1
   

Voice Your Support For Kerry Here

 
 
GutFurMich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:06 am
I would vote for anyone but Bush (if I was American), and if so I'd try to vote twice.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:26 am
Oh it would feel so good to ensure that my vote for Kerry was marked correctly...if only I had a vote.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:57 am
Chuckster wrote:
I got an Idea Gang! Let's rename this thread "Misery Loves Company & Sour Grapes"!


the republicans started that thread in 1992 when william jefferson clinton was elected president. and they haven't stopped bitching since then. the reps have owned the congress for 10 years and the white house for 4 years. and america is screwed. thanks alot. you can keep braying about 9/11 till the cows come home. but, osama bin forgotten did not do a fraction of the damage that the insane far right has done to my country. and, i will not forgive it and i sure as hell won't forget it.

i will give it to the right that they have gotten quite good at the word game...

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

and... NUCLEAR is NUCULAR
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 04:51 am
Not nucular! Have you no pity, Don'tTreadOnMe? (Actually, ex-Pres Carter says it like that, too). And no child left behind means get publicity for the slogan, but don't fund educational programs.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 05:03 am
edgarblythe wrote:
(Actually, ex-Pres Carter says it like that, too).


wellll... yeah...okay....

but jimmy's actually been really close to one of them before. guess he can say it anyway he wants to. but that was before that whole peace prize thing, huh?

(republican reply; " oh, now the lib-urr-ahlls are getting plain dirty"...

can't help but lol all over the place these days, edgar.

how are you, anyway??
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 05:56 am
I am wonderfully well and content. Ain't Republicans getting me down.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 06:40 am
Jer wrote:
Oh it would feel so good to ensure that my vote for Kerry was marked correctly...if only I had a vote.


Lately, others have expressed this same sentiment, making the point that since this election will affect not only the US but the world, they should get a vote. You realize, of course, that we also have congressional elections and you'd want to vote in those as well, right?

Of course, after all that voting, you'd then expect to be governed by Washington, and, of course, you'd also want to pay US taxes because why get the benefits without having to kick-in a little for the backup of those benefits?

Our votes aren't free, but then, you knew that, right?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:00 pm
JustWonders wrote:

Of course, after all that voting, you'd then expect to be governed by Washington, and, of course, you'd also want to pay US taxes because why get the benefits without having to kick-in a little for the backup of those benefits?


i'm not being petulant here, jw. but that is why i'm so puzzled by the big tax cuts "in the time of war" that guys like hannity keep blathering about. it's completely illogical to back a very, very expensive war while complaining about paying for it. "???" especially when we are borrowing money to pay for those cuts. and to top it off, the same corporations that are getting the most benefit from these cuts are raising prices like crazy. what ever the intent was, it sure isn't working.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:04 pm
Kerry hands Bush the big-buzz issues

John Kerry is running the dumbest presidential campaign in modern history. Don't misunderstand. Dumb is not the same as wrong. Kerry may be right on some of the issues. But that's not the point. Elections are about votes, and Kerry's campaign seems calculated to actually repel them. Have a look:

Taxes. The first rule of politics is: Low taxes, good; high taxes, bad. President Bush understands this. He is running as a tax cutter, plain and simple. Elect him and you pay less.

Kerry, on the other hand, wants to raise taxes. Just on the rich, he says, but nobody believes that - and why should they? For years he and other Democrats have denounced Bush's cuts as unfair. Middle class voters look at Kerry and see a guy who's going to raise their taxes.

Religion. Another rule of politics is: Carry your own denomination. Bush will - he's the darling of Evangelical Protestants. Evangelical churches across the country are his de facto clubhouses, pastors his precinct captains.

Once upon a time, Catholic Democratic candidates Al Smith and John Kennedy could count on similar sectarian solidarity. But Kerry's stance on abortion has turned the Catholic hierarchy against him. He is so unpopular with the leadership that Edward Cardinal Egan very publicly failed to invite him to attend the annual Al Smith dinner next month. Getting the snub is the political equivalent of excommunication.

Family Values. Bush has made himself the champion of traditional marriage. Kerry is running as a Massachusetts metrosexual. "Ozzie and Harriet" beats "Will and Grace" in every swing state in the country.

National Icons. Sometime in the next two weeks, the Senate will take up a constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the American flag. Bush favors this amendment, Kerry opposes it.

The Democrats also have managed to get themselves on the "no" side of a House bill that seeks to keep the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. These bills are political theater, not legislation, but that isn't the point. Parties surrender control of the nation's patriotic symbols at their peril - especially south of the Mason-Dixon line and west of the Mississippi.

Iraq. Bush says it was right to take down Saddam Hussein. Kerry says it wasn't worth it. Bush says that Iraq is part of the war on terror, Kerry says it isn't. Bush says that America is winning, Kerry says America is losing. Bush says elections will be held in Iraq, Kerry says they won't.

These propositions are all debatable, but it is a debate Kerry can't win - at least not by Election Day. Nobody will know on Nov. 2 if Iraq can stage an election next year. Nobody will be able to say for sure whether America is safer with Saddam out of power. There will be no final answer to the question: Is the U.S. engaged in Vietnam II or World War III?

What voters will know is that President Bush is optimistic on the war, Kerry pessimistic. Pessimism is not considered a winning trait in American politics, certainly not in wartime. By going negative on the war, Kerry's position can be vindicated only if some major disaster occurs.

Five weeks out, Kerry has dealt Bush every trump card - God, family, low taxes, optimism and victory.

It is impossible to imagine Bill Clinton - or any competent politician - doing such a thing. It is only slightly more possible to imagine Kerry winning with the hand he has dealt himself.

link
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:07 pm
Oh yes it is when you remember that the intent was too make the rich richer.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:08 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Oh yes it is when you remember that the intent was too make the rich richer.


While at the same time making the poor richer as well.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:09 pm
Yeah, right. We've heard that one before, and guess what? The gap between the rich and poor is larger than ever....

Nice try tho.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:14 pm
But the gap between the poor today and the poor 20 years ago is tremendous.

When you keep the focus on the negative, a popular thing to do when you are on the left, the world always looks sour.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 01:26 pm
Um, no. I don't think the poor in America are much better off today than they were in 1984. If you truly believe this, McG, you might want to spend a little more time researching the problem of financial inequality in America.

And it's a typical Republican tactic to write off those that disagree with your unrealistic worldview as 'pessimists'; Once again you are using fallacious argumentative tactics, which you really should avoid.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:12 pm
if you don't acknowledge a problem, you can avoid doing anything about it.

works for ostriches all the time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:20 pm
McG writes a rambling message then claims
Quote:
Five weeks out, Kerry has dealt Bush every trump card - God, family, low taxes, optimism and victory.


There is one small problem with your claim. You ASSUME that Bush is on the right side of those issues.
Fact - No president has ever run on lower taxes during time of war and won. In fact, most times during wars presidents have called on the patriotic to be willing to sacrifice with higher taxes.

Religion -
You seem to get some facts wrong here. Bush isn't going to win the votes of every black Evangelical. I doubt he wins more than 10% of them. True Kerry won't carry all Catholics but neither will Bush carry all Baptists or any other faith. You want to pick and choose what you decide is a religious voting block. Kerry will carry the "progressive Christians" to the same % as Bush carries the Evangelicals. So who really has religion on their side?

Family Values.. Its all relative here. What is a "family value?" What you want them to be or what I want them to be? "Hate is NOT a family value" seems pretty clear to me. Even Cheney is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage just like Kerry is.

National Icons.. The BIGGEST Icon and the one that REALLY matters is the constitution. When the GOP wants to screw around with it for political reasons that is a pretty clear reason to NOT vote for them.. they put their own political agenda above this country.

Iraq and optimism. FACT. no problem has ever been solved by ignoring it and pretending everything is OK. Bush and Iraq is a classic failure in management. In all my years of managing I have seen a lot of reasons for projects that go bad: Be overly optimistic, Fail to plan, when the plan fails be optimistic you can make it up later. refuse to accept responsibility for the failures and find solutions now rather than later, don't change your plan to accomodate changes in the situation, don't listen to the people doing the work. It is easy to tell the difference between blind optimism and optimism based on confidence in your planning. Bush is being a blind optimist and quite frankly anyone that lies to themselves about how things are going doesn't deserve to keep their job. Bush has managed to find almost every mistake that can doom a project when it comes to Iraq. The only way to salvage it is to fire him and hire someone else. Kerry has optimism about being able to fix it with Bush gone. Bush's blind "optimism" is stupidity and nothing else. Story today, Iraq had 2,300 attacks in the last month that occurred all over the country. Spin that fact away with your "optimism".

You only THINK Bush has all the cards because you WANT to believe that, not because of any objective analysis. Time will tell and I pray you are wrong.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:30 pm
I'm sorry, I thought Cyclops was just kidding when he said "I don't think the poor in America are much better off today than they were in 1984."

Let's look at the poverty levels for example, shall we?

Code: Families of 3 people or more
_________________________________________________
Calendar 7 people
year 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people or more
1984..... 8,277 10,609 12,566 14,207 **
2003..... 14,680 18,810 22,245 25,122 ***


Why would the poverty level increase? Could it be that people were doing better? Now, these are terrible numbers when you consider the fact that america is the wealthiest country in the world, but still, not everyone can be rich despite how badly the socialists want to re-distribute the wealth of those that have earned it.

Now, let's look at the middle class:

According to this official looking table the median income has gone from $553 to $624 per week. Seems like an improvement to me. I am sure that you realize I am right of course and will let me know in your reply.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:34 pm
The poverty level increases because the cost of living increases.

As for the middle class, it's shrinking.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=249
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:39 pm
Amazing. What were those numbers in 1984?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2004 02:40 pm
You mean was the middle class shrinking in 1984?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 11:35:22