Kerry & Edwards Economic Plan

[StoveBolt]

From their web site..

Kerry & Edwards Economic Plan

The measure of a strong economy is a growing middle-class where every American has a chance to work and an opportunity to succeed.
In America, a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats. But today, Americans are working harder, earning less, and paying more for health care, college, and taxes. Corporate profits are soaring, the government keeps expanding, but the opportunities for our middle-class are shrinking.

It's time to bring those opportunities back. John Kerry and John Edwards know that we're stronger when we create good-paying jobs here, not ship them overseas. They want to reward hardworking middle-class families with tax breaks, not larger bills. They want to expand the reach of opportunity, not the size of government. And they want to lead an America where we work together to invest in the jobs of tomorrow.

John Kerry and John Edwards have seen the faces and heard the voices of struggling middle-class families. But they've come away convinced more than ever that we're a country of optimists - a country that can do better and think bigger about the challenges we face. We can grow our economy by strengthening our middle-class. And we can make America richer by giving everyone a chance to build a better life for their families.

John Kerry and John Edwards' plan to build a stronger economy will:

Create Good-Paying Jobs
As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas. John Kerry and John Edwards will also stand up for workers by enforcing our trade agreements.

Cut Middle-Class Taxes To Raise Middle-Class Incomes
When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.

Make Washington Live Within A Budget
John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office. He will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.

Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow
Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them.
______________________________ __________________________

i like this one

"When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan."

and this one..


"and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it."

and then ad this..

programs and more money for.. teachers, students, schools, head start, no child left behind, the environment, aids, company's that don't out source, fire and police, home land security, retrain the unemployed, health plan for everyone, provide better equipment for the military, add 40,000 more soldiers around the world and "Cut Taxes For All Who Make Under $200.000 A Year" ..and now more money for the Grand Canyon,

HOW COULD YOU NOT VOTE FOR THESE GUYS?

[oldman21220]

Under his new plan will Ms Ketsup have to pay taxes on her $2,800,000 bond interest? Why doesn't his wife pay her "fair" share? In fact why don't the two of them donate all but $100,000 to the poor and show by their actions how much they really care. Don't hold your breath.

[Bones42]

Do people really believe this stuff? I'm going to cut taxes on businesses, cut taxes on 98% of Americans, yet somehow, I'm going to spend more money on everything else.

Mr. Kerry, where the he!! are you going to get the money to pay for these things while cutting taxes? In simple English please.

[oldman21220]

Yes, there are tens of millions of people that think that you can get something for nothing and they will vote for him in droves. Look at the figures. A real small % of the people pay the bills and will continue to do so.

[hwoods]

Originally posted by StoveBolt
From their web site..

Kerry & Edwards lackofaworkable Economic Plan

HOW COULD YOU NOT VOTE FOR THESE GUYS?


Easy, I'll just pull the lever for the other guys. :D

[DaSharkie]

What kills me about John Kerry (I don't know enough about John Edward's record) is that he has been in the Senate for just 19 1/2 years and yet all of a sudden jobs leaving for China and other nations are all of a sudden a problem for America. They have been leaving in droves for the past 30 years, and now he wants to stop it? Where was his opposition and attempts to stop this in the past 19 1/2 years?

He is against the current level of deficits, as am I, and yet everyone blames President Bush, but remember folks it is Congress that controls the pursestrings. The President may be partially to blame but John Kerry is also partly to blame, as is Mr. Edwards. Face the music here boys and accept your part in the current fiscal dilemma.

Exactly how does a President create "good paying jobs?" I would like to know this. An economy drives a business's need for more employees due an increased demand for its products. All of the corporate tax cuts in the world aren't going to do any short term good and little long term good if people do not want a product or are not buying a product. Unless Mr. Kerry plans on expanding government thereby creating a need for more government employees
:rolleyes: John Kerry will have little credit in the actual creation of jobs.

As for tax cuts, a president can say he will cut taxes all that he wants, but it takes an act of Congress to do it (literally). That being said, regardless of anyone's party I laugh when they say this, and I laugh at the ease with which people accept this. The former President Bush signed tax hikes into law (and took a beating for it) but Congress actually passed the laws requiring tax hikes, President George H. W. Bush signed them into law - again making both culpable in raising taxes.

As for No Child Left Behind - well again, Congress writes the budget. The President submitted his budget (fully funding a program or not) but Congress voted on the budget not fully funding it adn the President signed it. Both are culpable but this is not noted, only the President is blamed for not funding it. Where were Kerry and Edwards when the Congress was voting to not fund the law?

As for Mrs. Heinz-Kerry giving up all of their money but a small amount - no liberal....er, ah...excuse me they like to be called "prgressive" now... will ever do so. Think of all of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are amasses in personal wealth out there. If some of this was given to train, educate, build, or whatever much of the problem would be solved. Instead, the government should do it, not the indivuduals with the financial wherewithall to do so. Think if John Kerry gave all of his millions to the Massachusetts public schools to help build new building, buy computers, books, and equipment, how much better off the students would be, alas it will not be done. Think if Rupert Murdock (sp?) did the same, or Ted Turner, or Ted Kennedy, or Bill Gates (who, incidentally, gives a large - VERY LARGE - portion of his annual salary adn stock options to his own philanthropic foundation), or many of the other multi millionaires out there that whine about the poor state of government supplying for the people.

I have come to believe that liberals will never solve the issues that are so "near and dear" ot them, if they did, then they would have no other issues to run on for election.

[CaptainGonzo]

Republican and Democratic Administrations have done the same thing over the last 30 years....

Promise the world, deliver a few pebbles and say "job well done..."
:rolleyes:

[oldman21220]

Longer than that, Cap. Keep in mind that NO president from EITHER party has ever created a private sector job, period. If you fall for that line you are a fool.

[jasper45]

Maybe that is the "economic" plan they propose, tax from the rich i.e. any person not on welfare, and create a whole slew of brand new public sector jobs. Remember this, the Soviet Union had 0% unemployment, and 100% public sector work.

[hwoods]

Originally posted by jasper45
Remember this, the Soviet Union had 0% unemployment, and 100% public sector work.

Would that mean no more Firefighter layoffs??:D

[xploded]

How can anyone believe anything Kerry says? He will flip and say just the opposite tomorrow. My one little vote will be for W.

[oldman21220]

"...and we thank you for your support."

[DaSharkie]

And don't forget, as of yeterday John Kerry would have voted to support the war. And just what in he!! did you vote for in the Fall of 2002?

This guy amazes me. For an educated person, he just doesn't exactly say the brightest things.

[FireLt1951]

I find it quite ironic that Hanoi John has come forward with all these economic idea's. My only questions are.

1. What the he!! has he been doing for the last 20 years in Congress besides sitting on his duff and never bringing any major legislation to the floor, economic or otherwise?

2. Where do you believe he'll get all the funds for everything he's promised everyone?

4. If it is our misfortune to have him as President, will you invest in a company that produces botox (not sure of the correct spelling)?

3. Is it just me or does Hanoi John look a little like Herman Munster without the neck bolts?

[oldman21220]

Lt,

1. Voted to raise taxes 350 times.

2. See number 1

3. Definately, it will probably be the only industry that survives.

4. Yes, but I imagine Herman would be offended.

[Bones42]

2. Where do you believe he'll get all the funds for everything he's promised everyone? If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off. :mad:

[DaSharkie]

If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off.

And there I was thinking that only Republicans wanted to pass on expenditures and deficits to future generations. Yup, not a shred fo difference between them.

[protomkv]

Like all politicians, they spend the time running up to the election telling us what good things they will do when they are elected, then spend the next four years telling us why it was not their fault that they couldnt do what they promised.

[Firescrapper96]

I hope that everyone votes based on the big picture, on the things that really determine our quality of life. Not because the Democrats promise to support the IAFF, which lies and says that we all support Kerry. I have seen too many people, vote based on one issue like abortion for example, that is crazy.
I work in a state that is dominated by Democrats and always has been. Our salaries are slipping along with our benefits and staffing. The Democrats just lie about where they are going to spend our money just to buy votes needed from certain areas, then they raise taxes!
I am also in the Reserves, Clinton always used up munition for his diversions from Monica and never replaced them. Therefore when we went to the Gulf this time we really didn't have the supplies that we should have. We got the job done, but we should have been better equipt. And look at the way things are now, beating on Bush for not bringing home the guy's in the sand. If the military hadn't been cut so bad under Clinton, he would have more troops to rotate around.

If the Liberal media was not everywhere over there, we could also make a lot more progress getting rid of the problems we are now facing.

[Weruj1]

Ron,
I couldnt have said it better myself !!!!!!!!! and I think that goes for them all no matter what level they are (local, county, regional, federal) ............

[MEck51]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If's he's anything NJ's gov, he'll have all types of good jokes about him. I can't post most of them here.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by MEck51
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If's he's anything NJ's gov, he'll have all types of good jokes about him. I can't post most of them here.

McGreevey has done a wonderful service for our state. When was the last time you had heard a new New Jersey joke?

BTW, in case those of you in the other 49 states don't realize how bad it is here in NJ, I have a 4BR home on 1.5 acres, no city water and a septic tank. My new tax bill says I will pay about $10,000 (that's right-thousand) per year in property taxes. McGreevey didn't do this. It started with a Dem corrupt idiot named Florio and continued with a Dem in Repub clothing named Whitman and was excacerbated by McGreevey.

Somebody give me an example of a Dem administration actually lowering taxes.

[DaSharkie]

Somebody give me an example of a Dem administration actually lowering taxes.

John F. Kennedy did in the early 1960s.


In the early 1960s, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK I) observed that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”

In the years following President Kennedy's proposed tax cuts, the U.S. economy grew at a healthy rate of more than five percent annually.


http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/ilyman_20040818.html


I have a no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with the tax structure of this nation. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government's tax percentage should be the lowest of all levels of government. The highest amount of taxes should go locally, County, State, and then Federal. It is my job in Durham, NC to pay taxes to get the proper equipment to the schools in Durham, NC, get the Durham FD enough manpower and equipment. Not through FIRE Act grants from the twits in Washington. It should be inverted from what it is now. The Federal government should not be involved in my personal life as much as it is, this is not what was intended by the founding fathers of this nation. No government should be intrusive into the lives of its citizens.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

In the early 1960s, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK I) observed that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”

In the years following President Kennedy's proposed tax cuts, the U.S. economy grew at a healthy rate of more than five percent annually.

Good call! I knew someone would post this example.

Now class, in the 80's what did the liberal call the type of tax plan put forth by Pres. Kennedy?

I have a no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with the tax structure of this nation. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government's tax percentage should be the lowest of all levels of government. The highest amount of taxes should go locally, County, State, and then Federal. It is my job in Durham, NC to pay taxes to get the proper equipment to the schools in Durham, NC, get the Durham FD enough manpower and equipment. Not through FIRE Act grants from the twits in Washington. It should be inverted from what it is now. The Federal government should not be involved in my personal life as much as it is, this is not what was intended by the founding fathers of this nation. No government should be intrusive into the lives of its citizens.

Local problem = local funding

Amen, Shark.

[ThNozzleman]

Local problem = local funding
Failure or refusal to provide funding by local governments is a national problem...hence, federal funding.

[DaSharkie]

Failure of a local government to adequately supply its agencies with a proper level of equipment is a local problem. It is your department's fault that you do not put out the word to the public to put pressure on the governing boards to disperse funds appropriately.

It is ludicrous that I, in North Carolina, pay for your bunker gear, gym equipment, or fire truck in Tennessee. This is the most inefficient way to get money to pay for something that I have ever seen a crackpot politician come up with. It is not the federal government's responsibility to provide local fire suppression, law enforcement, education, DPW repairs, or anything else. It is stated nowhere in the Constitution as such. The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Failure or refusal to provide funding by local governments is a national problem...hence, federal funding.

You could not possibly be more wrong.

If the local government is not providing adequate funding for essential services, CHANGE THE GOVERNING BODY! In most towns, the FD is potentially the largest political force there. Each member could potentially effect multiple votes. As I have said before, if the FD is getting a raw deal, run a candidate, than run another candidate until the governing body gets it...that the FD is important and must be funded properly in order to do the job.

Federal funding for local projects is socialism. And the overwhelming majority of people n this country, Dem or Rep. don't want that.

[ThNozzleman]

Federal funding for local projects is socialism.
Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.
The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.
This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.

This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.

Thank God that I do not live in the country that exists inside your head.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Now class, in the 80's what did the liberal call the type of tax plan put forth by Pres. Kennedy?

The libs in the 60's annointed President Kennedy as the President who was going to save this country. One of the things they supported was Kennedy's plan to reduce the tax burden and, subsequently improve the economy. Sadly, Pres. Kennedy's life was cut short and his fiscal vision was replaced by five years of a boderline socialist/welfare state model by LBJ.

In the 80's a man was elected President and did largely what Pres. Kennedy wanted to do. He reduced the tax burden on virtually all Americans and caued the single most prolific economy in this country's history. Yet, the Dems maligned him to his death. They called Ronald Reagan's courageous economic policy "Reagonomics" and "trickle-down economics". Yet, when the plan came out of the mouth of a Dem President, it was the greatest plan ever.

It may have been the dawn of the double-standard we know so well today.

[DaSharkie]

It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.

I am from thr U.S. Government and I am here to help you......:rolleyes:

Now, oversight is one thing, paying for it with federal dollars is another. Regardless of how the problem exists at the local level, it is a local or county problem, NOT the responsibility of the federal government. Think about it this way.....

You pay your local, county, state, and federal taxes....Let's concentrate on the federal taxes since this is the issue at hand.

Your money goes to the feds, into some giant pool o fmoney that gets dispersed by congress. That money goes to a particualr department or branch of the federal government. From there it sits in their general fund. About 99% of the time it is dispersed back to the state and sits in their general pool of money. From there it may or may not get dispersed into the programs or to the communities for the appropriate expenditure. This is inneficient, wastes money, and makes NO SENSE.

What is in the best interest of the people of this nation is to have the most direct control of how money is dispersed and expended possible. That does not allow for money to go to D.C. to then go to your state, and then to your county, and then to your town. How about you just give your money to the town board and let them spend it as you citizens see fit. If they do not spend it appropriately, you vote them out of office or organize for your best interests. Do you really think the people in Washington D.C. care about what is truly in your best interests? They do not. Just about every single one of them cares about 1 thing - staying in office and getting wealthier. This is why they have PACs and lobbyists.

The federal government is supposed to be operating the government in the best interests for the general welfare of the citizens. Dispersing fund to a local municipality is not in the interest of general welfare, only that municipality's.

The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.

This is not true.

Then expalin to me how the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government (and many local and state) work. It is checks and balances. All three are required to operate and maintain a balance. That is specifically what the constitution of the United States of America outlines - quite well I might add. It says nothing about providing for one's retirement supplement (Social Security), fire department (FIRE Act), education (Dept. of Education grants), arts and music (National Endowment for the Arts), ora almost all of the many other programs out there.

Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past.

This is different than other programs. This is part of the whole rebuilding concept after the wars that we have fought. It continued through WWI, WWII, Korea, during Vietnam, and again in Iraq.

In addition, the South was our nation, and it was - and has been - in the best interest of our nation to rebuild that part of our nation that had suffered. Especially since the North caused much of the damage by bombarding many cities, Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas, the Siege of Richmond, and the raiding of the countryside for supplies and taking them from citizens. It was an obligation to repay those war crimes committed in that war. It was also in the best interest of the nation as a whole, whereas many programs run by the federal government now are not. They are in the best interest of politics, and localities, not the general citizenry of the United States of America as a whole.

Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster.

Same situation as above. When a major disaster, like Hurrican Clyde, strikes, the local, county, and even state governments cannot support the response and rebuilding. It is in the interest of the general citizenry of the United States to aid in their rebuilding. It is not in the best interest of the citizenry to put local police officers on your town's streets.

While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs

We agree there.

do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.

But the question posed over and over, is whether or not the United States government is the best form or level of government to be implementing and supporting these programs. Couldn't the money be better supported and managed at a state, or local level? Couldn't it be more efficiently expended and dispersed at the state, county, or local level? Wouldn't the money saved by reducing or eliminating the beaurocracy be put to better use?

A fire truck bought with county or state money benefits that county or state's population much more than a truck for your department in Tennessee benefits my population in central NC.

State or county money to put a police officer on your streets benefits them better than it does me.

State or county money is better spent on local homeless, or job training programs than a program in Washington D.C. does.

I agree that many programs are needed, but the good that they perform is dwarfed by the collossal mismangaement and beaurocracy that is needed to run this local program at the local, county, state, and federal levels. It would be much better to have the money go through as few beaurocracies as possible.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

During these heady times of economic "recovery", the Census Bureau just released new figures that 1.3 MILLION MORE AMERICANS fell below the poverty level in the last year. This goes along with the 1.4 MILLION MORE citizens that dont have health insurance. Unemployment was up last month (again)and you people are worried about what Kerry and Edwards MIGHT do. How about the guys in charge now? Let the excuses begin...

[DaSharkie]

During these heady times of economic "recovery", the Census Bureau just released new figures that 1.3 MILLION MORE AMERICANS fell below the poverty level in the last year. This goes along with the 1.4 MILLION MORE citizens that dont have health insurance. Unemployment was up last month (again)and you people are worried about what Kerry and Edwards MIGHT do. How about the guys in charge now? Let the excuses begin...

Both statistics are related. More people unemployed means fewer people making money, means fewer people above poverty level, means fewer people have insurance. No excuses, simple common sense (which is not all that common these days - not a slight to anyone just an observation about society).

In addition the statistic were for the calendar year 2003 when a huge number of jobs were lost. This is not an argument just a point of view from which the statistics must be examined.

Presidents do very little to correct an aconomy or economic downturn. Republican or Democrat. Most benefit or duffer from the policies of the previous administration. In addition an economy id cyclical and about every 10 years or so it hiccups for a variety of reasons. It did in the 60s, 70s, late 80s/early 90s, and now.

As for any president or candidate saying that they will creat jobs (especially 10 million) I have to wonder - how? Is he going to expand the exectuive branch of the government? If you are going to spoiut off about how you are going to correct the economy then you must come out and state your plan, not just say that you have one.

[oldman21220]

No President, Democrat or Republican, has ever created a private sector job, PERIOD. If you fall for that line you deserve what you get, no matter who you get it from.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.

And you've come to this conclusion how? If the local government (i.e. the people that have been elected to represent you on a local level and depend on you to keep their jobs next election cycle) is unresponsive to the needs of your department, and they're RIGHT THERE in your town/city/boro/whatever, accessible and eminently available to protest against in a myriad of real grass-roots ways, what makes you think that some bureaucrat a thousand miles away in DC who knows little and cares less about your town in Tennessee will be MORE responsive? Does being a federal worker drone somehow convey a greater sense of compassion for towns in Tennessee? Is the air different in DC? Does human nature change when you cross that mystical border from Virginia and Maryland into the magic kingdom of Washington?

This is just silly. And socialist. In fact, socialism as a whole would be silly if people hadn't kept trying it over and over, and in the process taking 100 million lives over the last century. Hey guys, what do you figure, another 200 million dead before we finally get Marx's vision right? When will the lefties get it?

[CaptainGonzo]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.

Do you want the feds to dictate your staffing levels? Your work week? Your reseponse protocols?

how....Orwellian...

[oldman21220]

Right Nozz, long after it was illegal for municipal departments to do so, federal firefighters were still working 72 hr. weeks. I'm here to help you. right.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

That would be the same federal government that exempts itself out of every regulation they pass. OSHA comes to mind.

Orwellian is a GREAT word.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by oldman21220
Right Nozz, long after it was illegal for municipal departments to do so, federal firefighters were still working 72 hr. weeks. I'm here to help you. right.

And the point here is...what? I thought we were talking about taking my tax money from Bucks County, PA and shipping it to Tennessee so Noz can get new suspenders for his turnout pants.

[oldman21220]

The point is that these are the people that Nozz thinks should have oversight. The ones that think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by oldman21220
The point is that these are the people that Nozz thinks should have oversight. The ones that think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Gotcha. Good point. The further away the decision making gets from your local area, the less accountability. It's funny, because on most issues Noz would tell you that the government, and especially President Bush, is a den of liars and thieves.

So why would he want to put his funding lifeline in the hands of these people? It doesn't make sense, but then most liberal positions don't when you actually take them out and walk them around the block.

By the way - Noz isn't likely to answer any of my posts. I earned a cherished and well-deserved spot on his "ignore" list by pointing out to him that Saddam killed a lot of people, which was inconvenient to his position that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy, especially compared to that imperialist dictator and focus of all evil in the world, George W. Bush.

[CaptainGonzo]

Originally posted by CaptainGonzo
Originally posted by ThNozzleman



Do you want the feds to dictate your staffing levels? Your work week? Your response protocols?

how....Orwellian...

*edited for spelling...fat finger syndrome!

[TillerMan25]

I earned a cherished and well-deserved spot on his "ignore" list by pointing out to him that Saddam killed a lot of people, which was inconvenient to his position that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy, especially compared to that imperialist dictator and focus of all evil in the world, George W. Bush.

I am right there with you buddy. I got on there for pointing out that Saddam wasn't a Neighbor of the Kremlin, like "Mr. Tin Foil Hat" from Tennessee wanted us to believe.....:rolleyes:

I think ThNozzleman and Al Gore are two of the Most Rabid Liberals in Tenn. :D

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

We all must have hit that list. Ever since I called him on his stupid "war for oil" comment for the umpteenth time, he hasn't been here. Oh well.

[Dalmatian90]

Especially since the North caused much of the damage by bombarding many cities, Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas, the Siege of Richmond, and the raiding of the countryside for supplies and taking them from citizens. It was an obligation to repay those war crimes committed in that war.

Ok...so I can't resist...

There is no "obligation" to repair the damage of war.

But it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

Beyond idealism, it's all the practical thing to do -- priming the economy helps everyone.

Wars a fought by people...but they're between governments & politicians. You may fight a war, but when it's over the decent thing to do is extend a hand and pull the people of the former enemy backup off the ground.

Certainly "war crimes" was a novel if not non-existent theory back at the time of the Civil War, if memory serves me right it didn't come into play really until the turn of the 19th century (although their had been some parts of that theory around before -- such as regarding spying and priracy).

That is it has become a moral, ethical, and practical thing speaks volumes for the strengths of Western Civilization. We ain't perfect, but we're the direction the world is heading despite those who can't stand giving individuals rights & freedom to make choices.

[ThNozzleman]

We all must have hit that list. Ever since I called him on his stupid "war for oil" comment for the umpteenth time, he hasn't been here. Oh well.
Oh, great; here we go again. George, no matter how many times you ignore the truth, it doesn't change anything. Anyone with any sense at all will realize the ONLY interest of the West in that area of the world. I know it, you know it, and we all know it. All the silly little posts you can generate are not going to change that...not now, or ever. If there were no oil in that region of the world, we would not give two damns about it. Anytime I bring up what is most obvious to anyone with half a brain, you go off on the tired old terrorist connection/Saddam was a very bad person tangent. Got news for you pal; it isn't cutting it, anymore. I'm sure the rest of the posts made here recently by members of my infamous ignore list are just as baseless and flaming. I ask you again, George, where is the history of our invading nations, simply because their leaders are "bad people" or because of some flimsy "evidence" of "terrorist connections"? I'm sure you'll just spout the same old tired rant you always do, but that's just fine with me. I'm pretty sure we were discussing the need for federal oversight in this nation, something that I believe is very much needed. If all you have to offer is to attack me for something that was being discussed in a totally different thread, then I feel sorry for you.
DaSharkie...
I was not actually refering to the Civil War in my comments; rather, the breaking up of the KKK by the FBI and Johnson, during the 1960's. Here is a clear-cut example of why Federal oversight is needed. The same is true today, in my opinion. Our Nation cannot allow localized pockets of extremists to suppress people, simply because THEY hold the power in that part of the Nation. Intervention is needed, it doesn't matter if it was Wallace then, or Roy Moore, now.

[ThNozzleman]

And, before the "Orwellian" and "socialism" retorts get out of hand, we've heard the same old hysterical cries like this for years and years. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, big business and filthy rich tycoons screamed socialism and bloody murder every time the Federal government did such things as to make laws making workplaces safer, standardize practices, and abolish child labor. Every standardization...every safety requirement...every law that helped the working class; they were ALL misconstrued as "socialism" by greedy tycoons and their yes-men cohorts in Washington. I think some of you need to actually look back at the history of our nation, and how bad it really was for a great number of people, for an awful long time. DaSharkie did bring up an interesting point; had the Federal government not taken action during the pre-Civil War years, I have no doubt in my mind that the South would be a very different (and very bad) place today.

[ThNozzleman]

Another successful program (regardless of how mismanaged it has become in later years) was the TVA program. This Federal program helped many people and places in the Southeast and other areas by providing jobs, power, and flood control.

[DaSharkie]

Ok...so I can't resist...

There is no "obligation" to repair the damage of war.

But it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

If you re-read the post that is exactly what I said in my post. Nevermind the fact that the war occurred on our own nation's soil.

And, before the "Orwellian" and "socialism" retorts get out of hand, we've heard the same old hysterical cries like this for years and years.

Problem is that government run healthcare for every citizen is a socialist idea. I have never said it is a bad idea, just a socialist idea. I do not support it for a variety of reasons, just as I do not support a variety of programs that the FEDERAL government has. Many of these programs are socialist in their ideals and implementation, especially when done at the FEDERAL government level.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Oh, great; here we go again. George, no matter how many times you ignore the truth, it doesn't change anything. Anyone with any sense at all will realize the ONLY interest of the West in that area of the world. I know it, you know it, and we all know it. All the silly little posts you can generate are not going to change that...not now, or ever. If there were no oil in that region of the world, we would not give two damns about it. Anytime I bring up what is most obvious to anyone with half a brain, you go off on the tired old terrorist connection/Saddam was a very bad person tangent. Got news for you pal; it isn't cutting it, anymore. I'm sure the rest of the posts made here recently by members of my infamous ignore list are just as baseless and flaming. I ask you again, George, where is the history of our invading nations, simply because their leaders are "bad people" or because of some flimsy "evidence" of "terrorist connections"? I'm sure you'll just spout the same old tired rant you always do, but that's just fine with me. I'm pretty sure we were discussing the need for federal oversight in this nation, something that I believe is very much needed. If all you have to offer is to attack me for something that was being discussed in a totally different thread, then I feel sorry for you.
DaSharkie...
I was not actually refering to the Civil War in my comments; rather, the breaking up of the KKK by the FBI and Johnson, during the 1960's. Here is a clear-cut example of why Federal oversight is needed. The same is true today, in my opinion. Our Nation cannot allow localized pockets of extremists to suppress people, simply because THEY hold the power in that part of the Nation. Intervention is needed, it doesn't matter if it was Wallace then, or Roy Moore, now.

Once again, when someone calls you on something, you cry personal attack.

I am not ignoring the truth. I want to learn the truth. All I want you to do is enlighten, with evidence, that this war is about oil. That's all. Show me evidence and I will shout from the rooftops that you are correct and that the George W. Bush administrator are a bunch of tyrants.

But there was no personal attack.

[TillerMan25]

I'm sure the rest of the posts made here recently by members of my infamous ignore list are just as baseless and flaming.


WOO HOO! He is talking about me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Hey George, I thought you retired?

[oldman21220]

A Kerry flip-flop on the ignore list. I ignored you before I didn't ignore you.:rolleyes:

[jasper45]

Nozzleman, our history of invasion is actually quite long. Vietnam, Korea, Europe and North Africa in WW2, and Europe in WW1. Vietnam never attacked us, nor did Korea yet we found ourselves in wars there. Though some peopel will try to not call those wars. Japan attacked us in WW2, yet we went to war with Germany first. WW1, once again we were not attacked there either. As far as flimsy evidence about terrorism, it is quite clear that Saddam openly supported terror. He admitted to it. He openly offered payouts to suicide bombers. I guess in my opinion that isn't flimsy. That is without even bringing up Abu Nidal, who was harbored in Iraq for years, or al-Zaraqawi (however you spell his name). Fact of the matter is Saddam WAS a state sponsor of terror, he is out of that particular business now.

[ThNozzleman]

Nozzleman, our history of invasion is actually quite long. Vietnam, Korea, Europe and North Africa in WW2, and Europe in WW1. Vietnam never attacked us, nor did Korea yet we found ourselves in wars there.
I think Vietnam was a stupid war, just like this one. Korea had its own set of circumstances, of which I'm not really prepared to discuss, right now. The reasons for war in Europe and Japan were very clear cut, even if questionable practices in the past by the US and others helped lead up to war. There was no evidence of any threat by Iraq to the sovereing United States; those people couldn't fart without us knowing it.
As far as flimsy evidence about terrorism, it is quite clear that Saddam openly supported terror. He admitted to it. He openly offered payouts to suicide bombers. I guess in my opinion that isn't flimsy.
Again, there is FAR more evidence of terrorist connection in many, many other countries. Offering payments to the families of suicide bombers is NOT an excuse for war.
Once again, when someone calls you on something, you cry personal attack.
So, don't attack me with blather concerning an unrelated thread.
I am not ignoring the truth. I want to learn the truth. All I want you to do is enlighten, with evidence, that this war is about oil. That's all. Show me evidence and I will shout from the rooftops that you are correct and that the George W. Bush administrator are a bunch of tyrants.
George, come on; look at history...tell me honestly that there is any other reason for establishing control in that region. Far more people die in other places in the world, and we do not offer THEM liberation from their misery. It's oil, and control of that oil, that is at the heart of ANY goings-on in that region, regardless of whether it's military or not. ANYONE who denies that is not being honest enough to continue a debate with.

[Dalmatian90]

Japan attacked us in WW2, yet we went to war with Germany first.

The U.S. Congress passed the war declarations against Japan on
December 8, 1941 and against Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.

[DaSharkie]

I think Vietnam was a stupid war, just like this one. Korea had its own set of circumstances

Vietnam began just as Korea did, one nation invading another. THe invading nation in both cases was communist and it was the position of the U.S. to deny the proliferation of communism. That being said, Vietnam was a micrmanaged war with politicians dictating what should be done by the military. You cannot effectively fight a war with these restrictions. When Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying that our pilots cannot bomb an outhouse in Vietnam without him knowing about it, then you know you have no ability to accomplish the goals set out. Neither of these cases is different than when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It is an invasion of one sovereign nation over another sovereign nation.

Again, there is FAR more evidence of terrorist connection in many, many other countries. Offering payments to the families of suicide bombers is NOT an excuse for war.

Again, I ask you, is it OK if we go after Syria or Iran then?

When those terrorists kill American citizens, it is a reason. One dies not sit idly by while this occurs. U.S. citizens were killed and attacked by "Palestinian" organizations in the past. Hussein payed money to these groups and the families fo attackers. This is not "flimsy" evidence.

ANYONE who denies that is not being honest enough to continue a debate with.

Nice to see that you are open to differing points of view. I do not say this in any mean manner, but one should not close out ANYONE's point of view because they have made up their own minds about a situation.

[BucksEng91]

Originally posted by DaSharkie

Nice to see that you are open to differing points of view. I do not say this in any mean manner, but one should not close out ANYONE's point of view because they have made up their own minds about a situation.

Careful, Shark. You're going to earn a spot on Noz's hallowed ignore list.

If you really want to piss him off, post a picture of dead Kurdish women huddling over their dead babies, trying to protect them from Saddam's chemical weapons, and ask him if he thinks that they agree with his assessment of Hussein as harmless. That'll put you on the ignore list express.

Pretty soon our resident socialist Nozzie is gonna be talking to himself.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George, come on; look at history...tell me honestly that there is any other reason for establishing control in that region. Far more people die in other places in the world, and we do not offer THEM liberation from their misery. It's oil, and control of that oil, that is at the heart of ANY goings-on in that region, regardless of whether it's military or not. ANYONE who denies that is not being honest enough to continue a debate with.

Eloquent rhetoric. But I asked you for EVIDENCE! I don't want a debate, I want you to educate me.

[TillerMan25]

C'mon George, EVIDENCE requires some element of FACT and a FACT to a Liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman!~

[ThNozzleman]

http://www.homerserv.net/news_report_from_iraq.wmv

[ThNozzleman]

Eloquent rhetoric. But I asked you for EVIDENCE! I don't want a debate, I want you to educate me.
That would be like offering you evidence of the nose on your own face; what should I do if you can't see it? Cut it off and hand it to you? I could post link after link defining every squabble and conflict in that area of the world for the last one hundred years, and it would do no good. The fact is, the reasons we went to war were BUNK. Of course, GWB blamed it on "bad intelligence" and Tenet's head rolled for it, but America knows the truth...and so do you. It's all about the $$$$, and you know it.

[Bones42]

Thanks Noz, that was good. :D

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

That would be like offering you evidence of the nose on your own face; what should I do if you can't see it? Cut it off and hand it to you? I could post link after link defining every squabble and conflict in that area of the world for the last one hundred years, and it would do no good. The fact is, the reasons we went to war were BUNK. Of course, GWB blamed it on "bad intelligence" and Tenet's head rolled for it, but America knows the truth...and so do you. It's all about the $$$$, and you know it.

No. You could take a picture of it, or you could hand me a mirror.

I am not interested in the last 100 years. I am challenging you to provide one piece of evidence that, as you have charged, President George W. Bush intiated the wr in Iraq in order to gain control of the Iraqi oil supply.

That sounds like a very simple problem.

[DaSharkie]

I must agree, Noz that was F U N N Y! After school today I really needed that. Off to study Physiology. Woo Hoo!

[ThNozzleman]

That sounds like a very simple problem.
And it is; when all other reasons turned out to be pure bunkum, then whatever remains is what you have. It worked for Holmes. Besides, we've been over this...
No real connections between Iraq and terrorism...or no more (and far less) than many other nations.
No real threat from Iraq's military. None. What are they going to do? Float their camels over here and attack Miami? Again, these guys couldn't even fart without us being all over them.
Weapons of mass destruction; again, none found. I mean, if we're gonna kick somebody's ass, why not start in North Korea? If GWB wants to be a hero at the expense of thousands of lives, why not pick on a REAL problem nation?
So...that leaves us with GWB's favorite excuse; the world is better off without Saddam. Well, I'll guarantee you that if he had pulled this excuse out of his ass in the first place, the people would not have gone for it. I can't believe he can even say it with a straight face. GWB and his cronies took advantage of the aftermath and atmosphere of 9-11 and used it as chance to do something they've been wanting to do for years. I was all lies. Again, we do NOT go around starting wars, simply because someone is a "bad person" and the "world would be better off without them". What a joke. It is the oil; there's nothing else there, but sand.
Great job on highjacking a thread, though. :rolleyes:

[ThNozzleman]

I must agree, Noz that was F U N N Y! After school today I really needed that.
Heh...I know; I nearly fell out of my chair.:p

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

And it is; when all other reasons turned out to be pure bunkum, then whatever remains is what you have. It worked for Holmes. Besides, we've been over this...
No real connections between Iraq and terrorism...or no more (and far less) than many other nations.
No real threat from Iraq's military. None. What are they going to do? Float their camels over here and attack Miami? Again, these guys couldn't even fart without us being all over them.
Weapons of mass destruction; again, none found. I mean, if we're gonna kick somebody's ass, why not start in North Korea? If GWB wants to be a hero at the expense of thousands of lives, why not pick on a REAL problem nation?
So...that leaves us with GWB's favorite excuse; the world is better off without Saddam. Well, I'll guarantee you that if he had pulled this excuse out of his ass in the first place, the people would not have gone for it. I can't believe he can even say it with a straight face. GWB and his cronies took advantage of the aftermath and atmosphere of 9-11 and used it as chance to do something they've been wanting to do for years. I was all lies. Again, we do NOT go around starting wars, simply because someone is a "bad person" and the "world would be better off without them". What a joke. It is the oil; there's nothing else there, but sand.
Great job on highjacking a thread, though. :rolleyes:

Great job on avoiding an issue. I didn't ask you about WMD, Saddam or anything else except: You amde the charge that GWB initiated this war in order to gain control of Iraq's oil supply. Please provide one single piece of evidence that you have to support this charge.

[Bones42]

Noz, what other country has defied 12 years worth of UN sanctions? Did not the UN give an ultimatum (and then have the Iraq-backing nations flip-flop)?

Anyhow, I stayed up last night to hear Kerry's response to the RNC. He also claims Bush lied about the WMD. As was posted on these forums somewhere, there were like 20+ quotes of people (including Kerry) talking about the WMD's in Iraq. How is they can all talk about it and be wrong, but when Bush talks about it he is lying? (flip-flop)

I heard Kerry talk about some great ideas for health insurance, education, creating jobs, etc. I have yet to hear HOW a President is going to create any jobs, just that they will. HOW will any of this be paid for? Is he going to talk to every Senator and Congressman and get them to change their votes? I look forward to some exciting 60 days ahead.

One of my other favorite Kerry comments last night..."I don't have to defend my military service to someone that stayed home when they could have been there." (not an exact quote, but that's the idea of it) Sorry Kerry, you want to run for office, you have to answer to anyone and everyone.

[ThNozzleman]

Noz, what other country has defied 12 years worth of UN sanctions? Did not the UN give an ultimatum (and then have the Iraq-backing nations flip-flop)?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/unitedstates/unpolicy/gen2003/0415moral.htm
Anyhow, I stayed up last night to hear Kerry's response to the RNC. He also claims Bush lied about the WMD. As was posted on these forums somewhere, there were like 20+ quotes of people (including Kerry) talking about the WMD's in Iraq. How is they can all talk about it and be wrong, but when Bush talks about it he is lying? (flip-flop)
Because the info that Bush receives is worlds ahead of what any other official might receive. Nothing reaches them that is not approved by Bush, himself. And we now know that the evidence was twisted, outdated, and pretty much false. The Bush Administration was intentionally deceitful in releasing such flimsy "evidence", and they are even more guilty of hyping it up to promote a needless war; something they've wanted for years, any way. This, in my opinion, makes Bush a liar. Of course, Tenet's head rolled for his alleged role in passing the "bad intel" along...but have you heard the old saying that you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility? We all know now the evidence for invading Iraq was weak, much of it being a joke, period. There is no denying this. Iraq was a threat to no one. Saddam rattled his sabers and did a lot of bad stuff, but so do many other leaders of nations. It is not a reason to start a WAR.
I heard Kerry talk about some great ideas for health insurance, education, creating jobs, etc. I have yet to hear HOW a President is going to create any jobs, just that they will. HOW will any of this be paid for? Is he going to talk to every Senator and Congressman and get them to change their votes? I look forward to some exciting 60 days ahead.
Again, political posturing on both sides. It is expected, and we should all be used to it, by now. However, GWB started a stupid, needless war, based on lies and half-truths, that has killed THOUSANDS of people. The man panders to the far right, and the Christian fundies. Quite frankly, he scares the hell out of me. I do not want to go back to the bad old days, when people are ashamed or afraid to walk the streets because of who or what they are.
One of my other favorite Kerry comments last night..."I don't have to defend my military service to someone that stayed home when they could have been there." (not an exact quote, but that's the idea of it) Sorry Kerry, you want to run for office, you have to answer to anyone and everyone.
And he has. Once again...
Kerry: Highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War
G.W. Bush: Stayed home and joined a champagne unit, rendering a pitiful service record.
The neo-cons can hate it all they want, but nobody is ever going to change that fact.

[xploded]

Maybe you should read your HERO's first book, "the new Soldier" Take a look at the cover. This is what your dream lover thinks of this country. He came back here and sh&t on his brother vets. Then writes a lefty scum book like this about his country. But this doesn't count because he is an elite lefty. You can try and down talk Bush all you want but it still will not cover up the stench of Hanoi John.

[TillerMan25]

POST REMOVED.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS HERE

-WEBTEAM

[Bones42]

Noz, thanks for the link. Some very interesting reading there. Not sure I buy much of it, but it's interesting.

The quotes that I referenced were from 1992-2000, long before Bush was President and had the "inside" information. Did all the stuff mentioned in those quotes disappear in 2000? They all had the same information, some people decided to act on it, others talked about it.

Funny, I see more people walking around proud to be Americans. More flags, more signs, etc. But I'm not in TN.

Yes, he says he has answered, yet there are people who say he hasn't answered. In what I remember of the RNC, I didn't hear a lot of talk about Kerry's war record, but I saw an awful lot of it during the DNC. Personally, I don't think it's helping Kerry at all so he should drop it and move on.


Tiller, you are very much the same.

[TillerMan25]

Tiller, you are very much the same

Thanks for the reply, I will file that right next to "Who gives two Sh-ts what you think" and "How about a nice cup of STFU."


I am sick of his Anti-American ravings. And I have rarely backed down from a debate. I will attempt to get as much fact as I can from reliable sources. So don't try your BS with me either. Being Nice to people isn't always an option.

[xploded]

AMEN Tiller, these libs act like they are above being made to answer for there wild rhetoric. Time for them to grow a set and stop whinning. When you put out facts and win the debate then it is that you are attacking them. Their only answer is one scripted by the lib talking points. Hear one hear them all.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It is a typical lib trait to say something, and as soon as you are called upon to prove it, you cry personal attack.

I have been challenging him to provide some evidence in his "War for oil" mantra for almost a year. So far, the total "proof" has been.."everybody knows it".

I sleep better at night knowing that a principled leader like President Bush is at the helm. As Rudy said, "Thank God George Bush is President".

[ThNozzleman]

The quotes that I referenced were from 1992-2000, long before Bush was President and had the "inside" information. Did all the stuff mentioned in those quotes disappear in 2000? They all had the same information, some people decided to act on it, others talked about it.
I do not question the fact that resolutions against Iraq existed. They exist against many nations, including many of our allies. My main problem is the way the Bush Administration presented the need for war, and the way they continue to tie the war in Iraq to the "war on terrorism". I don't think that many people actually consider the ramifications of declaring war on a sovereign nation for such flimsy evidence and excuses as what the President presented. And when none of it panned out, we are constantly fed the "well, the world's better off without Saddam" line. I'm sorry, but that was not one of the reasons I remember Bush giving for going to war. Would Saddam like to have multiple nuclear and biological weapons at his disposal? Of course he would; what nation (including our own) wouldn't? Did he have them? Of course not. Was he even remotely close to developing them? No. We were constantly fed horror stories of Saddam being so evil, he gassed his own people. In fact, Saddam did not consider the Kurds to be his "own people". He viewed them as troublemakers and a problem. Does this make it right that he gassed them? Of course not. Had it been any better if he had used conventional weapons to kill the same number of people? Before anyone misunderstands my comments, I do not support anything Saddam did or does. My point all along has been that we do not rush about the globe, sending the majority of our military into sovereign nations, simply because they are "evil" people. The Bush Administration used every trick in the book to convince us that war was the ONLY recourse we had; that Saddam had somehow forced us to act by violating UN resolutions, and was on the verge of attacking us and the rest of the world. As I've stated before, these people couldn't fart without us knowing it. When the vast majority of the world refused to go along with the plan, they were labeled as back-stabbing fools and cowards. People on these very forums have suggested unloading bombs on France on the way to Iraq. Really intelligent input there, I tell you. How do you think the rest of the world view us? Most of the posters here may not give a damn, and they have stated as such. But, I'm here to tell you; we will not win the war on terrorism with bullets and bombs. It just won't work, I don't care how much vengeance the armchair-generals here at home would like unload on these nations. And as for my often challenged notion that oil was at the heart of the decision to invade Iraq, I stand by my beliefs. It should be apparant to all that the reasons stated by Bush were wrong. And blaming "bad intel" should not release one from the liability and responsibility for one's actions. Of course, many in the American and British government would like nothing better than to return to the days of colonialism, when we could plunder other nations resources at will, because we had more guns than they did. (Iraq was a former British colony, by the way) I'm constantly berated on these forums to "prove" it was about the oil. Well, I don't have to. All of Bush's excuses have been shown to be a farce; and at best, certainly no reason to start a damn war, which killed thousands. That, plus the provable, known history of our involvement in that area of the world, is proof enough to me. We move and manipulate in that region of the world for the same reason Rommel and Montgomery were there fighting during WW2; oil.

[ThNozzleman]

It is a typical lib trait to say something, and as soon as you are called upon to prove it, you cry personal attack.
Chasing someone from thread to thread, using a blanket statement concerning unrelated issues to attack my every post is just that; an attack.
I have been challenging him to provide some evidence in his "War for oil" mantra for almost a year. So far, the total "proof" has been.."everybody knows it".
Well, so far, we've pretty much determined that Bush's reasons were wrong and, basically, fabricated and puffed-up nonsense. So, since those are no longer valid reasons to start a war and invade another nation, then we must look elsewhere, right? Other than raiding ancient archeological sites, oil is the ONLY damn thing we've EVER been interested in, as far as that region of the world goes. Get a grip, George.
I sleep better at night knowing that a principled leader like President Bush is at the helm. As Rudy said, "Thank God George Bush is President".
:rolleyes:

[ThNozzleman]

Funny, I see more people walking around proud to be Americans. More flags, more signs, etc. But I'm not in TN.
I'm not really sure what you meant by this.

[Dalmatian90]

Bob...if you want to talk about invading Iraq and using the words, "Sovereign" to help condemn it...remember Saddam had a history of invading Sovereign nations for oil (Iran & Kuwait). Both those invasions he predicated very directly over disputes about oil fields with the addition in Kuwait of not wanting to repay debts owed them. And oil was his actual pretext, not some conspiracy theory. He also supported terrorism in another sovereign state -- Israel -- by making large payments to the families of suicide bombers after they carried out their acts. It's not a word that holds much worth in context of Saddam & Company.

Maybe the "used gas against his own people" is a bit of hyperbole. Ok, he used poison gas against citizens of his own country, as well as the military of Iran, and in the opinion of the U.N. inspectors was not fully cooperating with efforts to verify the dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction and similiar prohibited programs.

So when you look at what information you had, and try and figure out what's going on...you're not sure if he's bluffing or not, he's not not folding his hand, and you know he's pulled the trigger on using poison gas, and you know he's supported terrorist organizations. So, do you go along hoping he's bluffing and or do end the game?

[ThNozzleman]

So when you look at what information you had, and try and figure out what's going on...you're not sure if he's bluffing or not, he's not not folding his hand, and you know he's pulled the trigger on using poison gas, and you know he's supported terrorist organizations. So, do you go along hoping he's bluffing and or do end the game?
Invading other nations, based on what they MIGHT do, is very poor policy, especially when the reasons and evidence given to support such an action are laughable, and questionable at best. Even at their peak, Iraq was not a real threat to the United States, and never was a threat. A threat to our supply of oil, perhaps, and that's a stretch. America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it. There is nothing one could say about Iraq that couldn't be said about many other nations. The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close. And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it. We are not a very positive role model for the world as far as that goes.

[DaSharkie]

And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it.

Is this a reference two Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Be very careful or another can of worms gets opened up here. This will only take away from the discussion at hand.

America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it.

I agree. It doesn't justify it, but the Soviets were supporting Iran, so we had to support the other side (even though the Soviets were giving stuff to both sides.) To support those who began a war of aggression with another sovereign nation was wrong.

The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close.

You know, I am getting sick of this argument from everyone. Everyone has their feelings about hte matter, and these feelings have posted ad nauseum here. No one is going to convince anyone of the other side's views. Can we move past this and stop having the circular argument?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Invading other nations, based on what they MIGHT do, is very poor policy, especially when the reasons and evidence given to support such an action are laughable, and questionable at best. Even at their peak, Iraq was not a real threat to the United States, and never was a threat. A threat to our supply of oil, perhaps, and that's a stretch. America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it. There is nothing one could say about Iraq that couldn't be said about many other nations. The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close. And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it. We are not a very positive role model for the world as far as that goes.

Can of worms is right.

First of all, you are absolutely the mosy un-American person I have ever encountered in my life. Your distortion of fact and history makes a mockery of the sacrifices that our ancestors have made to allow you to spew forth venom and hate for your country. Why don't you leave and move to a better country?

A threat to our supply of oil? Please provide one shred of evidence that Pres. Bush started this war to gain control of Iraq's oil supply. Evidence, not rhetoric.

The Japanese Imperial Forces provoked the US into WWII as a result of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The goal of those Japanese forces was nothing less than to forcibly take over the world. They were going to do it one island at a time. We warned them for a long time (sound familiar) that we were not going to allow it. They attacked us and killled thousands (sound familiar) and we responded with force.

The ensuing war was bloody and destructive and was taking a terrible toll on the forces of both sides. After three years, the US was in a position that a direct attack on the Japanese mainland was possible. An analysis of the costs of the attack in terms of US lives lost, money and time made this an unattractive option that, in the end, may not have accomplished the objective.

Truman told the Japanese we had this new type of weapon that operated on the principle of the direct release of atomic energy. He explained the destructive nature of the weapon and he never gave any indication that we would be afraid to use it. He urged the Japanese to surrender. They did not.

Truman was left with no option. He dropped the bomb on Hiroshima knowing full well what the result would be. When they didn't respond, Nagasaki was bombed. Both of these cities were targeted because they were major industrial centers.

The result was a full and unconditional surrender. The losses were huge, but Truman made every conceivable effort to have the Japanese realize he was serious and to recognize the scope of the potential losses. The Japanese were responsible for the deaths of those civilians. The courageous act by Truman saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.

Your statement about us being the only nation to use WMD against "innocent people" is a bold faced, America hating, lie. We were involved in a war with Japan and the bombs were released to end that war and to destroy their war machine. Saddam used chemical weapons on innocent citizens of his own country. He killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. These deaths were nothing other than an intimidation tool to force compliance with his dictatorial desires.

So Bob, as you can see, once again you tried to rewrite history to make the US an evil empire. We are not. In fact, after our victory over Japan, we could have taken over the country and established US controlled territories. Instead, we rebuilt their country, rebuilt their economy and gave it back to them. Sound familiar?

Go find a better country you anti-American ingrate.

They weren't excuses, they were valid reasons.

[FireLt1951]

Every nation we delt with said he had WMD's, I thought they had WMD's, almost every intelligence agency around the world said he had them, the U.N. stated he had them. I agreed he had them, he didn't deny having them and the aility to reinstitute a program rapidly, he allowed us in to verify right? There was no way they could have sent them to Syria, they say they didn't take them (after all Syria is trustworthy) and I know there is no way they could have buried them in that vast desert area there (who would be that stupid). I guess everyone lied and therefore I did too. Oh well, I guess I'll agree to just wait for the SOB's to come here before I do anything. I will also agree that we let the U.N., France, Germany and Canada make our decisions for us. If I have to go to war, I'll make sure it's a more sensitive one. This isn't a world war, it's just a few misguided individuals who we can talk to and come to some type of agreement, right. These terrorist groups aren't serious are they? They aren't dangerous either, are they? I'd much rather fight them here on our own soil rather than somewhere in their own region. I also backed the war, then I didn't back the war. Sorry I can't remember where I stood on that.

Sorry, seem to drift off topic. John (Hanoi) Kerry has an economic agenda? What is it and when will it change (tomorrow, next week). I didn't know Kerry could take a firm stance and stick to it on anything.

[TillerMan25]

Watch it George, the Webteam already sent me a Nasty Gram about attacking him with names. They even removed my post, as true as it might have been.

Remember, you can only have free speech when you are spewing lies.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You should have seen the first three drafts.

Besides, the truth is an absolute defense.

[TillerMan25]

Right, I am with you 100%.

I guess some on the webteam don't see it that way. I would like some clear definition of a personal attack please.

[Bones42]

I'm not really sure what you meant by this. Simply that I am not in TN where you are so I can't speak for your area. Nothing more. ;)

[Bones42]

and back on the Kerry & Edward's economic plan, I watched Kerry last night on TV, think he was in Cleveland. He is giving everyone a better paying job and better health benefits. That will be his first bill, I heard him say it. Of course, he can't pay for it until they repeal the tax break on the wealthy because that is going to pay for everything.

Just a question, how long will it take for any of the repealled tax money to get to the government? Because in his own words, he's not doing anything until he has the money to pay for everyone's healthcare. Yup, I believe him. :eek:

[DaSharkie]

Because in his own words, he's not doing anything until he has the money to pay for everyone's healthcare. Yup, I believe him.

The sad thing is that a lot of people do believe it. He has not given a plan for anything, only that he will do it. I want the whos, whats, wheres, hows, and everything if you are going to tell me that you can and will fix a problem. I want this from anyone who is not going to tell me how they will accomplish the goal.

[ThNozzleman]

Go find a better country you anti-American ingrate.
Same old "like it or leave it blathering". Such anger and hostility amazes me, even coming from you.
Truman told the Japanese we had this new type of weapon that operated on the principle of the direct release of atomic energy. He explained the destructive nature of the weapon and he never gave any indication that we would be afraid to use it. He urged the Japanese to surrender. They did not.
Talk about revisionist history. He may have told the Russians, but the Japanese people were most certainly NOT informed of this.:rolleyes:
http://killeenroos.com/5/bomb/Potsdam.htm
I refuse to highjack this thread any longer. By the way George, your baseless comments and your assuming, arrogant attitude towards me personally have finally gotten you somewhere you probably should've been a long time ago. Guess where? By the way; I think you should seriously consider checking into anger management classes...or "retire" from the forums, again. Don't bother replying; I won't read it.

[TillerMan25]

Another hit and RUN by our Resident Coward and Non-debator, ThNozzleman.

Now George is on your Ignore list, who in the hell do you have to post to?

And BTW webteam, I hope someone else got the same stern warning I did for their direct attack on Comrade Miller. :rolleyes:

[Dalmatian90]

The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Sometimes, lines aren't just hyperbole.

BTW, remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.

The lesson reinforced by WWII is application of maximum force to bring a situation to an end sooner, rather than inadequate force drawing out a conflict. As Bob points out, we're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons. But no other nation has spent the time and money either on developing ways to precisely aim and use tremendous force so that the "strategic" bombing of WWII doesn't have to be repeated.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by Dalmatian90
The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Sometimes, lines aren't just hyperbole.

BTW, remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.

The lesson reinforced by WWII is application of maximum force to bring a situation to an end sooner, rather than inadequate force drawing out a conflict. As Bob points out, we're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons. But no other nation has spent the time and money either on developing ways to precisely aim and use tremendous force so that the "strategic" bombing of WWII doesn't have to be repeated.

This is very true.

But, I'm sure you would agree, that no other nation on earth has spent more time and money:

1. Going out of their way to avoid the use of these weapons and not using them for expansionist and imperialist purposes.

2. Rebuilding that country. Can nayone dispute that Japan regained their position as a world economic pwer within less than 30 years after they lost the war?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Same old "like it or leave it blathering". Such anger and hostility amazes me, even coming from you.

Talk about revisionist history. He may have told the Russians, but the Japanese people were most certainly NOT informed of this.:rolleyes:
http://killeenroos.com/5/bomb/Potsdam.htm
I refuse to highjack this thread any longer. By the way George, your baseless comments and your assuming, arrogant attitude towards me personally have finally gotten you somewhere you probably should've been a long time ago. Guess where? By the way; I think you should seriously consider checking into anger management classes...or "retire" from the forums, again. Don't bother replying; I won't read it.

I'm never angry when I post. Let me take that back. I'm never angry when I post unless someone is using these forums to spread hate and vitriole against the greatest country in the world. I was not angry when I told you to leave this country and go find a better one. I was totally sincere.

Your arrogance amazes me. Why would I possibly care if you put me on your dreaded ignore list? I don't. In fact, I WIN! Since you have put everyone involved in these discussions on your list, we shouldn't be hearing from you again. That means another self-hating American, who should be down on his hands and knees thanking God for the privelege of living in this country, has been silenced.

[DaSharkie]

And I do believe that the Japanese government was warned prior to the droping of the single bomb on Hiroshima. I also recall that Japan was warned that a second device would be dropped if they did not wish to speak about surrendering. They did not speak with us, and a second bomb was dropped.

Untold millions of US, Chinese, Russian, Australian, Canadian, British, and of course Japanese lives were saved by the prevention of the invasion of the home islands.

Perhaps adding another 10 or million to the death count of WWII would be OK then?

remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.

Correct. General Curtis Lemay ordered bombings of Tokyo and other cities with ordinance to help stop Japan's construction and weapons capabilities. Upwards of 100,000 in one night in Tokyo alone.

A sad state fo affairs that life is so easily wasted by irrational people.

[jasper45]

The statement of there is only one nation to ever use WMD on innocent people is inaccurate. Unless of course the Kurds were not innocent. Poison gas was used by Saddam Hussein on people in his own sovereign nation. Citizens of Iraq. The thought process of not acting on what someone might do, erases all credibilty the left is using against our President about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. By this logic he should not have acted on intelligence that al-qaeda "might" have an attack planned, were he to have held that information. Obviously we can't act on what might or might not happen, again using this logic. Unless an event happens, it is a possibility that it "might" not happen. I guess what we need to do is wait, and allow our innocent civillians to be killed. It does boggle my mind that the actions of Iraq do not warrant its designation as a state sponsor of terror. The training camps, the bankrolling of suicide bombers, the existance and treatment of notorius al-qaeda members in Baghdad itself prior to our invasion. Just FYI, al-zaraqawi had extensive connections related to WMD. He was suspected behind a plot of producing ricin to be used in poisoning British miltary food. Al of this, combined with the daily attempts to shoot our military fighters down patrolling the no-fly zones of Iraq. An act of war in and of itself. Iraq was a threat to us, maybe not by a conventional invasion, but certainly by openly funding and supporting terrorist thugs. Where did those WMD's go? I certainly hope they never existed, because I suppose there was absolutely no way they could have been smuggled out of Iraq through the borders we weren't able to control. Mostly the eastern borders. Jordan and Syria I believe. Syria, another bastian for terrorism to live in. There is positively no way anything moved accross those borders.:rolleyes:

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Greenspan: Economy Regaining Some Traction
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday the economy has "regained some traction" after a late spring slowdown that was triggered by a sharp spike in oil prices.

Greenspan's moderately upbeat forecast came as the nation entered the final two months of an election battle in which President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry have widely different views on how the economy is performing at present.

Normally, incumbent politicians are unhappy if the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates close to an election.

However, this time around, many private economists believe the Fed is probably helping the Bush campaign by signaling an intention to keep raising interest rates because such a stance supports the administration's view that the economy has begun to emerge from the recent slowdown.

In his testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said that two key indicators, consumer spending and housing construction, bounced back in July after a weak performance in June.

"Economic activity hit a soft patch in late spring after having grown briskly in the second half of 2003 and the first part of 2004," Greenspan told the committee.

"The most recent data suggest that, on the whole, the expansion has regained some traction," he said.

In its latest survey of business conditions around the country, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that economic activity in July and August expanded, with many Fed regions reporting modest growth.

However, some areas such as the St. Louis region reported economic improvements were coming slowly, while San Francisco said activity was solid.

The Fed has boosted the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge on overnight loans, from a 46-year low of 1 percent to 1.5 percent in the past two months.

Economists believe the Fed will keep raising rates at a measured pace at coming meetings, including another quarter-point increase on Sept. 21.

Greenspan made no comments in his prepared remarks on the direction of interest rates.

He said that this year's slowdown "in activity no doubt is related, in large measure, to this year's steep increase in energy prices."

The big jump in energy prices acts like a tax on consumers, leaving them less money to spend on other items.

In answer to questions, Greenspan told the panel that if it had not been for the jump in oil prices this year, he believed the country would "still be seeing some very strong growth."

Greenspan refused, however, to quantify how much the oil price increase had reduced growth, saying it had affected the economy in a number of ways such as depressing consumer confidence.

A big slowdown in consumer spending pushed overall economic activity down from a robust 4.5 percent rate of growth in the first three months of this year to a much slower 2.8 percent growth rate in the second quarter.

The slowdown has been accompanied by a significant slowing in job growth as well, although there was a bit of a rebound in August with payrolls rising by 144,000.

The state of the economy has become a debating point in the presidential campaign with Bush contending that his tax cuts averted a more serious recession in 2001 and are helping to promote a sustained recovery currently.

Kerry contends that the tax cuts went primarily to the wealthy and have left the country with record budget deficits.

In response to questions, Greenspan said he believed the Bush tax cuts were well-timed to help the economy rebound from the last recession. But he agreed that there were other things the government could have done that might have provided an even bigger boost to growth.

Greenspan, as he has in the past, urged Congress to reinstate budget rules that were in effect through much of the 1990s that required any tax cuts or increases in benefit programs such as Social Security to be paid for either by tax hikes or spending cuts in other areas.

Greenspan warned that Congress must act with more urgency to address the country's long-term deficit problems before the retirement of the baby boom generation at the end of this decade.

"As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill," he told the budget panel. "If, on further study, that possibility turns out to be the case, it is imperative that we make clear what real resources will be available so that our citizens can properly plan their retirements."

Greenspan has suggested in the past that Congress consider raising the retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits or adopting a less generous annual cost-of-living adjustment as two ways to trim payments to baby boomers.

[Bones42]

Anyone else notice the word Congress being used often here?

- urged Congress to reinstate budget rules
- Congress must act with more urgency
- Congress consider

Bush can't do it, Kerry can't do it, Congress does it. They are the ones that approve/disapprove these things.

[glowpop]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.

This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.

The US Constitution does not allow for the Federal Government to provide "oversight" over the states. In fact the Constitution and it's Ammendments restrict the ability of the Federal government to only what is allowed by the constitution. Article 1 section 8 provides for the duties of the Congress in 18 clauses. None of them provides for the "oversight" of the states. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits such "oversight"; "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or the people." The purpose of the framers was to have strong state and local governments as opposed to a strong federal government. It was just the problem that you propose with "oversight" that caused so much difficulty during the colonial times in our country that the framers were trying to avoid, and which our liberal... opps, "progressive" legislators wish now to employee upon us.

Your assumption that the US acted as "oversight" to stop the illegal activity of some southern states in the 60's to restrict the ability of others due to sex, race or religion, the right to vote is incorrect. The Attorney General Robert Kennedy, forced the FBI to act to enforce the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It wasn't oversight but a matter of law and the legal requirement of the US government and it's agents, including the President and his AG, to protect and defend our Constitution.

While the Constitution does allow for Congress to raise revenue, pay debts and borrow money it does not allow for the removal of my hard earned money from my paycheck to be redirected for any of the following purposes:

1. Redistibution of the wealth. (The head of the AFL/CIO stated at this years DNC that the tax structure was intended to do just that. That my friends is SOCIALISM.)
2. Financial relief to any person other than those who have a redress against the Government.
3. Programs intended to assist those who while able to work refuse to do so.
4. Programs that provide for the purchase of equipment and manning of public safety or works programs that benefit or are for the purpose of a local community.
5. Programs that fund useless research and questionable art.

But the whole key to the main purpose of this discussion is that if you believe that John Kerry will lower your taxes and at the same time raise taxes on himself and his running mate, and many of those who now serve in Congress who are themselves some of the richest men and women in this country, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya.

Politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear just to get your vote....and then sc^@w you when they get the chance. Just so they can finance their own pet projects on our dime in their state and get re-elected.

IT'S TIME FOR TERM LIMITS ON ALL REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, AND TO TRASH THE ENTIRE TAX CODE ALL TOGETHER. Everybody pays the same. Right now the top 5% of our citizens pay 95% of the taxes. Those who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a tax break/refund.

[FireLt1951]

JOHN KERRY VOTING RECORD: THE LIST

Kerry's voting record. Print it out if you want and use it when people defend him on what a "great guy" he is. It is obvious that he cares nothing for the unborn, the military, defense, law & order, tax relief, school choice and many other issues.

ABORTION
Voted to federally fund abortions.
Voted against parental consent for minors.
Voted against ban on Partial Birth Abortion (3 times)
Voted against ban on sending money to UN population fund if the money was sent to pay for China forced abortion and sterilization policy.
NARAL lifetime rating of 100%
National Right to Life Committee lifetime rating of 0%

DEATH PENALTY
Opposes federal death penalty.
Voted against death penalty for terrorists. (recently flip-flopped in 2002)
Voted against death penalty for drug-related murders.

TAXES & BUDGET
Voted against Bush tax cut and wants to repeal portions of Bush tax cut.
Voted for 1993 Clinton tax hike. (largest in history)
Voted against major tax relief packages at least 10 times.
Voted at least 5 times against balance budget amendments.
Kerry voted at least five times to raid The Social Security Trust Fund.

MILITARY & NATIONAL SECURITY
Voted for 7 major reductions in military funding Voted against Gulf War I (1991).
Voted for Gulf War II (but then criticized and voted against military appropriation for troops).
Voted against MX missile.
Voted against Trident Submarine.
Voted against SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative "Star Wars").
Favored UN control of US Troops (in the 1970s).
Supported Slashing $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding While Serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.
Voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
Voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 onward
Voted to kill the Aeges anti aircraft system
Voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
Voted to kill the F-16 E/F (Block 60)
Voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
Voted to kill the B-1
Voted to kill the B-2
Voted to kill the Patriot anti-missile system
Voted to kill the FA-18
Voted to kill the F117

FAITH & VALUES
Voted against ban on human cloning.
Voted Against Defense of Marriage Act (to give states option to decide whether to recognize homosexual marriages in other states).
Sent letter to Massachusetts Legislature opposing Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
Favors civil unions for homosexuals.
Voted against a constitutional amendment on flag desecration.

EDUCATION
Voted against voluntary school prayer.
Voted against voucher pilot program.
Voted against approving a school-choice pilot program

JUDGES, COURTS & LAW
Voted against confirmation of Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Justice.
Voted against confirmation of Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.
Voted against confirmation William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Voted against confirmation John Ashcroft as US Attorney General.
Voted against punitive damages in products liability cases.
As Michael Dukakis Lt. Governor From 1983-1985, Kerry Supported Granting Prison Furloughs To Hundreds Of Massachusetts Inmates.

FOREIGN POLICY
Against linking Most Favored Nation status to China human rights record.
Voted for Kyoto Protocol on Environment that exempted major Third Word polluters.
Supported Iraq regime change as late as January, 2003.
Now has flipped-flopped For Unilateral nuclear Freeze.
Voted against deployment of INF missiles in Europe.

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS
Leading member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War)
Attended and conducted anti-war and anti-American protests in the 1970s. Organized the Protests.
Votes with Ted Kennedy an average of 94% of the time.
Received $300,000 contribution from Johnny Chung as directed by Chinese intelligence officer.
Supported Communist Sandinistas and visited with leader Communist Daniel Ortega days before Ortega flew to Moscow and received $200 million in Soviet aid.
Has a lifetime rating of 26% from Citizens Against Government Waste.
Has a lifetime rating of 0% from the National Rifle Association.
Lifetime liberal vote rating of 93% from Americans For Democratic Action (5 points higher than Ted Kennedy).
Voted with the liberal activist group, The League Of Conservation Voters, an average of 95% of the time.

[DaSharkie]

From this morning's Boston Herald:

Kerry might boost Hub firms
By Andrew Miga
Sunday, September 12, 2004

WASHINGTON - If Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] captures the White House this fall, several politically connected Bay State legal, lobbying and consulting firms could see their stock in Washington soar, cashing in on their close ties to the Bay State senator.

Leading the Kerry parade in the power corridors of Washington would be the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, the Dewey Square Group, and Perkins Smith and Cohen, a Beacon Hill law firm.

The senator's younger brother Cameron works for Mintz Levin, but he is not a lobbyist. Cam Kerry has emerged as a key adviser to his brother this election season.

Kerry's former chief of staff, David Leiter, works for ML Strategies, a Mintz Levin affiliate.

The firm, which has a lucrative Washington lobbying arm and several high-powered telecommunications clients, for years has ranked among Kerry's major donors.

Firm officials have given $102,051 to Kerry this election cycle, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a campaign watchdog group.

Perkins Smith and Cohen is home to Robert Crowe, a longtime Kerry pal and a member of Kerry's inner circle. Crowe is Kerry's chief fundraiser at the Democratic National Committee and is assumed to be a prime prospect to head the party if Kerry is elected.

Crowe's firm drew fire from Republicans after reports it lobbied for scandal-plagued Enron Corp.

Dewey Square, Boston's powerhouse Democratic public affairs consulting firm with a thriving D.C. branch, is headed by veteran operative Michael Whouley, one of Kerry's closest aides and the person campaign insiders credit for the senator's comeback victory in Iowa. Whouley, former Vice President Al Gore's top political strategist who has long been an informal Kerry adviser, recently rejoined the campaign as Kerry's top field chief.

Dewey Square, whose client roster includes General Motors and Northwest Airlines, is known for ``grasstops lobbying,'' building support for clients at the local level. Top Dewey Square officials such as Chuck Campion and Charles Baker are also longtime Kerry advisers.


So George W. Bush gets waffled by people who say he is in favor of big business, but no one criticizes Kerry for being in the pocket of his own variety of special interests. Lawyers and the petty, useless litigation are just as much of a contributor to the increased cost of living, health care, product purchases, and everything else in life. But I guess it is OK for this part of our economical problems to persist.

[scfire86]

Originally posted by FireLt1951
JOHN KERRY VOTING RECORD: THE LIST



Thanks for the list. Will print out and use accordingly.

As far as the title of this thread.

The CBO projects the national debt will be close to $10 trillion. The fiscal conservative moniker currently in charge of both the Executive and Legislative branches of govt has become an oxymoron.

None of us on this board would run our families in this manner where we continually just keep borrowing more money to provide. Yet the party in charge does just that.

And please don't throw out how the debt is a small portion of GDP compared to other eras. That will be a valid argument when the debt isn't being paid off with dollars from the US Treasury.

That argument is like saying you are going to borrow money based upon your neighbor's credit rating.

[DaSharkie]

So is it only the Republicans responsible for the deficit? Let us not forget that the Demcrats must also vote for the budget every year. If they pass a budget with a deficit, then EVERYONE who voted for it is responsible, not just the leadership of the conrolling party. Are you just as upset at the Dems that voted for this budget for doing so as you are the Republicans? Don't shirk the question, just answer it. I have asked it several times and only 1 person has ever told me their answer.

The U.S. government will NEVER pass a balanced budget amendment. If they do they will face some increased fiscal responsibility. In doing so, they have to be under pressure from some special interest groups for not getting them money. This is bad for being an incumbent and trying to keep your job so you can continue to fleece the citizenry.

None of us on this board would run our families in this manner where we continually just keep borrowing more money to provide.

Actually, on a smaller scale we do, that is why we have credit cards (which are actually loans), mortgages, car loans, home equity loans, blah, blah, blah. We borrow the money now to pay for larger purchases with the promise to pay it with future earnings. Do I like having to operate this way? Heck no. Do I like the federal government doing so? Heck no. But to say that we, as families do not operate this way is wrong.

And if you think that if we do not pay it off it won't be passed to future generations, you are wrong. It is passed to your estate, and your children to pay it off if you die. Just like a federal deficit.

[scfire86]

Originally posted by DaSharkie
So is it only the Republicans responsible for the deficit? Let us not forget that the Demcrats must also vote for the budget every year. If they pass a budget with a deficit, then EVERYONE who voted for it is responsible, not just the leadership of the conrolling party. Are you just as upset at the Dems that voted for this budget for doing so as you are the Republicans? Don't shirk the question, just answer it. I have asked it several times and only 1 person has ever told me their answer.


Yes I am. But the Republicans now control the majority in both houses. So yes, they are the final arbiters of what goes to the President.

So they have to bear the brunt of responsibility.

Remember. Their platform is for fiscal responsibility and smaller govt. And under their adminstrations exactly the opposite occurs.

[DaSharkie]

So they have to bear the brunt of responsibility.

No they do not. Everyone is equally responsible for voting for the budget, if they did so. Those that did not vote for the budget have less blame. We, as the citizenry, also have some blame for electing the same group of thieves and liars every few years.

Thank you for at least answering the question. Most are not willing to answer the question or go on some ranting diatribe about it.

[scfire86]

Originally posted by DaSharkie


No they do not. Everyone is equally responsible for voting for the budget, if they did so. Those that did not vote for the budget have less blame. We, as the citizenry, also have some blame for electing the same group of thieves and liars every few years.



If the GOP were truly interested in being fiscally responisble they could easily pass a balanced budget since they have the votes to approve of disapprove any legislation they desired.

But you are correct. As distasteful as some may think, those elected are a reflection of us.

[DaSharkie]

If the GOP were truly interested in being fiscally responisble they could easily pass a balanced budget since they have the votes to approve of disapprove any legislation they desired.

The same could be said for the Dems as well. Do you notice that even though each party cries about deficits, no one has proposed bringing up the balanced budget ammendment again? This is weak and pathetic on the parts of both parties, their membership, and their leadership.

[Dalmatian90]

If the GOP were truly interested in being fiscally responisble they could easily pass a balanced budget since they have the votes to approve of disapprove any legislation they desired.

No, they don't.

If the Dems can hold up judicial nominations, they can hold up fiscal appropriations. Takes 60 votes in the Senate to insure legislation can pass that body, and neither party can consistently muster enough swing votes to do it.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

US household wealth swells to record in 2nd qtr--Fed

WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - U.S. household wealth swelled to a new record in the second quarter of 2004, while borrowing outside the financial sector grew at a slower pace, the Federal Reserve said on Thursday.

In its quarterly "Flow of Funds" report, the Fed said household balance sheets increased 1.4 percent to $45.907 trillion in the second quarter, compared with an upwardly revised $45.270 trillion in the first quarter of this year.

First-quarter household wealth was initially reported at $45.153 trillion, which had been a record high.

Much of the increase in household net worth came from rising real estate values. The Fed said the market value of household real estate, which includes owner-occupied homes, second homes and vacant land, rose 2.9 percent to $15.713 trillion in the second quarter.


The value of U.S. stocks were nearly steady at $6.066 trillion in the second quarter, compared to $6.072 trillion in the first quarter. Mutual funds nudged 1.7 percent higher.


Total U.S. borrowing, excluding the financial sector, rose at a seasonally adjusted 7.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter, slightly slower than its upwardly revised 9.1 percent growth in the first quarter. First quarter non-financial debt was initially reported growing 8.6 percent.


The Fed said the slowdown in debt growth was nearly evenly distributed across all the major non-financial sectors, including the federal government, households, non-financial businesses and local governments.


Household debt grew 9.5 percent in the second quarter, cooling somewhat from its 11.3 percent expansion in the first quarter. Mortgage debt grew 11.1 percent in the second quarter compared to 13.1 percent in the first quarter.


The total level of non-financial debt outstanding at the end of the second quarter was $23.220 trillion, in seasonally adjusted terms.

[StoveBolt]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
[B]US household wealth swells to record in 2nd qtr--Fed

Much of the in