PDA

View Full Version : To Kerry supporters



Justme
4th March 04, 07:11 AM
What do you see has effective in Kerry's proposals for the economy? How is his plan going to better the creation of jobs, and stabilize the economy? How is he going to make your life better?

CaptShady
4th March 04, 09:03 AM
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=246137#post246137

kismasher
4th March 04, 09:06 AM
Some user names are more revealing than others...

kismasher
4th March 04, 09:11 AM
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/index.html

Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry’s priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.

The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

John Kerry has a plan to secure America’s economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare. He isn’t afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.

KhorneliusPraxx
4th March 04, 09:39 AM
If asked to claim a party affiliation I would have to say Libertarian.
If, however, you believe we live in a two party system and those are my only choices, I say Republican.
My most important concern when it comes to voting is to keep all Democrates out of power. I hope John Kerry gets crushed in an embarrasing defeat. Unfortunately, it will be close like last time. I mean.....GORE.....what were you people thinking.

CaptShady
4th March 04, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by kismasher
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/index.html

Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry’s priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.



What crap. "Tax cuts" for the wealthy is a catch phrase of all democratic politicians, and it's bullshit. The rest of that paragraph is crap too, added in an attempt to get an emotional reaction.


Originally posted by kismasher
The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.


"Lost under George Bush" ? Why is it that whenever Democrats take office, and things are pure shit, they blame the president before them? Notice the economy started going into the sewer while Clinton was still in office, and Greenspan was lowering interest rates before Clinton left in an attempt to revive the economy. I think it would have worked had it not been for 9-11 .. the TRUE cause of our economic problems, similar to the stock market crash that started the great depression. "Layoffs in Education" is bullshit too .. it's NOT happening.


Originally posted by kismasher
John Kerry has a plan to secure America’s economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare. He isn’t afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.

Whoa, there it is again! "Tax cuts for the wealthy"! He sure likes that phrase, doesn't he? He probably grunts "tax cuts for the wealthy" while he's squeezin' out a shit. Is John Kerry that big of a moron that he didn't notice the redundancy of his use of this phrase, or is he trying to make his readers believe an untruth? Has anyone asked him to define the net annual salary of the "Wealthiest Americans" ? And what moron would believe that there exists a "special tax giveaway" to companies the export jobs? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard, I would like to see the actual legislation where people voted FOR giving money to corporations that export jobs. WHERE IS IT? Does John Kerry think the American public is THAT stupid, where we'd just go and believe shit, just because he said it? And I'll clue you in on something else. Taxing and punishing corporations does NOTHING but make them lay people off!! You think they'll start budgeting themselves if their income is reduced? NOPE .. they'll just cut YOUR salary to pay the extra bills, and they'll STILL get their Rolls.

Carter .. another democrat tried to tax the hell out of the rich too, with his "Luxury Tax", where he taxed the shit out of luxury cars, yachts, etc. What'd the rich do? NOT BUY THEM. The result was that ALL .. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM of the yacht manufacturers in this country went OUT of business.

FUCK Kerry!

tenguatemypuppy
4th March 04, 09:49 AM
Screw the both of them. I'm voting for Gary Nolan (http://www.garynolan.com) ...even if he does look like Andre the Libertarian Giant.

Balloonknot
4th March 04, 09:50 AM
As I've said before, I'd vote for ANYONE other than Bush! Bush is a complete fukkup as a president. Since he's been in office......

I've lost all my overtime money ($15,000 per year).
My company has had 3 rounds of layoffs (I'm just lucky so far) - another one is coming.
My company has shipped the laid off jobs to Bangledore India.
My father's medi-care drugs went up (he's retired (disabled) living on SSDI - needs heart meds). He now has to pay something like a $200.00 deductable, which is damn hard when you live off of $850.00 per month.

Wow, what a guy that Bush is, picking on the poor disabled veterans to line his greedy pockets. On top of that, he blocked (or is blocking) Americans from getting drugs from Canada and abroad at half the price so his rich fukk nut DRUG company cronnies can make even MORE Billions off the poor disabled people's money.

Come on people, WAKE THE FUKK UP!!

CaptShady
4th March 04, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
As I've said before, I'd vote for ANYONE other than Bush! Bush is a complete fukkup as a president. Since he's been in office......

I've lost all my overtime money ($15,000 per year).
My company has had 3 rounds of layoffs (I'm just lucky so far) - another one is coming.
My company has shipped the laid off jobs to Bangledore India.
My father's medi-care drugs went up (he's retired (disabled) living on SSDI - needs heart meds). He now has to pay something like a $200.00 deductable, which is damn hard when you live off of $850.00 per month.

Wow, what a guy that Bush is, picking on the poor disabled veterans to line his greedy pockets. On top of that, he blocked (or is blocking) Americans from getting drugs from Canada and abroad at half the price so his rich fukk nut DRUG company cronnies can make even MORE Billions off the poor disabled people's money.

Come on people, WAKE THE FUKK UP!!


No arguing any of this (except I still say you can't blame the economy on Bush, but on the Taliban). But increasing social welfare, or creating socialized medicine creates pure dependence on the government. A nation dependent on their government for everything is NOT a free nation. Welfare increases is stupid, people need to buck up and work for a damned living! But we do need to take care of our elderly that helped build this country, and our disabled. But if you think Kerry's the man to step up and do that, you're sorely mistaken.

Balloonknot
4th March 04, 09:58 AM
maybe not, but as i said before... my mantra is ...... anyone but bush (see other thread).

Speaking of the Taliban.... watch how Bush pulls Bin Laden out of his hat just in time for the election......

kismasher
4th March 04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by CaptShady
What crap. "Tax cuts" for the wealthy is a catch phrase of all democratic politicians, and it's bullshit. The rest of that paragraph is crap too, added in an attempt to get an emotional reaction.

>>>it's not bullshit. pull your head out of your ass. who do you think pays capital gains tax and estate taxes. how about p/r taxes as a percentage of income?


"Lost under George Bush" ? Why is it that whenever Democrats take office, and things are pure shit, they blame the president before them? Notice the economy started going into the sewer while Clinton was still in office, and Greenspan was lowering interest rates before Clinton left in an attempt to revive the economy. I think it would have worked had it not been for 9-11 .. the TRUE cause of our economic problems, similar to the stock market crash that started the great depression. "Layoffs in Education" is bullshit too .. it's NOT happening.

>>>Job loss or creation is too big of an issue to blame on a single president.

Whoa, there it is again! "Tax cuts for the wealthy"! He sure likes that phrase, doesn't he? He probably grunts "tax cuts for the wealthy" while he's squeezin' out a shit. Is John Kerry that big of a moron that he didn't notice the redundancy of his use of this phrase, or is he trying to make his readers believe an untruth? Has anyone asked him to define the net annual salary of the "Wealthiest Americans" ? And what moron would believe that there exists a "special tax giveaway" to companies the export jobs? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard, I would like to see the actual legislation where people voted FOR giving money to corporations that export jobs. WHERE IS IT? Does John Kerry think the American public is THAT stupid, where we'd just go and believe shit, just because he said it? And I'll clue you in on something else. Taxing and punishing corporations does NOTHING but make them lay people off!! You think they'll start budgeting themselves if their income is reduced? NOPE .. they'll just cut YOUR salary to pay the extra bills, and they'll STILL get their Rolls.

>>>I guess John is trying to cash in on the Bush tactic, keep lying until people start to believe you. Changes have to be made in the way big corporation do business. Tax shelter in Bermuda is the tip of the ice berg on this, IMO.

Carter .. another democrat tried to tax the hell out of the rich too, with his "Luxury Tax", where he taxed the shit out of luxury cars, yachts, etc. What'd the rich do? NOT BUY THEM. The result was that ALL .. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM of the yacht manufacturers in this country went OUT of business.

>>>Boohoo

FUCK Kerry!

>>>FUCK BUSH!

Balloonknot
4th March 04, 10:02 AM
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: Well, I don't know . . . I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people and family.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make US corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: Sorry, I didn't think I was being one. I’m just trying to understand, Daddy.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a
military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because has helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11?
A: Well, on September 11, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Isn't the Taliban the bad Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night, sweetheart. Pleasant dreams.

CaptShady
4th March 04, 10:11 AM
Information Connection: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has.... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that.... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary "Hypocrite" Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime.... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.... And now he is is calculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

KhorneliusPraxx
4th March 04, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
As I've said before, I'd vote for ANYONE other than Bush! Bush is a complete fukkup as a president. Since he's been in office......

I've lost all my overtime money ($15,000 per year).
My company has had 3 rounds of layoffs (I'm just lucky so far) - another one is coming.
My company has shipped the laid off jobs to Bangledore India.
My father's medi-care drugs went up (he's retired (disabled) living on SSDI - needs heart meds). He now has to pay something like a $200.00 deductable, which is damn hard when you live off of $850.00 per month.

I am truely sorry to hear of your recent problems. It is very easy to blame the one guy on top when we at the bottom hit a rough patch. It sounds like you already made up you mind, but I beg you to reconsider. George W. Bush is not the evil cause of everybodies problems.

I hope that between now and election day things turn around for you.

WingChun Lawyer
4th March 04, 10:16 AM
Ballonknot, I love you. Did you do this by yourself?

The Wastrel
4th March 04, 10:19 AM
Honest economists will tell you that they have no really good idea how to kickstart an already mature and developed economy with fiscal, monetary, tax and trade policy tools.

Politicians won't.

Balloonknot
4th March 04, 10:27 AM
WCL, do what? Oh the bedtime story.. no I got that off of another website

http://www.topplebush.com

WingChun Lawyer
4th March 04, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Balloonknot
WCL, do what? Oh the bedtime story.. no I got that off of another website

http://www.topplebush.com

Thanks. It is a great read.