Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

I think the "Why Bush?" thread deserves a counterpart. I'd like to share my views, I'm sure some others would as well, and hopefully we can avoid tangential arguments while we do it.

====

1. I reject the premise that Bush is better qualified to "keep America safe." John Kerry is a decorated veteran. He's been shot at. He's put his life on the line. He's tougher than George Bush will ever be, and I trust him to protect the security of the United States.

2. He will pursue a smarter tax cut strategy. One of the strongest economies ever seen in this country emerged after Clinton raised taxes on high levels of income and gave tax cuts to the families that make up the middle and working class. The last few years have shown two things: tax cuts for the wealthy only help out people who don't need help, and those wealthy people don't pass the benefits along.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

Surely a marginal rate of 37% (instead of 35%) on income earned over $311,000 a year isn't going to put any millionaires in the poor house, or remove the incentive to work harder and make more money.

3. Kerry will not just set standards for education and do nothing to make achievement happen; he'll make public education a priority, and make the system better for children.

4. He'll work to make health care available to more Americans. This is good for business, as it frees them from the burden of insuring their employees. It's repugnant that drug company interests have convinced our elected officials that it's ok for them to charge greatly higher prices to people in the US than they do to people in other countries. It's repugnant that they've blocked to government from using its purchasing power to get lower prices for medicines, effectively wasting taxpayer money.

5. Kerry won't cause more abortions to happen, or take people's guns away, or bring gay pride parades to every town in America. He won't allow America to be attacked, or destroy private enterprise.

Bush? Who needs him?

Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

I didn't quite understand this one. Is this a typo?

well
he won't

I mean, would you honestly think a president would get out and say, "Hi, i think every town in america needs a Gay pride parade???"

mainly, he'll just say, "Hi, i don't think we need to legislate morality on gays and lesbians, marriage will be safe either way, let's focus on something more important"

Because he is not Bush.

i'm voting kerry/edwards, because i feel that the current administration has pushed this country too far right with their religious mandates. the separation of church and state has been trampled upon and it is creating a new and disturbing brand of discrimination that simply should not be.

i also feel that the current administration has put entirely too much time and energy into endeavours that are ultimately fruitless all around the world. we have funnelled countless dollards into a war without justifications, while americans go by needing basic care, education, and shelter. this should be addressed before we give anything else to other countries.

we have a strong, capable country. it is asinine that we should have american citizens that are uneducated, underfed, homeless, or sick without care. true american success will come about when nobody wants for basic needs in life, and our current administration simply dosen't care about that.

Universal health care is a serious issue for me and I hope Kerry does more than Clinton.

To me the argument over whether we have socialized care or not ends with this: who pays for the people without insurance to get the care they need? Tax dollars or people go too late because they can't afford it and then whatever they have becomes terminal.

We are the greatest nation in the world and right now we are telling everyone that we would rather have people ruin their credit and work till they die rather than offer health care so that people may live longer healthier lives.

Another issue, and I hope to hear Kerry's plan on this because if you are not a boomer it influences your life real soon.

The Boomer generation starts retiring real soon. That takes a lot of income tax money out of the system, not to mention expendable income out of the system. What plans are put into place to keep our government solvent and running programs that are needed?

Because of the love.

I COMPLETELY agree with phred on these reasons. I would also add that it seems that Bush, his family and associates along Cheney, his family and associates are making a pretty good buck off of this war on terrorism.

Seriously, folks, Bush cares more about himself and want suits him than any of us.

They have the best hair.

No kidding...If they don't stop hugging like gentle gay lovers Im gonna start calling them the Rainbow Coalition. :)

From the "If Drudge said it, it must be true" corner...

"XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JULY 08, 2004 10:09:35 ET XXXXX

CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER

Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...

John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!

In the past 48 hours, "candidate handling" has become the top buzz on the trail.

News photographers have been going wild with photos of the two Johns.

"I've been covering Washington and politics for 30 years. I can say I've never seen this much touching between two men, publicly," e-mailed one wire photographer.

When asked if the Johns are acting out a cynical focus group series of poses -- perhaps to show warmth to the chilly Bush/Cheney -- a Kerry spokesperson explained: "I think we're just seeing genuine affection between them."

But the spokesperson added, "I hope we do not see them wearing matching outfits when they ride bikes this weekend."

Developing... "

/http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/09/20040709_011402_kerryk.htm

I think the above is the 40 year political pundit's way of saying "OMG KERRY AND EDWARDS ARE FAGGS". I wish Drudge would learn that he will never become a ligitimate source with articles like this.

Re: Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

Well, you either get it or you don't, and you don't. And typo? You're kidding, right?

scipio: i think he's confused because your statement isn't worded very clearly. try explaining the intention of that last line item, just so the others will have a clear understanding of the point you were trying to make.

No, I wasn't kidding.

Are you saying that Kerry is better because he will not bring gay pride parades?

I guess I just don't understand how this equates to Kerry being better than Bush. Is Bush doing this?

Sorry, #5 (of your original post) had a few confusing things to me, this one just stood out.

Bush is giving corporations tax breaks for them to outsource technology jobs, ones like I am attending college for as a computer science major earning a 3.6 gpa spending 30,000 dollars on my education. These aren't factory jobs.
He flat out went against the U.N. to invade Iraq saying "we" must make sacrifices when he got into the Texas Air National Guard sans the year and a half waiting list and can't even account for most of the his time in the service during the Viet Nam war. Now people my age are dying or being permanently disabled due to his arrogance.
Conservatism didn't put us on the moon. It only causes stagnation. Its time for a legitimate regime change...without cruise missiles and American loss of life.

I guess the best I can put it, concerning the Gay pride parade thing, is that the very, very conservatives feel that since Kerry won't "defend traditional marriage," gay marriage is going to become a common occurence. Because gay marriage will become common, more gays will come out of the closet and become vocal about it, and/or more people will become gay for tax reasons (ok I lied on the second part). Because of this, naturally gay pride parades will occur in frequency as well.

What this thinking fails to recognize is that a gay pride parade in every town, say, once a year, would equate to... I really dunno. Maybe 12 gay people. Hehe.

Now I'm voting for Kerry first because I tend to side with the democrats on social issues (but the republicans have my heart when it comes to guns and tax breaks for the poor and middle class (forget the rich, I need MY money)), second because Bush needs to be kept where he belongs... out of the white house (snicker!), and the third reason... well I suppose you *could* call it racist, but because he's an Irish Catholic. Really, Kennedy getting shot, then Kennedy getting shot, it's a protestant conspirac-*BANG*

Hold the presses... This Just in... The people living in caves on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border want to cast their vote for Kerry/Edwards too.

Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

I live among a great many Vietnam veterans, and they universally despise Kerry. Something to do with his antiwar lies causing the deaths of some of our POWs.

Would you like a list of the military programs intended to protect our troops, which Kerry voted against while "protecting our security?"



The first part is misleading, the last part is flat-out false. Clinton was hardly in office before he raised taxes, bu the economy didn't improve until after the Republican landslide of 1994. And where on earth did you get the idea that Clinton gave ANYONE a tax cut, much less the middle class?


There it is. The wealthy don't deserve their money, but people who don't work are entitled to it.

Have you checked out Kerry's balance sheet? Do you think of him as the "common man's friend?" And have you noticed that somehow or other, the economy is doing very well, and there are more jobs available? However, if you'd like to see what has been shown over the years, check out the economy under Jimmy Carter, and after Reagan's tax cuts.

Oh, and the CBO confirms that 7 of the 8 budgets Reagan proposed were balanced, but the Democratic-controlled House took care of that.

It isn't going to help the poor, either. It just gives them the sense that they're entitled to more of other people's money.

But if you'd like evidence of what happens to an economy that rapaciously taxes higher incomes, you need look no further than California's current fiscal mess.


Did Kerry's daughter go to public school? Did Kerry? What exactly is he going to do? School vouchers?


That's great. Who's going to pay for it? Is it your contention that taxes on "the rich" should be raised enough to fund universal health coverage?

How will he prevent attacks, and how will his raising taxes help private enterprise?


We do. Otherwise, Kerry will plunge us into recession, like Clinton did. Bush dug us out of it once, but raising taxes would certainly undo all of his good work.

Examples?


I go along with that in regard to foreign aid, but personally, I'm going to have a tough time paying everyone else's rent, food, transportation, college, and cable TV if I'm dead from a terrorist attack. Kerry hasn't shown me that he has even a vague notion of how to deal with terrorists.

With more and more noisy "victims" who keep trying to entitle themselves to the fruits of others' labors. How much longer can we subsidize sloth before our economy resembles Germany's, or France's?

I'm not sure why they should expect a different situation when some take drugs, drop out of school in the sixth grade, and haven't worked since, but I think I've got the concept:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

I'll go along with that if you can show me a country where it's worked.

'If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worst case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.'

Winston Churchill

And if you think the "slaves" part is an exaggeration, you need to reseach the percentage of Muslims in the world whose avowed goal is the destruction of non-Muslims.

To piss of people like sob.

Given that prolonged conflict is exactly what radical fundamentalist Muslims want, it can be easily argued that they would support Bush. Of course, this entire line of thinking is irrelevant, counterproductive and a little bit dumb.

Well, it's very successful. I've worked since I was 9 years old, and nobody gave me any handouts.

So how much money do you normally get per year from working Americans?

How do you figure that? They're decapitating people to try to end the conflict (in which they're getting their asses kicked, BTW).

The ones they love are the Spanish and the Philipinos.


Namecalling noted, but good luck convincing anyone that Al Qaeda supports Bush.

You are right....the "dumb" comment was out of line. My apologies to JBX.

As I and others have posted many times, the bin Ladens of the world are dependent on strife and conflict to fuel their "holy war." When the US invades a Middle Eastern country, it undoubtedly pushes some of the more moderate elements in that region towards the extremists. This is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences. Although you are right that the Iraqi insurgents do want the end of occupation by our troops, in a strange way they are dependent upon our troops to continue fueling their cause.

Regardless of all that, this thread is for people to post why they are supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Although challenging one anothers assumptions is one of the purposes of this forum, perhaps another thread might be a better place for the long, point by point anti-Kerry analysis that you are making.

cthulu23,

I agree with the thread-jacking comment for this thread.

But the Bush thread got jacked, much, much worse.

I can't read the damn thread without that stupid video coming on every time.

KMA-628,

hehehe...I hate that video, too. I run linux and my browser video plugin freaked out every time I hit that thread.

I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to do my part to raise the level of discourse here. Lord knows I'm still getting used to message board politeness myself.

Since 9 years old.. are you suggesting we weep for that?

I'd vote Kerry, if anything, to get Bush out of the office because he's a disgrace to the older brand of conservatism and the neo-cons that are running and ruining the Republican Party.

Maybe it's just because of being a bit old school when it comes to these things, but the fact that they:

a) Are more focused on infringing personal rights
b) Are willing to control what goes on in the bed room
c) Are pressing for religion with state issues
d) Expanding government
e) Spending like drunken sailors - whatever happened to fiscally conservative

Those are just a few reasons but its a stark contrast from what I have believe the party to once stand for...

And anyways, I think this thread is a good illustration of why no one should ever label someone a 'liberal' or 'conservative' for simply voting the other guy - they might just be thinking!

Sigh.. I'll bite.

1. A proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage between partners of the same sex.

2. Only funding abstinence sex education instead of responsibility, despite clear and obvious conventional wisdom that this does not work -- anywhere in the world, nor here. Did we not learn anything from the AIDS proliferation in the 80s? Yes we did, in fact. I learned a great deal about how to keep myself protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. I honestly fear for a generation denied this information to satisfy a relatively small contingency of Evangelical Christians.

3. Ashcroft. 'Nuff said.

4. Re-election Campaign using Southern Baptist church organizations to promote Bush. This is heavily documented. It is also technically illegal and would result in the loss of tax-exempt status of these organizations if it were enforced.

5. Bush's own assertion that God speaks through him, that his every decision is guided by Jesus. He cannot say 3 sentences without mentioning prayer, Jesus or faith in public. It's frankly disturbing to a non-Christian. I want someone who leads based on convictions of reason, logic, and compassion -- not instructions from an imaginary friend in the sky.

6. Reactionary ban on stem-cell research, a stance only taken by fundamentalist Christians. Sets back the science of medicine in several important fields by great bounds.

7. Heavy pressure to restrict a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. A ban on "partial birth abortion," an extremely rare and often critical procedure.

8. FCC, headed by Bush appointee son of Colin Powell, imposing a three million dollar fine for using bad words or talking about sex on the air.

9. Ashcroft. He counts twice. The man covered the statues of Justice that have been there for over 70 years because they had exposed breasts.

There is a reason that the fundamentalist Christians are avid supporters of Bush. It has nothing to do with terrorism and tax cuts. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve and makes it unabashedly clear. If you are denying this you are either living in a hole or baiting. I am assuming the latter and am happy to oblige.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I fear this is dangerously close to violation. It's time for change. I am perfectly happy to have leaders who are devout Christians. But when they cross the line of simple belief to pushing a radical policy to enforce their narrow definition of morals on the rest of us, it is time to kick them out. It's the most American thing you can do.

Why will I vote Kerry?

Hes not Bush. Bush has yet to do *one thing* that I agree with. Every time annonces another initiative I just shake my head.

look, this is very simple, if you cant bring yourself to be able to sift through the whole movie, go to F9/11 and look at what is supposed to be our leader in the classroom for those 7 minutes.

if you can vote for that person, if you really think that that human being has what it takes to stand up for himself, then you have problems dealing with reality.

1. I like the public healthcare proposal

2. Like most would say, he's not Bush. I feel that Bush is actually putting the US in more danger with his choices as our leader. He's doing nothing except angering the rest of the world.

...and fight terrorism by declaring war? By actually battling these people who are willing to kill themselves to take you and 50 other people out? Sorry, not the way to conquer that beast. I'm not sure of a better way (improve foreign policy and show some respect to other nations?), but declaring "war" on them and bombing their training facilities just temporarily puts things on hold while they recruit even MORE people who are sick of our bullshit.

Just take a few minutes to ask people overseas what they think about the US. It's not good. I just don't feel comfortable with that and with him as my leader.

3. Abortion issue doesn't concern me. They'll never be illegal (rightfully so), so whether he's against them or not is irrelevant, really.

4. Bush is closed minded. Look at his stance on gay marriages. You're basically denying someone of something because of their sexual orientation, and that goes against what this country stands for. This is equivalent of any public official within the last 50 or so years being a segregationist.

Whether or not he'll be a better president and will actually follow through with what he has to say has yet to be seen, but it's a gamble I'm willing to take.

[edit]

I don't know if it's just me, but I want a leader who's NOT religious. I hate when leaders ramble on about god (like Bush when he talks his anti-gay marriage stuff).. look, do your job as a president, not a preacher. I didn't elect you so you can spout off about what's right/wrong in the eyes of God. Just follow the f'n law.

My god don't bring up a mocumentary and expect me to make a political decision based on it! MM is a moron imo.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet. I'm more conservative that liberal by far, but it's not clear cut for me.

If I DO vote for him it is for two reasons.

1) I don't want to be at war ON THIS LEVEL forever! I was and still am for going to war against Al queda and Iraq. Bush may have been misled on some key issues that he used to help justify the war, but there were plenty of reason outside WMD that I see. I am glad Bush was not afraid to take the war to them instead of waiting for something to happen again and having to REACT again.

However, a war on terror will never ever end. I am all for governments working together to weed out terrorism. I would love to see something similar to the system seen in Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six formed. A cooporative task force to fight terrorism. But I have no desire to see America drained of lives and resources ON THIS LEVEL to take on Iran, China, Cuba and all the other Countries that have terrorist ties.

2) Abortion. I am VERY against abortion as a method of birth control and I think pretty damn low of mothers that choose to abort because they are lazy and wouldn't use birth control.

However, my mother and girlfriend work in hospitals and are both very much against laws against abortions. The problem with regulating abortions is that it can't be done well.

Children that are raped (by fathers for example) are often afraid to come forward and without the option of abortion would either be forced to carry their attackers child or they will often seek out alternative methods of aborting such as coat hangers and other dangerous and often fatal methods. Outlawing abortion all together causes more deaths. Deaths of mothers.

However, I don't trust the Johns on national security or the economy for starters. Gonna be a tough choice.

Ill vote for Kerry because he is not Bush. Simple as that, I hate Bush, I hate his senseless wars, I hate his stupidity, and I hate his lies.

Oh, and his face annoys me too.

hmm...simple, yet true 100percent. I like this guy.

Because I believe in John Kerry's strength and integrity, and I don't believe in George Bush's.

i'm going to vote kerry because he is not bush.
and his will not be the bush administration.
and getting the neocons away from actual power seems an important--no...fundamental task for the public to accompish this election cycle.

there are other reasons as well, but i have to say as kerry's centrism is becoming more and more evident, he is not making this any easier for me.

if i lived in a different state, i would vote nader.

Kerry is nothing but a vessel for Bush hatred. He has no plan, no positive agenda, no nothing.

As far as Clinton's tax hikes boosting the economy, utter hogwash.

Why were the 90's a happenin' time? Had nothing to do with Clinton. He happened to be lucky enough to be President when the internet went mainstream.

How does taking money from the rich and throwing it at the poor help anything? The poor spend it on lottery tickets, tattoos, cigarettes and booze. While this increases demand in the short term, it does nothing to create sustained economic growth.

On the other hand, extra money in the hands of the rich tends to be invested in new business opportunities, leading to new jobs, technological advancement, etc.

The poor also like to have lots of babies so they can increase their welfare checks and buy a cadillac to drive around while scoring hits of heroin. The more kid the better the caddy. I believe the going rate is 6 kids to get the leather interior, 7 for the OnStar nav system and 8 little welfare babies to trick it out with dual climate control, metallic shade altereing paint and the 18 inch rims.
And selling their foodstamps to buy HDTV's.
Don't forget that. Poor people suck and should be made into Soylent Green. Damned loafers.

Bush's extremely negative ads that use the same editing techniques that Michael Moore himself employs does not make it so. Have you listened to what Kerry has to say? I've listened to both Bush and Kerry. Bush: America is safer! Kerry is bad! Kerry: Long list of things he wants to do that are positive.

Yes, the contingency that supports Kerry are angry. There are a lot of reasons for this, but do not directly reflect Kerry's campaign strategy. The Republican noise machine is having a field day with the anger that is brewing in America over Bush's failed policies, manipulation of public opinion, and exploitation of the horrendous attack on our soil 3 years ago. Let's just see what November brings, shall we?

Let's see. Reagan cuts taxes (for the wealthy), deficit booms, economy falters. Clinton raises taxes back to where they were (for the wealthy) with a modest increase (4.3 cents to the gallon) on gas, economy booms, budget balances, surplus for the looming social security disaster begins to accumulate. Conclusive? Not at all. I tend to agree that these things don't have much of an effect on the overall economy. But with Bush selling the line that tax cuts (to the wealthy) will make our economy prosper, it is only prudent to examine history and see how that claim stands up. It doesn't stand up very well, at least superficially.



Do you actually believe this? I mean, really?

Extra money in the hands of the rich tends to be "invested" in offshore tax shelters to make them more rich. It is either naive or dishonest to suggest that any surplus income -- to someone who already has a vast amount of surplus income -- will automatically be spent on improving society and the lives of those who actually work to sustain it.

Corporations lobby to remove any necessity to provide anything back to the workforce that sustains them, including worker safety, basic benefits that everyone should enjoy if they are contributing to society (health, dental, pension), and much needed regulation to protect the populace from pollution and dangerous goods.

Corporations are not interested in spending their profits on anything that benefits the workforce or society. Corporations exist to make as much money as they can, and keep it. It does not take a genius or a "liberal" to understand this, just one who is willing to see past the shallow Conservative pro-business rhetoric that is supplied directly to the talking-points pundits by the corporate lobbyists.

Add to this that a lot of the "new jobs" being added are either overseas or in the service industry, the argument just falls flat. I am a skilled work and gainfully employed, but I recognize that the society I want to live in isn't just me and my peers. It is everyone. That is what society is. Continually degrading the quality of life of those who are less fortunate and then trying to reign in the crime that results with a growing police force is not a recipe for a sustainable society.

This is an interesting point I'd like to touch on.

Conservatives alternate between talking about how great business is, and talking about how great the free market is, and how well it works even if people aren't all that noble about it. The idea is that a great and equitable system arises out of the selfish profit motive.

Perhaps some or even many conservatives hold only one of the two ideas, but both are present in the movement, and they are contradictory.

I suppose the difference with Kerry is that he doesn't take corporations at their word when they say they're being altruistic or benevolent. The Democratic party's attitude towards business is a bit more skeptical than that of the Republicans.

I think that's realistic, and I think it's a good thing.

Yeah I could have said it nicely. I could have said that it's disgusting to say poor people, in general are vice afflicted money wasters. But sarcasm can be so effective, and called for, especially in the face of such ignorance.
That was just a pathetic statement, and Hwed, you need to go say hello to America. Most americans are classified as the lower class (poor) Rich and Middle Class are the minority. Leave your gated community and go meet someone.

Some quick research on google should supply you with an AQ letter that states precisely that.

Of course they dont support Bush because hes such a nice dude, but because hes making life ease for AQ and i dont mean how the Bush-family supported OBL before and shortly after 09-11.

But the way he (GWB) acts in the middle east provides justification for OLBs/AQs et all. actions among his/their peers, namely a large quantity of the muslim world.

i had to walk away from this thread last night after reading hwed's post.

i still am not sure that i can say much about it without rolling into an attack.

so i'll operate here as a general echo of superbelts post, above, and leave it at that for now.

i would like to pose the question of motivation for such an obvious troll however:

was that post written as a chance to demonstrate your political purity--questions of coherence obviously aside--by creating a situation in which shutting down a thread functions as vindication for your position?

or do you imagine that this activity works to somehow or other eliminate the possibility of kerry defeating bush in the next election? how?

the explanation for this is obviously psychological, not political......

Parodies are fun.
 

Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

While I agree that Bush's healthcare plans are way off, there are reasons that we pay more for prescription drugs than other countries.

While there is no doubt in my mind that drug companies make more than they should, that is what encourages them to develop new drugs and treatments. We are the largest customer so we foot the bill. The way they see it, if they sell to Canada for a smaller profit, it is such a small percent of their total sales that it doesn't affect them much at all. If we bust down on the drug prices and such, it may be we who pay the consequences.

/not pro-bush. i'd be pro saddam before i was pro bush!

Re: Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

Usually the largest (volume) customer gets the better price.

That aside, the reason other countries get cheaper meds is because they have price controls. The point some of us should be considering is that the companies still do (profitable) business with these places even with the caps in place.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...1752-4421r.htm

That's Florida. In Californian news...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true
But that's only when they're fucking the government's (read: Taxpayers) dollars. Privately insured Californian's get some of this.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...1&section=news
In terms of the Kerry/Bush dilemna, it seems that the Free market needs a couple more strings attached. Bush isn't likely to introduce/sign any legislation restricting "free trade."

Even though a nuclear power plant in his state was repeatedly sited as being the most insecure reactor in the country, and knowing this he didn't do anything about it? Just 'cause someone is a verteran doesn't mean they know how to protect a nation (no dissrispect intended to veterans). In fact I don't think Keri has the slightest clue what he's doing (See a few lines up).

Quote:

2. He will pursue a smarter tax cut strategy. One of the strongest economies ever seen in this country emerged after Clinton raised taxes on high levels of income and gave tax cuts to the families that make up the middle and working class. The last few years have shown two things: tax cuts for the wealthy only help out people who don't need help, and those wealthy people don't pass the benefits along.

Yeah, we also saw one of the strongest economies in history with Regan's trickle down stuff. In fact the last time I checked the economy begain to colapse in 2000, you'll have to check for me but I don't think Bush had been sworn in yet, and what about the economy now? Low intrest rates; the market is coming back; hell its even starting to creat jobs. Who do you give credit for that? Clinton?

Quote:

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html Surely a marginal rate of 37% (instead of 35%) on income earned over $311,000 a year isn't going to put any millionaires in the poor house, or remove the incentive to work harder and make more money. 3. Kerry will not just set standards for education and do nothing to make achievement happen; he'll make public education a priority, and make the system better for children.

Yeah right, that sounds real nice in campaign speaches, but every president claims it as a priority, but just like it always has it'll go strait to the backburner when and if he gets in.

Quote:

4. He'll work to make health care available to more Americans. This is good for business, as it frees them from the burden of insuring their employees. It's repugnant that drug company interests have convinced our elected officials that it's ok for them to charge greatly higher prices to people in the US than they do to people in other countries. It's repugnant that they've blocked to government from using its purchasing power to get lower prices for medicines, effectively wasting taxpayer money.

Sounds like socialism to me. Didn't we have this big cold war with some country called the USSR for 5 some odd decades because they were socialists? Basicly we just have different ideas on the role of Federal government on this one. I don't think the federal governemnet should hold ppls hands or give out charity. That kind of thing is the job of well charity.

Quote:

5. Kerry won't cause more abortions to happen, or take people's guns away, or bring gay pride parades to every town in America. He won't allow America to be attacked, or destroy private enterprise.

You are right he probably won't do any of those things. However, I think his states power plant speaks for itself as to weather or not he will allow us to be attacked. Fact is we will get attacked there are to many terrorists to stop them all. Its the fire cruse missles into empty huts in the middle of the dessert kind of response alla Clinton that worries me.

Quote:

Bush? Who needs him?

Me

Hmmmm.... Who's responsible for security in a state, the junior Senator from the state, or the Governor? Tough one....

The senator for sure. Just kidding, sorry about that one wasn't thinking I guess.

Yes, but terrorist attacks got seriously underway way back in 1979.

I can provide a list of the ones (including the first WTC attack) that occurred during Clinton's terms.

So I submit that you're mistaken if you posit that Bush's actions have made any difference.

The radical Muslims swore to kill all of us infidels long before he was in office.

If I understand you correctly, anti-Kerry comments don't belong here?

Not at all. I'd be perfectly happy if you just wouldn't vote for those who want to raise the taxes on what I've worked for.


Although I don't agree with the above, I would concede that a) and e) can be logically argued. I would enjoy a discussion on the other three, but some people seem to think doing so is "hijacking the thread."

I like your style, if not all of your substance. You present logical arguments.


Sigh.. I'll bite.



I don't think anyone cares if homosexual couples have the same rights of inheritance, joint property ownership, etc. as everyone else. It's just offensive to Christians that the meaning of marriage is being hijacked.


And every other group sure seems to get what they want by being "offended."




All well and good, but good works are not the province of our government, at least as envisioned by the founding fathers. If you disagree, then you have no basis for disagreeing with the war in Iraq. It's just another case of taking one group's money to do good for someone else.

I'll leave the Ashcroft arguments alone. That discussion would be too long.



So the AME churches didn't do anything for Clinton and the Dems?



It beats getting instructions from drug-addict actors and Eleanor Roosevelt.





I differ with your contention that only fundamentalist Christians think a human fetus is human.




Another long discussion. I have no problem with a woman choosing what she does with her own body. It's what she does with the fetus's body that I object to. You honestly have no problem with a woman arranging to have an 8-month-old fetus's brains sucked out of its skull?




I agree with you here. It's not hard to change the channel.



Hang him! I can see why you hate him so much, if he's going to commit such a grave offense. Maybe he should have just gotten a blow job in the oval office.



I'm doing neither. As long as he doesn't dictate religion to the rest of us, I have no problem with it. By the way, he's not nearly as forceful about his religion as the framers of the Constitution.

It's very simple all right, but it's been clearly documented that the movie is highly misrepresentative and misleading.

If Bush is so bad, why was it necessary for Michael Moore to lie?

Where were you when Clinton was bombing pharmaceutical plants to avoid being impeached?

Talk to a few Vietnam POWs who saw their fellow prisoners get beaten to death because of John Kerry's lies.

Then tell me about his integrity.

"Superficially" is the operative word here. The 80's under Reagan were boom times. Clinton liked to take the credit for the 90's economy, and I marveled at his consistency. He took credit for a recovery that started before he was president (although it really took off after the '94 Republican landslide), and blamed Bush for the recession that began before Bush was president.

News flash: I heard John Edwards tonight. He's going to end poverty all by himself!

I am unaware of a terrorist attack in America since Bush took action. Can you say the same for any three-year portion of Clinton's term?

You're going to have to provide me with evidence of AQ's support for Bush. I can't find it.

Re: Re: Why vote for Kerry/Edwards?
 

Yes. The reason is trial lawyers.

BTW, what is it that Edwards did in private life? That made him a millionaire?

Well-researched and well-spoken. I despise the way drug and insurance companies buy off ALL politicians.

Um...wow. An even 10 posts in a row. If the TB were still locked based on participation I'd say this was post-whoring -- instead I'm just confused. Some of the opinions expressed herein are the finest in right-wing one-liners. You are an embarassment to your fellow conservatives on this board, those who actually try to rationally discuss issues instead of spouting zingers culled from hours of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other Republican attack dogs. Get your attitude right or get out.

OK, sob, first off, post whoring will get you no love or respect around here. Put it all together.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Provide something to back that up. Personally I think you are in NO position to question someone's integrity on the field of battle. I dont seem to hear that you were over there...

You, sir, summed it up pretty well. Being conservative is fine. Its your choice. Being intolerant and unwilling to discuss your beliefs isnt.

sob, why do you hate children with cerebral palsey?

Cause cases where doctors and nurses botched deliveries that resulted in children developing that and other brain damage ailments are what Edwards specialized in.

And little girls who get their bowels sucked out by unsecured swimming pool drains. Why do you hate them?

Sure they've made a difference....they've increased the global animosity towards America. Bush has been great at alienating our allies and crystlazing his enemies. Must be part of the "Bush doctrine."


There is no hard and fast rule about what content is or isn't appropriate per thread, but I think that we can all practice a little restraint to avoid threadjacking. Posting is fine...posting ten comments in a row filled with unsubstantiated Repub talking points is probably not.

I am a long-time Kerry supporter and I have never really cared for President Bush, so the issue is easy for me. Why do I support Kerry? I believe he is a strong, ethical leader who studies issues and makes informed decisions. He has strong convictions about environmental and energy policies, realizing that protecting our environment and working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is good for America, our economy as well as the pursuit of happiness. He understands that the lack of affordable health care in this country is a long-term drain on our economy and is something that we, as the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to provide. He also will allow the federal government to negotiate with Drug Companies to get lower prices on prescription drugs and will allow for government funding for embryotic stem-cell research. Kerry understands that we live in a global economy and that our relationships with the international community, is vitally important to our personal and economic security. The Senator believes that the current tax structure is not going to create long- term prosperity for the lower and middle classes. Finally, I believe he will be a strong Commander-in-Chief. Regardless of the propaganda about his cutting defense programs, his record on supporting a strong military and smart foreign policy is long and well documented (just ask John McCain: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.” and see this site: http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/ ).

I will once again encourage those who are unsure about Senator Kerry to do your due diligence and study his record. I think you will find it to be much different than the “Flip-Flopping Ultra-Liberal” the Bush Campaign has painted him to be.

I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards because they represent an America that needs to lead the world through peace and virtue. Bush represents the elite class, he doesn't give a shit about the inner-city or people of color. Bush also has a problem with gays, how anti-community. We need to work with each other and accept our differences. That will help build strong families and communities. Exclusion of people is not the answer. Much love and peace out...

Glad to hear you're going to vote, sad to hear that you are going to base your decision on a bunch of false assumptions and hastily-drawn conclusions. Bush is not an evil or hateful man, regardless of the spin on everything he does. I'm not voting for him (or Kerry) for many reasons, none of whcih have to do with how he makes a polling sample feel.

Where does it say you have to be evil or hateful to not give a shit about the inner city, or blacks, or gays? The fellow has a point, in that outside of his narrow band of neoconservatives and fundamentalist christians, Bush's "care-o-meter" is right about the size of that violin in Reservoir Dogs.

I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards because America needs a change. We need to focus on building the country again not waste time trying to place constitution amendments telling people how they should live their lives just because the people in power morally disagree with it.

They actually realize that the environment needs protecting and that we can't run on oil until the end of time.

They realize that trickle down economics doesn't work because putting more money in the hands of the rich doesn’t benefit anyone else but themselves. Who actually believes that CEO's will invest all profits to benefit employees? I've never worked at that company.

They realize that education is important and if everybody had the chance to get one then America will be better off.

They realize that health care needs to be available for everybody not just the fortunate.

They realize that America can't "Go it alone." We live in an interdependent world where we all need each other. Cowboy policies aren't the answer.

That is the funniest thing I have heard all week! Thanks for the laugh.

This is not helping our side. Let's try to cut down on our use of the 'E' word....it makes us look stupid.

What are u talking about?

Flippant use of the term evil. Sorry, but I'm feeling a little sensitive after all the cries of "Democratic hate speech!!!!!"

Thanks cthulu23

I haven't read this thread in a few days and I just read the last 6 posts, that comment really stood out.

I appreciate it, KMA-628. Others will use any self-policing as an excuse to pounce.