captured a despicable despot, I don't think the price tag has been worth it, nor the reasons for going to war justified by his pre-war assertions (whether it was intelligence failure or not)."

The terror that has happened so far, in no way reaches personal terror that filled the hearts of Iraq's all over the country when Saddam was bulldozing their relatives into mass graves. You guys love to latch on to these bombings and make more of them than they are. In doing so you assist the terrorists. You realize that there were 500 people lined up to apply to be policemen when that bomb went off. After the bombing was cleaned up almost all came back. I saw an interview with some of them and they said "that is why we are here, to go after these people who are against the new Iraq" these terrorists are losing and the recent capture of one of them spells that out. Soon the Iraq's themselves will be taking care of these insurgents. If you look at the long term goals and the immediate impact on the region, the price was well worth it. You have unreasonable ideas when it comes to "the price" You say you don't care if the intel was bad. What you should have said was "" I don't care what happens, we should never go to war" that is what you really mean.

You can rave about Kerry's war record all you want. It does not qualify him to be President. There a gazzillion other guys who were over there and I wouldn't want them to be President either. It is amazing.......suddenly a war hero is needed in the Whitehouse..........it didn't mean a damn thing when Clinton was running. You voted against Bob Dole........he was damn War hero and it didn't matter to you. You and your brethren are a living breathing public monument to being duplicitous in your arguments. The fact that you like Kerry seeing war close up is your way of saying that you like a guy who won't take us to war because he has been there. The system is setup so that leaders who are not emotionally involved will make the decision to go to war. Anybody who has been in a War zone and had bullets flying around their head deserves kudos for defending their country. But I can tell you that just because he has been there, doesn't mean he can make a better decision about future conflict. In fact I would be afraid that since he went off the reservation and became completely anti-military after coming back, he won't pull the trigger when needed. He votes against everything, and calls our soldiers criminals. Think about it. You saying he knows the weapon systems is a joke and his knowledge on how Congress works being a plus is pure drivel. There are a lot of people who fall into that category and I wouldn't vote for them either. How in the hell does he know the weapon systems? I don't get that at all. You say it all when you say he won't use soldiers needlessly. You mean "he won't use soldiers" just say it. And that Scares the Crap out of me
You complain about Bush's poor decisions.........just your opinion. conquering Iraq was not done as a great feat. It was done for a reason. To denigrate it just because you disagree is wrong headed. Our Military might has nothing to do with it. Using your rationale we would never fight with anyone, unless they are up to the fight. Guess what, nobody is. And you should be glad of that fact.
Your quote" My concern is that the leadership by the Commander in Chief also requires great restraint, building alliances, and acting when only absolutely necessary. I think Bush has failed on all three of these accounts. "

Bullshit: This country leads, doesn't have to give a damn about what others say. you want to seek the permission slip. Just like the President said....we won't. Why act "only when necessary" ? You ever heard of the concept of preemption? This gets back to your core philosophy. You would never act....you would never use troops and you would do the U.N. Dance until you gave the country away. I think Kerry would too.........

There is a long standing tradition that a President attend stock car races. Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it and Bill Clinton did it. The only difference was Clinton was campaigning when he did it in 92. They booed him so loudly that he was run off. The Nascar crowd is a convervative crowd. Although it is not all rednecks an good ole boys anymore. There is tons of money from corporate types flowing freely and the tickets are nearing a hundred bucks for some races. It is a crowd that has changed in the last ten years. It is also a great time........if you haven't been to a race...especially a night race.......you are depriving yourself of a great time................

[ljb]

Wow, you folks have had a busy night!
Lefty said
'Well, there you have it ladies and gentlemen. I opened this thread so Kerry supporters could post positives about their candidate.
Do you really think anyone believes that?

Originally posted by Tom
And serving in the jungle qualifies him how?
The issue speaks to character Tom, try to see the big picture here.

PA Said
If your mind is not closed enough to do this, and you focus SOLELY on what is needed to be COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the armed forces, Kerry has no legs to stand on after Bush's 4 years of HANDS ON experience.

Does this mean ? Even though a man has been a failure at the job assigned him, he has experience and should continue to hold the job?

Jr said way too much and he said it twice.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
First off I don't want the Commander in Chief attending funerals...........think before you suggest this kind of crap, would you?

SEC RESPONSE: >Obviously, every President previously did not think it was crap, including Reagan.

JR Response:
Generals always plan the war strategy,

SEC RESPONSE: >Who said anything different? I said the Commander in Chief’s primary decision was based on his decision to go to war, not the strategy. Geez Lousie. At least comment on what I stated.


JR response:
1. Bush was divisive internationally: I admire his willingness to not listen to the U.N. It took a layer of protection away from those who think we won't act.

SEC RESPONSE:

>Fine, but we disagree on that. I believe war is a last option, and one in which we have international support, and it is in “OUR” countries national security. This has not been the case with this war. As a result it is now being spun as a humantiarian war against a despot. The reason doesn’t fly when you ignore North Korea or Cuba or China or Russia or many African nations such as Somalia. (and I hear now we will not get involved in Haiti).

JR Response:
2. I don't care if the WMD's were there and neither do people who understand that we needed to flex our muscle over there. It has brought great benefit. ..These benefits will be around a long time.

SEC RESPONSE:
>So in other words you don’t care if the main asertion for going to war was true or not. That says it all. No need to repond to that one.

JR Response:
3. the throwing flowers in the street you refer to is a damn lie by you. I watched a report two days ago where two men spontaneously approached an Army Captain and offered him gifts (this was just a few days back) and looked right at the camera and told the camera crew "you saved us from Saddam, we thank you"

SEC Response:
>I’m not saying a few Iraqis did not welcome our soldiers. What I am saying are thousands of Iraqis protest whenever they can and WANT us out. That says something quite differently than what we were told was going to occur by Wolfowitz and the boys. And yes, Iraqis like Chalubi were very thankful for our presence. Nobody’s blaming our soldiers here. They did as they were ordered.

JR Response:
I can answer this crap with just a few lines:
"(d) American soldiers were not budgeted to afford proper equipment - body armor (e) longer than anticipated enlistments and the overuse of the National Guard Reservists (f) more casualties and wounded than predicted (g) collateral damage in killing over 10,000 Iraqis"

Resource management, and extended enlistments (it happens sometimes in peace time too) are normal parts of running a war.
The Guard and reserve are being used more because that was part of the "force management downsizing" that was implemented in 1994. I won't remind you who did that.
Collateral Damage is part of war. Get used to it. You people who think that you can have a war without civilians getting killed are just plain fooling yourself. Get used to it.

SEC Response:
>Like tell me something I don’t know. Let’s take the reference to “downsizing”. If you look at this post Cheyney had already begun that process in 1988 as a result of the end of the Cold War so let’s get off the this was all Clinton’s idea crap.
So you don’t deny there were longer than anticipated enlistments or overuse of the Guard. Thank you for agreeing with that.

As to collateral damage, we were told about the “surgical strikes” and “precision” bombing”, but the reality of it has proved otherwise. 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead. That’s more than a little collateral damage for the people we wre supposed to be liberating.


JR Response:
The terror that has happened so far, in no way reaches personal terror that filled the hearts of Iraq's all over the country when Saddam was bulldozing their relatives into mass graves. You guys love to latch on to these bombings and make more of them than they are. In doing so you assist the terrorists. You realize that there were 500 people lined up to apply to be policemen when that bomb went off. After the bombing was cleaned up almost all came back. I saw an interview with some of them and they said "that is why we are here, to go after these people who are against the new Iraq" these terrorists are losing and the recent capture of one of them spells that out. Soon the Iraq's themselves will be taking care of these insurgents. If you look at the long term goals and the immediate impact on the region, the price was well worth it. .. What you should have said was "" I don't care what happens, we should never go to war" that is what you really mean.

SEC Response:
>Never said “I don’t care what happens, we should never go to war That’s your inference, and a poor one I might add.” Actually, I was in favor of invading Afghansistan because it DID relate to our national security. I certainly supported WW II because it was in our national interests. As to Kosovo, our national security was not at issue, and I think these kind of humanitarian wars are best dealt with through the UN, not the US as world policemen. Thank God the Kosovo war had no US casualties, unlike Iraq. I empathize with the Iraqi policemen. They’ve a tough job, and employment is near 50% in Iraq. People need jobs. If unemployment was 50% here, I’d most likely be lining up for a job at a police station myself. We’ve already have been told, some of these polcemen are former Bathists by our defense department.

JR Response:
You voted against Bob Dole........he was damn War hero and it didn't matter to you.

SEC Response:
>Actually, you’re incorrect. I did vote for Bob Dole in 96 so there. You infer because someone is for Kerry that they voted for Clinton. Shows your partisanship. And I did vote for Gore because I thought Bush’s military and foreign policy inexperience might lead to exactly the situation we are in.

JR Response:
YIn fact I would be afraid that since he went off the reservation and became completely anti-military after coming back, he won't pull the trigger when needed.

SEC Reponse:
>Kerry’s purpose was not to become anti-miltary, just the opposite, to make sure soldiers are not killed NEEDLESSLY.

JR Response:
He votes against everything, and calls our soldiers criminals. Think about it.


SEC Response:
>Some were. My Lai comes to mind. He also defends our soldiers and veteran benefits constantly in his voting record.

JR Response:
You saying he knows the weapon systems is a joke and his knowledge on how Congress works being a plus is pure drivel.

SEC Response:
>Your opinion. I see him as a person who doesn’t blindly budget big ticket WW II style technologies. Hey, he voted for STAR WARS. Now, that’s one I would challenge him on if you referenced that.


JR Response:
How in the hell does he know the weapon systems?

SEC Response:
>He’s been in the Senate. He’s seen the disasterous Pentagon waste stories, the failure of the Bradley tank. The pentagon is not just going to submit a blank check in front of him like GW. Read some Chuck Finney They are going to have to justify the efficiency of their weapons.

You say it all when you say he won't use soldiers needlessly. You mean "he won't use soldiers" just say it.

SEC Response
>I’m afraid it is Bush is the one who uses soldiers needlessly. He reminds me of that character in the movie Shrek who talks about the knight’s sacrifices to go out and slay the dragon for him.


You complain about Bush's poor decisions.........just your opinion. conquering Iraq was not done as a great feat. It was done for a reason. To denigrate it just because you disagree is wrong headed.

SEC Response:
>Why is it wrong headed?


JR Response:
Our Military might has nothing to do with it. Using your rationale we would never fight with anyone, unless they are up to the fight.

SEC Respone:
>Again, not true. When our national security is at stake and all other options have been exhausted, then I am in favor of going to war.

JR Response:
Your quote" My concern is that the leadership by the Commander in Chief also requires great restraint, building alliances, and acting when only absolutely necessary. I think Bush has failed on all three of these accounts. "

Bullshit: This country leads, doesn't have to give a damn about what others say. you want to seek the permission slip. Just like the President said....we won't. Why act "only when necessary" ? You ever heard of the concept of preemption?


SEC Response:
>Yes, and I don’t agree with it UNLESS our national security is at stake, and all other means have been exhausted, AND we have damn good intel verifying it.

JR Response:
This gets back to your core philosophy. You would never act....you would never use troops and you would do the U.N.

SEC Response:
>Again, you misstate.

JR Response:
There is a long standing tradition that a President attend stock car races. . The only difference was Clinton was campaigning when he did it in 92. They booed him so loudly that he was run off.

SEC Response:
>Yes, and they should have booed Bush today. It was totally political, and I don’t remember it being the top story on the National News when Clinton or Reagan did it.


JR Response:
The Nascar crowd is a convervative crowd.

SEC Response
>Been to a few. Prefer horse racing.

[Secretariat]

JR,

Lastly, I post the latest on Mr. Bush's war from the Chicago Tribune.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=1&u=/chitribts/20040216/ts_chicagotrib/terroristmemoraisesquestionsonwarsimpact


Our basic disagreement JR comes down to the national security wars versus the humanitarian war. I think humanitarin wars issues should be handled by the UN, and national security ones we should act unilaterally if necessary, and all other solutions have been exhausted.. This was not the case with Iraq.

[Lefty]

lbj, whether you believe my motives or not, there still was ample opportunity to post Kerry's positives for being Pres. The election is about the furure but you guys just want to talk about the past.
The best thing anyone posted about Kerry's plans for the future was he wanted a hydrogen car.
Hell, I had my flying dream again last night and I want a rocket belt made available to every citizen. I want a million dollar house for evertyone and plenty of money and i'm gonna get all them rich guys to pay for it. Just write me in for Pres. and i'll DEMAND these good things for you.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I am getting confused here. So far the rightys have mentioned 2 names as possible replacements for Bush. Tom mentioned David Berkowitz and Jr mentioned Ollie North. Now you say you want to run as a write in. I am trying to form a coalition here. I have agreed to join either of the two mentioned groups. If you can convince Tom and JR to join your write in campaign, I will join also. If we expect to have any success here, we must agree on one candidate. Please confer with Tom and JR and let me know your consensus choice, I'll start printing brochures.

[Lefty]

lbj, i'm the perfect dem candidate. I can promise everything, say i'll make the rich pay, and deliver nothing, just like most dems. I can erase the deficit by dismissing all the military and cancel all the defense systems. Then i'll tell the rest of the world that we really like them a lot and would they please not hurt us.
Just write-in Lefty, your perfect Dem candidate.

Or you could just list how Kerry is gonna help us. That was the intent of this thread. I just didn't realize how little there was to write in that vein.

[ljb]

Wait a minute Lefty, I'm having second thoughts here. I will run as a write in candidate.
I will start my tenure by exporting as many jobs as possible. Those that cannot be exported will be filled by migrants. (no sense in paying a living wage when the migrants will work for pennies on the dollar)
I will then create tax incentatives so my rich friends can purchase their Humvees with government help.

For those that don't want Humvees I will offer tax breaks that allow them to purchase addtional yachts.

I will then kill environmental regulations for anyone who donates more then 1 million dollars to my campaign finance fund.

If I find a foreign leader I don't like I will send my soldiers to kill him while i go to my next millionaires fund raising event.
I will take money from social security and let my friends Ken Lay and some of my buddies from the mutal fund industry handle it.

I will support all this by taxing the common stiffs that just punch a clock everyday.
And if this taxation does not support these policies/pork, I will borrow the money and let the working stiff's kids pay for it.

Whacha think Lefty? a perfect right wing candidate?

[Lefty]

lbj, not even close. You see, just about everything you mentioned existed during the Clinton adm. Except tax incentives of course. Best Clinton lines; "I tried my hardest, never worked so hard in my life but I just can't give that middle class tax cut."
Then after the 94 Congress got in, forced a balanced budget and a surplus was created. Clinton said: "I guess we could give the money back to the people, if we could trust them to do the right thing with it."
And on his vacations Clinton hobnobbed with the rich and famous.
Bush vacations on his ranch.
Amazing how the left creates stereotypes isn't it?

But back to John Kerry, I am astounded that all of you who have become so adroit at mimicking the liberal dems at bashing Bush can't list any positives for Kerry other than he's a war hero, he ain't Bush and he wants a hydrogen car. I guess the man has no vision for the future so his campaign will be just be Bush Bashing and chest pounding.
Am i'm glad i'm voting for a man because I can list his positives not because I hate the other candidate. Too bad the Kerry supporters can't do the same.
Pres. Bush in a landslide.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Wrong.
Next time you may want to read my post before you reply.

[Lefty]

lbj, no, i'm not wrong. wrong about what? Clinton made those statements. Clinton hobnobbed and stayed with the rich and famous on vacation. Bush does not.
I'm breathing the same air now as I did 8 yrs ago. Clinton huffed and puffed about wmd's and how dangerous Saddam was but didn't have the guts to go against the U.N.
And we had migrant workers and jobs left the U.S. So where am I wrong?
Let's face it lbj, humor just not your milieu.

AND, where's those Kerry positives I asked for? Can't you come up with any beside ones I reiterated?
How will he keep us safe? How will he deal with terrorists?
What will he do to make this rising economy even better?

[ljb]

Lefty said
"lbj, not even close. You see, just about everything you mentioned existed during the Clinton adm.
Wrong.

[Lefty]

lbj, you've developed a stutter.
I need those Kerry positives and if you can't think of any I guess I can count on your support for Bush.

[Secretariat]

More scandal about Kerry revealed to be a lie:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_polier_1

That's all these guys know.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Our basic disagreement JR comes down to the national security wars versus the humanitarian war. I think humanitarin wars issues should be handled by the UN, and national security ones we should act unilaterally if necessary, and all other solutions have been exhausted.. This was not the case with Iraq.

I think for the foreseeable future we kick anybodies ass who pokes their head out of a hole and pisses us off. Humanitarian or whatever........if they go against our interests we whack them off at the knees. over and out...........

[Lefty]

I don't care about the lies about Kerry or Bush. Both lies concocted by Dems, anyway.
What's positive about the man? You agree with him in ceding our security to the U.N. I don't. Too many in U.N. had their own deals with Saddam and we want to put them in charge?
I say, HELL NO. Lemme hear those HELL NO's!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
More scandal about Kerry revealed to be a lie:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_polier_1

That's all these guys know.


Huh? Just because she denies it, thus it is a lie? Man, I'd love to live in your world of logic for a day. If that's all it takes to reveal the truth....LOL

Whew! Now I can sleep at night knowing Scott Peterson is innocent. Now we don't have to put on that expensive trial....afterall, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT....

If that's good enough for Secretariat, it should be good enough for all....

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat

Our basic disagreement JR comes down to the national security wars versus the humanitarian war. I think humanitarin wars issues should be handled by the UN, and national security ones we should act unilaterally if necessary, and all other solutions have been exhausted.. This was not the case with Iraq.

And what has the UN ever done to stop civil wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing ANYWHERE???
the UN is a grossly over-rated failure. Even after the dirty work was done in Iraq, they came back only to flee out of town after one bomb attack. Even the reporters had more courage than the UN. Face it, the world is full of people like Sadam, preying on the weak and defenseless, and what happened in Iraq is still happening in countless other veues. And the UN is doing nothing.
Without US troops, the UN is nothing. You think France And Germany and Russia are ever to step up to the plate and be real world powers? that's OK, just get out of our way when we do it. Russia-10 years in Afghanistan and got beat down. US in Afghansitan, how long? Already voting on a constitution, turnig the corner on freedom. Give me a break. Long road to trvel, but we got them in the right direction, and we haven't deserted them.

[cj]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Huh? Just because she denies it, thus it is a lie? Man, I'd love to live in your world of logic for a day. If that's all it takes to reveal the truth....LOL

Whew! Now I can sleep at night knowing Scott Peterson is innocent. Now we don't have to put on that expensive trial....afterall, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT....

If that's good enough for Secretariat, it should be good enough for all....

Don't forget The Juice! All this time I doubted him, but hey, he says he didn't do it, so I guess he didn't.

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Don't forget The Juice! All this time I doubted him, but hey, he says he didn't do it, so I guess he didn't.

BTW, any word on how the search for the REAL killers is going?

[ljb]

Lefty, You've been stuttering for the past year. Read your posts if you don't believe me. "Bush corageous Rush almighty" over and over and over and over ad infintium.

[ljb]

Excuse me PA but JR said:
I think for the foreseeable future we kick anybodies ass who pokes their head out of a hole and pisses us off. Humanitarian or whatever........if they go against our interests we whack them off at the knees. over and out...........
Now does this qualify as being:
1.Extreme
2. Half serious
3. Serious but acceptable
4. None of the above

Aside to JR, Have you turned in your evidence against Moveon.org yet ? They are still going strong.

[Boris]

Le Cut and Le paste

SEC Response:
>Like tell me something I don’t know. Let’s take the reference to “downsizing”. If you look at this post Cheyney had already begun that process in 1988 as a result of the end of the Cold War so let’s get off the this was all Clinton’s idea crap.
So you don’t deny there were longer than anticipated enlistments or overuse of the Guard. Thank you for agreeing with that.

As to collateral damage, we were told about the “surgical strikes” and “precision” bombing”, but the reality of it has proved otherwise. 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead. That’s more than a little collateral damage for the people we wre supposed to be liberating.


I posted previously that the tragedy of 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead from war is less than half the number that were dying under Saddam in a 300 day period. The low average was 70 per day. So why don't we focus on the 10,000 lives saved.

[Lefty]

Jr, Boris, these guys just have no positives about Kerry, so they must continue to Bush Bash.

[ljb]

What about me Lefty, what about me ? Did you read my platform? I think I'm a shoe in for Republican nomination don't you?
ps: Bashing Bush is so easy these days.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Huh? Just because she denies it, thus it is a lie? Man, I'd love to live in your world of logic for a day. If that's all it takes to reveal the truth....LOL

Whew! Now I can sleep at night knowing Scott Peterson is innocent. Now we don't have to put on that expensive trial....afterall, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT....

If that's good enough for Secretariat, it should be good enough for all....

Gee, I thought this was America where someone was innocent until proven guilty. Or does far right talk radio innuendo make a person guilty despite no verifiable proof otherwise. Seems verifiable proof is something lacking a lot these days. He said nothing occurred, she said nothing occurred. OK, where's the proof. Think we need an independent commision? This is pretty serious stuff. Gimme a break.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Gee, I thought this was America where someone was innocent until proven guilty.

nope...........that's only in a court of law. The court of public opinion is completely different...........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Jr, Boris, these guys just have no positives about Kerry, so they must continue to Bush Bash.


There's lots of stuff to reply to here, but the thread is Kerry so I'll stick to issues relating to that otherwise it gets out of control.

Lefty, there's been a lot of posts about Kerry's positives. Problem is, you simply don't see them as positives. You think Kerry is Bill Clinton. We talk environment, we talk war record, we talk veteran benefits, we talk technology....all you do is belittle everything. You obviously prefer a man who trashes our environment, has no war record himself, cuts veteran programs (0r at least tries to - ask Tom), and when it comes to new technology won't do anything serious to hurrt his oil and gas buddies. You prefer a large deficit beleiving Bush will cut it in half in five years, because he said he would, but the truth in that regard is he has been wrong EVERY YEAR in office about his fiscal predictions. EVERY YEAR. They have to continually reasses his figures, and it is always a bigger deficit each time, despite kicking people off the unemployment roles. While the thread is about Kerry, the election is also about an alternative. So it is imperative to compare the two men. In one way LBJ said it, "Kerry is not Bush". That sounds simplistic, but I seriously doubt that Kerry will lead the country down this fiscally diastrous course that Bush has done.

[Lefty]

You can talk about the environment and jobs and hydrogen cars but how is he going to implement them. Who pays, hmmm?

I tell you what, I want great 80 degree weather all yr round throughout the U.S. but how do I make it happen? Wishing won't make it so.
And what about securing the nation. I don't want the U.N. calling the shots.

He ain't Bush a copout when lbj writes it and that doesn't change when you write it.

Saddam not Bush either, so I guess you loke Saddam more than Bush.

Kerry will raise taxes and cede our security to the U.N.
I say, HELL NO!