The interesting fact is that the Republican strategy to paint Kerry as a flip flopper is working. My point of view is that all politicians flip flop. Kerry, Bush, Cheney. I'll go one step further. All people flip flop. Me, you, and so on. We all change our mind.

I also think it is fruitless to try and point out to someone like Rimnoj examples of Bush changing his mind or flip flopping. It is clear that he is on the extreme far right, and these people will never flip flop.

All that said, I really wish that Bush would flip flop more. Admitting and learning from one's mistakes is part of life and evolving as a person. Unfortunately, Bush believes that admitting your mistakes is a sign of weakness.

Bush “flipped flopped” on the steel tariffs!! I did mention that. I guess I was weak!
“He is not above compromising on issues. He was forced to adapt to the tariff mess.”
I was more polite, however.

He enforced them first, and I loved it. The Chinese and Koreans then refused to send any of our scrap steel back to us as tube/sheet.
WE do not have the refining capacity to keep up with domestic demand. Steel prices have risen dramatically!
I hate that! China is getting all the steel for the dam. Korea stiffened with us as China is hungry.

Bush then rescinded the tariff. It hasn’t helped yet. This took place over months.

Kerry has said that he supported the tariffs, but said he would not bring them back, in the same sentence. I am not clear on the meaning here. Does he agree with Bush's policy? The world is a dynamic place, but in the same sentence?

And, How in the world is going from Afghanistan and on to Iraq a shift in policy?

“My personal belief is that Bush views US casualties as acceptable collateral damage in the war to keep up oil prices, but that's just my view, not John Kerry's. “

Why do we want to keep oil prices up? U.S. interests do not benefit from the inflated crude barrel price, I believe. We do not have enough domestic refineries, they run at full capacity all of the time, the shortage hurts them. We could ditch the exotic blends to save costs, which would piss off the green’s, but why aren’t they happy with the high prices?
Seriously, you guys accuse me of being hard right and not listening, and yet I see the similar actions in you.
I can cite dozens of “unclear” Kerry statements as in above,(tariffs), but I am sure it would be pointless.

"U.S. interests do not benefit from the inflated crude barrel price ..." No, you're quite right. This, and the war, benefits an oligarchy (of which you and I are not a part). This administration is not of the people, by the people, for the people, don't you know.

Clinton got racked over the coals for getting a blowjob, but when Bush fucks the whole country, the right-wingers praise him up and down. What's up with that?

Rimnoj said:
"Baa Baaaa Baaa Baaa...Polly want a cracker"
In other words, he mostly regurgitated far right talking points and parroted the Bush attack machine. It's colorful with quaint picket fence imagery but lacking in supporting evidence and hypocritical in it's tortured explanation of why Bush reverses himself. Also typical is his attack of sources with feeble attempts at refuting their points. You'll notice he rarely offers his own sources.

Explorer said:
I would assert that changing the nation's policy from a search for Bin Laden to ousting Saddam Hussein was a policy shift of disasterous proportions, which is now virtually admitted by the Bush Administration as they struggle with preventing a terrorist act on US soil later this year

Although many Republicans in Congress and across the country will admit Iraq War mistakes, the Bush Administration itself will not. Hell, Bush can't even remember any mistakes he's made since 9/11 (or he's lying). See Whitehouse.gov April 13 Transcript ... Here are some suggestions for him: 100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From

My personal belief is that Bush views US casualties as acceptable collateral damage in the war to keep up oil prices, but that's just my view, not John Kerry's.

I obviously have a negative opinion of Bush, but I don't think Bush is as evil as trading US soldiers for higher oil prices. My personal opinion is that Bush oversimplifies things, or more likely his advisors dumb down policy summaries for him, and Bush lacks both the curiosity necessary to question the sources and the ability to fully comprehend potential consequences. The Bush Administration is really a Cheney/Rumsfield/Ashcroft Administration with "Incurious George" masquerading as the person in charge, telling jokes and "speaking straight" (i.e. "the Dummies Guide version").

Tjuncle....before for you determine I am ignorant check out most all the polls and specically the one that ask for the approval of Bush's handling of the War since the release of Mooore's movie. All I did was point out that Bush's aprroval rating in most polls for handling the War in Iraq has improved since Moore's movie was released.

I didn't say how much.....but to me that show me that Michael Moore's opionion is far overrated on the effect on the American people regardless of the shameless effort of the libel media to use the movie as propaganda and ignore the fact that the movie is mostly a product of Moore's imagination.

Thanks Rimnoj for the Harris poll which is saying basically 76% believe Bush over Moore when it comes to what is actually happening in Iraq.

Wombat said-
"This administration....is not of the people, by the people, for the people, don't you know."

So a John Kerry administration will be.... so you hope. He has just said that in a reference to a gathering of Hollywood celebritries that they are the "heart of America" and they refuse to to release footage of that gathering. The Democratic convention has not one African American scheduled to speak and one woman is scheduled to speak. Where is the liberal media protesting that.....if it were the Republicans there would be an outrage.

Thanks Rimnoj for the Harris poll which is saying basically 76% believe Bush over Moore when it comes to what is actually happening in Iraq.

You are too funny.

I wrote the following but declined to post it earlier because Rimnoj's characteristically fragmented and vague style left him enough wiggle room to later claim he was making a point about the source of the poll. But since it appears that you didn't read what Rimnoj linked to either, here it is...

What an amusing website you've linked to. I especially like the part where I scoll down to see the conservative "freepers" getting wet about how they've skewed the Harris poll in their favor. Apparently it's relatively easy to cast multiple votes. I can imagine the freep sheep pounding away...

If you Google search for Fahrenheit polls, you'll find that there are not many that pose that specific question, but with the exception of the one that was "Freeped" (poll bombed by Free Republic members), they show different results. The most comprehensive one I could find, and not poll-bombed, was eMediawire's at www.e-focusgroups.com/farenheit911results.htm.

The most positive result of the poll is the following IMHO:
"As a result of seeing Farenheit 911, I am more likely to seek out additional information on the issues and candidates...True 71.87%"

"As a result of the seeing Farenheit 911, I am more likely to seek out additional information on the issues and canidates.....True 71.87% Let's see probaly 80% plus of the people who saw the movie are liberals supporting the liberal media propaganda and have been seen that the movie is mostly made up crap that tries to reflect how bad America is! I think most Ameicans even the liberals don't believe America is that bad. That may be the reason they are more likely to seek out additional information on the issues and canidates.

You want to blame Bush for everything but where was Congress including Kerry who was voting to authorize the use of force.... based not only information provided by the CIA but almost every othe intellegence agency in the World that Saddam had or was trying to aquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. And with Saddam's continued insistenced to not allow inspections or questioning of scientist from Iraq.

No, Bush never flop-flops, he just plain flat-out lies. In order to flip-flop you must have a cognizant view of the issue in which you change your mind. In Bush's case he doesn't have a cognitive view of the issues, but instead tells people what they want to hear and then does the exact opposite.

We have all been exposed to the feckless manner of his foreign policies, the iraqi war debacle,the policies on terrorism that have effectivly gutted rights we though were held sacred by the US constitution, and above all his willful intransigence when faces with opposing facts. His absolute refusal to admit he's wrong in the face of the truth, make his leadership dangerous for the country.

But let's look at a few of his skillful articulation (LOL) of a campaign pledge, or promise, and what he really did do.


Subject: Fiscal responsibility

Bush Quote
One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility. 9/16/02

Bush Action
Less than 6 months after this pronouncement, Bush proposed a budget that would put the government more than $800 billion into deficit. As National Journal noted on 2/12/02, Bush own 2004 budget tables show that without Bush tax and budgetary proposals, the deficit deficit would decline after 2006, but with Bush proposals the deficit would grow indefinitely.

Subject: Education (No child left behind)

Bush Quote
This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform. Bush, 1/8/03

Bush Action:

The President 2003 budget the first education budget after he signed and touted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush's 2004 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation.

Subject: Veterans

Bush Quote:

Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way. Bush, 1/17/03

Bush Action:

Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].

Subject Childrens Hospitals

Bush Quote:
This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs,all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01

Bush Action:

Bush first budget proposed cutting grants to children hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children hospitals.



I know this is sorta like beating a dead horse, but the veracity of the Bush Administrations has really brought to attention the term coined by the media during the Nixon Years. If the term " Credibility Gap" means anything to you, you can rest assure that Bush's credibility make his tag as one who doesn't flip-flop, but who stands with firm intetions merely laughable if it were not so damning.


OG

Please don't confuse "flip-flopping" with correcting/adapting views to new data. A lot of people thought there were WMDs - there weren't. So, if you now say "we were wrong, we shouldn't have done it" how the hell is that flip-flopping? That's just owning up to the truth and moving forward. It's called being smart. I'll take it any day over head-in-the-sand fucknuts who make a blanket statement that turns out to be completely erronious or false and then try to stick with it.

What did Bush say in reply to a question a few weeks ago, after the 9/ll commission said that Saddam was not involved with Al Queda? Bush's reply was basically "we believe he was, because he was" and then offers up incorrect evidence that had already been refuted either in testamony or by statements from his own people.

Fucking idiots.

Cat -
There is more evidence coming out daily loosely connecting Al Queda to Iraq. I don’t think it matters. It is still not to say Sadam knew anything of the towers.
The 911 report you cite was not an official briefing, just a select misinterpretation leaked early from partisans on the committee.
I don’t care for “flip flop” either. I did cite “adapt to”. My main concern with kerry is that he will give two directions in a single speech, or plainly say one direction while voting another. We need clarity.

OG
“but instead tells people what they want to hear and then does the exact opposite.”
Sadly, you could easily paste nearly anyone’s name in the beginning of your statement.

The federal budget is out of control. Aside from spending the tax cuts three or four ways, how is kerry going to correct this? BTW, history has shown us, and once again, the tax cuts have increased revenues.

Throwing money at the schools will not help. Holding schools and teachers accountable will. The capitalist system and the competition it breeds is what has made the U.S. great. It can make our schools great as well. Kerry will continue to be led around by the pathetic teacher’s union.

The access to health care in the military point is a stretch. The care dropped was redundant coverage. The money is being spent in a better way. We’re not going without, but, the V.A. system is not well liked. Most of us would submit this is an example of our government running a health care system! Kerry would bring this system to us all at tremendous expense and waste!
It’s Kerry who wants universal healthcare, proposes lifting the ban on immigrants with aids.( 40 million of them) Great. This is, of course, after voting to continue the ban.

Neither Kerry or Edwards have ever run, let alone governed, anything.
They have absolutely no experience in the field for which they seek employment.

Rimsomething says:

"Neither Kerry or Edwards have ever run, let alone governed, anything.
They have absolutely no experience in the field for which they seek employment. "

Does this mean that in 1988 you voted for the Governor of Massacusetts vs the Vice-President?

Rimsomething actually managed 1 stupid remark PLUS 1 lie in one small paragraph:

"The federal budget is out of control. Aside from spending the tax cuts three or four ways, how is kerry going to correct this? "


This is a no-brainer, he's not going to submit budgets that run up deficits of the size that Bush has. The day after the election, Kerry will announce that the deficits are problematic and his first budget will slash all the pork that Bush has incorporated in his budget (like the $1 trillion Mars mission).

"BTW, history has shown us, and once again, the tax cuts have increased revenues. "

This is a lie. Ronald Reagan increased taxes 3 times after his initial tax cut since the cuts results in too little tax revenue (and too high deficits). Ironically, Ronald Reagan raised taxes more in those three increases than any prior or subsequent president.

Not that FOX News would ever tell you that.

Rimnoj,

Since you are on this board, I have to ask, where have you hobbied outside the US? What are your views on prostitution?

The fact is that most people here at Club Hombre are PRO prostitution. Unfortunately, this position falls more congruently with the Democratic platform than the Republican, no?

"Does this mean that in 1988 you voted for the Governor of Massachusetts vs the Vice-President?"
"This is a no-brainer"! Thanks for that.

Hmm, Vice president Bush.. lets see. Besides being VICE PRESIDENT, Honored WWII veteran pilot, Congressman, Ambassador to the U.N., Chairman of the R.N.C., and director of the CIA., I guess it was just that “R” next to his name.

Massachusetts will apparently elect any fucking buddy. Dukakis had no experience to be Governor, and left the state as fucked up as he found it.
They deserved him, the rest of the country did not. Nor do we deserve Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. I wonder which side Mass would fight on in English war ships returned?

>>>I wonder which side Mass would fight on in English war ships returned?<<<

Well, finally Rimmer has made a convincing argument. Can we now all agree he is the winner?

Bluestraveller,
Like Gov. Arnold has said, "I have a favorite grocery store, but I don't buy everything in it"

I am not a religious person, outside of references in our US constitution and my oath the Corps.
I am "pro" abortion, not just pro choice.
I honestly like and respect most of my gay customers, clients, friends and teammates.
I would suggest the right is just as hip to the hobby as anyone. I wish I had the tail Strom Thurmond did as a Southern fat cat! Hypocrisy? Of course.

I am sure the Dems. are just as guilty, and I don't plan see it on the platform next month!

I visit Canada several times a year. I live in AZ, and make many trips south, as well as TJ and the smaller locals. Posts? All under other names in the past. I was never long on this site.
Since early 02 my normal life has been disrupted. Can’t say I have “hobbied” as defined here much in Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq or the Philippines, but I sure as hell have “mongerd”.

Ex said
"Kerry will announce that the deficits are problematic... "

And raise our taxes.
He isn't going to cut anything out, this seldom ever happens.
The Mars mission is not funded to any extent.

(Message edited by rimnoj on July 15, 2004)

“BTW, history has shown us, and once again, the tax cuts have increased revenues. "

“This is a lie.”


Of course, it could be my source.

"Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers.
Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis"

U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

What the hell is the US Congress Joint Economic Committee?

And as far as the other drivel:

Rimsomething said that Kerry/Edwards were inferior to Bush/Cheney because they never ran anything, let alone governed, so I gave an example where a Democrat Governor ran against a Republican who never governed, and, of course, Rimsomething then went off on vilifying some state rather than defending his position.

As for the Mars program, funding for FY '05 is about $500 Million in the Bush budget. If you don't think that is significant, you really must be a Republican.

As a former government economist, for Bush I nonetheless, and a Republican at the time, I can say without a doubt that the Laffer Curve (increase collections by reducing taxes, which increases purchasing power which increases collections) is complete fucking nonsense. That hasn't presented the Reagan asspounders and the Bushies from believing in it. The theory is somewhat sound if you're in a high-tax situation where, say, the tax rate is 75% so people just do cash/gray market operations and never pay them. You reduce that rate to something like 40% and people decide they'll go ahead and pay, since at that point the risk/reward (not paying taxes vs. getting caught) is negative. In that case, all the new tax receipts could be attributed to lowering the rates.

However, reducing the rate from 38% to 36% just reduces collections. Add on the fact that federal spending, in both raw percentage and inflation-adjusted percentage, has risen at double the rate under Bush as under Clinton or Bush I, and it adds up to basic Reagonomics - make short-term friends by cutting taxes and raising spending, which creates massive deficits that five years later you have to raise taxes to cover.

Rimjob

>>“but instead tells people what they want to hear and then does the exact opposite.” Sadly, you could easily paste nearly anyone’s name in the beginning of your statement.

Perhaps, but only one is the President of the United States and he must be held accountable to a higher standard. "everyone else does it" just doesn't cut it.

>>The federal budget is out of control. Aside from spending the tax cuts three or four ways, how is kerry going to correct this?

Oh Gee, I don't know. How about NOT GOING TO WAR!, and spending, what is now close to 150 Billion dollarsand growing, on a country that will be an Islamic Republic inside of 5-6 years.

>> BTW, history has shown us, and once again, the tax cuts have increased revenues.

No, tax cuts have not, or will not, increased revenues. it will, however, reduce the cost of overhead in business, but lower interest rates would do that too. Do not confuse the mechanics of the "trickle down" economic theory with that of simplified propaganda that the Bush administration is fond of feeding us.

>>Throwing money at the schools will not help.

But paying a competitive wage to a teacher will. Building and maintaining school infrastructure will and educational programs with a real track record of success will. These all require money.

>>>Holding schools and teachers accountable will. The capitalist system and the competition it breeds is what has made the U.S. great. It can make our schools great as well.

Well how about if we let many of the business/corporations fund education like many of the socialist countries like Sweden do. They have a higher education standard, higher graduation rate per capita AND a higher standard of living than the U.S.

>>Kerry will continue to be led around by the pathetic teacher’s union.

These teacher unions have been branded a a "terrorist organizations" by the boob that is Bush's Secratary of Education. He has been asked to step down not only by the teacher unions, but by every educational institution in the U.S., most of the U.S. Congress and many of Bush's political allies. Yet Bush has insisted on keeping him on. The only real threat to education is the Bush administration.

>>The access to health care in the military point is a stretch. The care dropped was redundant coverage.

No the money was saved by EXCLUDING certain vets and EXCLUDING certain services to certain classes of Veterans.

>>The money is being spent in a better way.

What is a better way than NOT spending it on vets.???

>>We’re not going without,

Tell that to the vets who ARE going without.

>>but, the V.A. system is not well liked.

The V.A. has been a whipping boy to all conservatives. They placate many of the vets by patriotic themes and the turn and cut services. No the only thing that is disliked by the vets right now is the Bush administration!!

>>Most of us would submit this is an example of our government running a health care system!

When your country asks you to go to war, to possibly lay down your life or suffer great personal injury, YOU BETTER DAMN WELL PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE. What a boob, who do you think should pay??? Put them on a HMO. That is the most insensitive and inane comment I've seen on this board. The veterans and our men=mbers of the armed services deserve more than substandard care. They entered into a social contract with the US and now the US has failed to live up to its responsibilities.

>>Kerry would bring this system to us all at tremendous expense and waste!

>>I see no more expense and waste than what has been provided by the current administration. I would support Health care over a Iraqi war in a heartbeat, and so would apperently most of the U.S.

>>It’s Kerry who wants universal healthcare, proposes lifting the ban on immigrants with aids.( 40 million of them) Great.

This shows how really ignorant you are. The US currently reject all visas, not just applications for residency, for those who have HIV which you probably do not know, is NOT aids.
As a result people cannot travel to this country to recieve treatment even though we posess the best treatment and facilities for this in the world. World conferences on aids, on HIV and resultant treatments are not held in the US because of this policy (It is not a law)


>>This is, of course, after voting to continue the ban.

The vote was for a compendium of legislation, much of it was for "wasteful spending". Please be more careful in your generalizations.

>>Neither Kerry or Edwards have ever run, let alone governed, anything.

And just what has Bush governed. He left Texas with the lowest education spending/graduation rate in the states, the greatest increase in pollution and the biggest deficits in the States history. And now he wants to do that with the US.

>>They have absolutely no experience in the field for which they seek employment.

>>You denigrate the US Senate in which John Kerry and John Edwards have served for many years. Bush's sole experience was as a very poor governor, an awol aviator, a failed businessman and a rich spoiled kid. Good credentials if your from Texas I suppose, but I expect more from the leader of the free world.


OG

Rimn,

Have you read the book the Davinci Code by Dan Brown? It is a known fact that Jesus hung out with prostitutes. The book postulates that Jesus actually had a bastard child from Mary Magdalene, and that this lineage went on to do many great things. One of Jesus's offspring was Leonardo Davinci.

I don't want to give away the plot but I bring this up because I don't understand how the Christian right can rail against prostitution, when this is not what Jesus did. He did not rail against them, he embraced them as his friends, at the very least. Why does the Republican party try so hard to create second class citizens to people such as prostitutes and gays?

BT,

Awesome Book.

Bluestraveller asked:
"Have you read the book the Davinci Code by Dan Brown? "

A girlfiend just gave me the story at dinner.
I reminded her she found it in the fiction section!

Which is not to say I believe anything in the Bible either. I have no idea why Christians (as I was raised) are so hypocritical on this.
I recall something about "casting seed in the belly of a whore" being preferable to masturbating. I would agree with that!

Speaking of the Christian right, I don't imagine many of you konw that once-upon-a-time Catholic priests had wives, popes had what could easily be described as harems, and convents made some extra money by ... um ... well, let's just say that when Hamlet told Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery" it was not to sequester from men.

Rimnoj, Beachman, sorry if you guys are feeling a bit like Daniel in the lions' den. While I disagree with you and am unswayed by your arguments, I give you guys full credit for fightin' back (and it's been a damn amusing debate). Just don't take it all personally 'cause don't forget that 'round here hombres are lovers, not fighters.

BT,
Sorry, I missed/avoided your true question.
I can not defend the party on this. I thought I explained myself earlier on this one.

The prostitution issue is not a federal one. Am I over looking something? Policy is enforced on a local level.

Here in AZ we have a..., let's just say, -"ultra left wing, doesn't "like" the thought of God, has sex with her kind type", -yet the Phoenix area had been under siege in all faucets of the hobby. True, it is the Sherrif’s office (he is a republican , I believe) doing much of the dirty work, but it shows how the higher up offices lack control. It also doesn't explain the local force's actions.

I never have understood party affiliations in law enforcement anyway.

(Message edited by rimnoj on July 16, 2004)

Ex,

I was pretty clear on the qualifications for President thing. Mass. has a weak history in National Politics lately.

“The proposed funding for the new exploration initiative will total $12 billion over the next five years, with much of it coming from reallocation of $11 billion within NASA's current five-year budget. The president called on Congress to increase the agency's budget by roughly $1 billion spread over the next five years”

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html

If they dumped half that the first year, fine. Thanks for the clarification.
I personally love NASA. My size kept me from the program. And NO, they could find a helmet big enough, it’s just those hatches.

Catocony said:

"can say without a doubt that the Laugher Curve (increase collections by reducing taxes, which increases purchasing power which increases collections) is complete fucking nonsense."

MY post and referral mentions many more factors than the Laffer Curve.

As an economist, you have surely heard you can get six different opinions from three different economists, and they all can be right. The revenue numbers are there, but then, there is that saying about statistics as well.

I don't want to argue economic theory any more than religion. It is not possible or my will to change any minds on these topics.

“What the hell is the US Congress Joint Economic Committee? “

http://www.house.gov/jec/

OG, buddy, You said:

"everyone else does it" just doesn't cut it. “
Unless they want to be president

"Oh Gee, I don't know. How about NOT GOING TO WAR!"
But kerry voted to go. Edwards said plainly he’d go “alone”. When you have a real job , where you really enact stuff, you are held accountable for your decisions.

“Well how about if we let many of the business/corporations fund education “
You mean like in the voucher system bush has proposed? I hope you take time to re-evaluate your position on our school system.

“When your country asks you to go to war, to possibly lay down your life or suffer great personal injury, YOU BETTER DAMN WELL PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE. What a boob,....”
This shows how really ignorant you are. (I borrowed that, thanks)

“This shows how really ignorant you are. The US currently reject all visas, not just applications for residency, for those who have HIV which you probably do not know, is NOT aids.
As a result people cannot travel to this country to recieve treatment even though we posess the best treatment and facilities for this in the world. World conferences on aids, on HIV and resultant treatments are not held in the US because of this policy (It is not a law) “


That does not change what I said. BTW, how is it we have the best health care? Something to do with our private system?
May I suggest:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&u=/afp/20040710/ts_alt_afp/us_vote&printer=1

The meat of the story for those that don’t want to chase links.
OG, respectively, please note “aids” and “immigration” in this story

“WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry promised to lift a ban on immigration to the United Stated by people with AIDS and vowed to double US assistance to a worldwide campaign to combat the deadly and contagious disease. “

Your entire response spins you in circles. You disagree, fine, but I can’t see how you believe you made a point. I guess we have too much time to waste.

I suppose you believe you understand veteran issues better than I. Fine again. I have met a few folks like you in the service, as I have met people on welfare who complain they don’t get enough. I have met those who work for some pretty good companies and still have complaints. In my business I like when then guy on the other side is whining.

Rimnoj writes "The 911 report you cite was not an official briefing, just a select misinterpretation leaked early from partisans on the committee."

The misinterpretation is yours only. The preliminary findings of the 9/11 commission staff report were not leaked but simply released and confirmed by the spokesman for the commission. Their final report is due out any day and is expected to confirm the info already divulged. The report is expected to document the contacts that Saddam Hussein had with Al Qaeda but these contacts do not amount to the relationship that the Bush administration alleged.

Rim,

You have not refuted any of my arguments or statements. All you seem to do is iterate how Kerry would (according to the Bush hit squad) do if he were president.

You seem to want to blame Kerry for ills caused by Bush. Kerry may have voted for the war in Iraq, but he did so, as well as many others based on falsified information presented to them by the Bush administration. Kerry did not get us into the war, Bush and the neo-cons did.

Since Bush has been in office we have been the target of one of the lagest terrorist attacks this country has ever seen and was, according to even his own staffers, largely the result of the administrations lack of understanding of the problem and lack of action and attention in office.

We have seen the Bush administration take a budget surplus and transform it into one of the largest debts and fiscal deficits this country has seen since the Second World War, one that will take, according to most economists, at least 10-15 years to recover from. The interest alone that this country will be paying could fund ALL the liberal social programs you could think of and then some, or provide enough money to fund the whole Defense budget for several years. According to the administration, the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and provide upward of 4-5 million jobs. This estimate has been off by a magnitude of about 70 percent. Instead most of the tax cuts benefited those in the top 5 percent of the tax bracket.

Those paltry middle class "refunds" were promptly eaten up by a 20 percent increase in the price of fuel over the last year.

Are you better off than you were four years ago. Unless your rich, probably not.

There is no way Kerry could do any worse than Bush and in many ways is primed to do a whole lot better.

The fact that this is an "extreme" administration is just starting to take hold in the mainstream media and now the general public. Micheal Moore's movie castigated as liberal propaganda by the right has captured the imagination of the public as it forces us to think for ourselves instead of the pap that is spoon fed to us by the rightwing spin-miesters.

You seem to parrot the same old tired rhetoric we get daily from the Bushies. Dig a little deeper read a little more and don't watch so much Fox News and you'll find a whole new world.

Michael Moore has probably caused more people to question the status quo, to look at thing in another perspective than any other politician in a month of Sundays.

Much like Neo taking the red pill and seeing things for what they really are, Micheal Moore has succeded in even waking up the Blue pill people.

I can only urge you to take the red pill and wake up.

OG

This is how Kerry is going to fix it if he is elected. First he is going to have us all marry millionaries and then divorce them......then he will have us all marry billonaires. Of course the majority of our billionaire wives company factories are offshore. And then John Edwards....the lawyer joks we won't get into......but the majority of his investments are in invested with companies overseas.....but that will all come out in the future.


The wealthy liberals.......Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and the Hollywood liberal elite. If they think taxes are so unfair why aren't they donating the difference of their wealth of what they think the fair tax should be and not taking a tax benifit for it.

Orgngrndr: I think it is unfair to even say Kerry voted for the war. He voted for a bill authorizing Bush to go to war IF Bush concluded at sometime after the vote was cast it was necessary to do so. Had the bill been defeated, Bush would have lost all leverage he had to get Saddam to comply with our demands, and I'm sure that contributed to Kerry's and a number of other Senators' votes. Therefore, looking at things the way they were when the vote was taken, I don't think Kerry's vote should be viewed as a terrible thing (which is not to say your post suggests it should be). OTOH, looking at it in retrospect it now appears we would be better off if the bill had not passed; then again, votes aren't cast in retrospect.

Looks like nobody disagrees.....the liberal elite live one lifestyle that that were borned into or married into and practice the very sins they accuse the Republicans of doing.


What jobs do they do besides living off the goverment or marring or being born into wealth......Clinton never had a real job,.....Kennedy the DWI murderer......Kerry with the exception of his military service.......has married into wealth not once.... but twice. Edwards.....we all know about blood sucking lawyers. We all know Congressmen and Senators live off the goverment more than anyone.

Beachman, do you have any original Ideas? Or do you just recite the Laura Ingram and Rush Limbaugh show from the previous day?

Are Democrats the only wealthy politicians? This is news to me , I Agree there is a ruling elite ,but its not only Dems, 95% of all politicians are corrupt ,they dont serve anyone except those who can afford to make hefty contributions.

I wouldn't assume non-responses to a ridiculous post to be agreement with those silly examples.

"This is how Kerry is going to fix it if he is elected. First he is going to have us all marry millionaries and then divorce them......then he will have us all marry billonaires."

Let's see a quote by Kerry of this proposal. If you are making up outrageous fictional examples because you can't come up with intelligent points of actual policy differences, then why should anyone take you seriously?

I think it's hilarious that some people fall for the "liberal elite" attacks.

From Mouse Words blog
"...But the real danger of the deliberate attempts to make the word "elite" an ambigious tool for atttacking liberals is that it mostly functions to devalue education. After all, what, besides taste, is the sure-fire way for a conservative attack dog to label a liberal "elite"? Well, you point out how well-educated that person is and then imply that book-larnin' causes the common sense wires to trip. You know, what elite educated types call "creating a false dichotomy".

You see the right working this false dichotomy like a mofo right now. The Shrub and Kerry are both Yale-educated rich boys. But one of them treated his education like it was a drag and the other took it seriously. So the Shrub gets to run around claiming he's one of us and Kerry's not because, apparently, the Shrub is a two-bit moron and Kerry can speak French. What amazes me is that the whole "I'm a two-bit moron just like y'all" thing actually works. Aren't people insulted? I guess the word "elite" really does trip people up.

It is a great benefit to the actual elite, the Lear jet, Lincoln bedroom, Enron-owning crowd, to convince the proletarite that education is a bad thing that scrubs your common sense out of you..."

Repeating bullshit won't make it true, any more than repeating truth makes it false. I can't imagine what it will take for you libs to dump your loser icons and move on.

Still, Kerry has not proved he can cut it in the "real" world.

He has proven to make some pretty fucked up decisions. Sandy Berger is looking good now, Not just "ex Clinton" security adviser, but Kerry's man as well. I am surprised he didn't say he needed the lost papers to wipe his ass cause Bush didn't replace the roll!

Can you imagine if Condie Rice did this?

Add that to the broad on the commission that disjointed the FBI and CIA communications and we have more than just a hint at what ails our country.

Thank goodness Kerry's taking a break these days, undoubtedly working on a revision of his botox use denial.



(Message edited by rimnoj on July 20, 2004)

The latest 911 commission "leak" of news on Iran is not news at all.
"Axis of Evil" I believe some guy called them. Next time we are hit at home everybodys going to be hollering about smacking them down. The cake is in the oven now!

The real reason for the leak is to shift news away from what is to come. Maybe it was the Berger story, but I think it should be Al Gore's mishandling of security in the airline industry.
He didn't want to enforce anti-highjacking measures back in 98 after the industry, with large accompanying donations, complained of the impact on their costs.
All this after Senate recommendations.

The full report will not be kind to Clinton's people, or anybody really, but all the left will see is what they can distort and fling at Bush.

Hey Beachman, how about all those insanely wealthy Republicans who preach 'freedom of choice' for everyone when the practical results of their proposals inevitably end up in more money for the rich and less for the rest of us?

There are wealthy people in both parties. Get over it. If you want to complain, complain about the poor people who vote Republican.

Complain about the fact that we allow these assholes to turn our democracy into a fucking cash and carry government

I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.....he has taken the playbook of the Democratic party and use it and turned many Americans into sheep when it comes to politics.

All of you who want to bitch and moan about Bush and how he ignores the constitution and all your "rights are going to hell"

Just rememeber the first and most important point in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution is to "provide for the common defense" The Patriots who wrote and voted on the constitution understood that without a strong defense and the courage to use it when needed.....the rest of the constitution would be useless and worthless.

In World War II Roosevelt took all kinds of measures that ingnored the constitution.

Bush took the Patriot Act to Congress where it was passed with flying colors. Now the Democrats claim they didn't read it before they voted for it. Sound familair......They voted to authorize the use of force on Iraq...... and seperatly also voted to fund the War in Iraq......but they now claim thaey didn't fully understand what they where voting on....that they were given't false intelligience. Both how could that happen.....both Kerry and Edwards are on the Senate Intelligiece Commitee.. They accuse Bush of rushing into War before he had the facts ....but they are voting and supporting Bush even before they read what they were voting on. And then later ....they want to flip flop because they claim they now have read what they voted on and want to change their minds. The fact of the matter is that both Kerry and Edwards have been so occupied with their ambitions for the presidency .....that they have been broken their oaths to defend and protect the constitution by not peforming their duties they swore they would do.

If they were doing their job.....as the constitution provides with checks and balances......and with their postions on the Senate Intelligience Comittee. They would have questioned Bush's motives and intelligience information long before it was ever sent to, voted on, and approve by the Congress. But Kerry and Edwards were far more interested in their own ambitions than looking out for the American people in doing their jobs as Senators as they claim they will do if they are elected. Where is outrage for accountablity for not doing their jobs.

I am outraged, none of them ,democrat or republican do their jobs ,the fact is you couldnt vote no to go to war , or vote against the patriot act, at that time we were all mourning and calling for blood. But after you make one mistake and than try to correct it thats not flip-flopping ,bush tries to say that everyone was misled by bad intelligence and that democrats dont support the troops if they didnt vote to give haliburton, and General Electric a blank check , after they voted originaly to go to war. The military should be public and not for profit. bottom line

One mistake.....how about voting to authorize force and then seperately voting to fund the war. That is just two mistakes among that list to long to list Kerry has made.

This is the John Kerry who came back from Vietnam and passionatly spoke out about how wrong the War was and the that we should never had been there . What happen to his convictions of never going to a War again that wasn't justified. Like I said and you just pointed out.....he became one of the sheep and didn't have the conviction to vote against the War. Or.....maybe with his position on thwe Senate Intelligiece Comittee he saw, agreed with, never challenged the same information Bush recieved and decided and voted that Saddam was a threat to America.

BTW.....did you see hardball last night were Senator Graham ( Democrat Florida)who is on the Senate Intelligience Commitee was ask point blank if there were any other countries besides Iran who had the 911 terrorists in their country before 9\11. His answer was he was not at liberty to answer that question. Sounds like the same answer Cheney gave the 9/11 Commission.

Beachie:

Your analysis of the Kerry votes is very simplistic, although the actual context of the votes was very complex. Kerry had a choice of voting against a resolution that was not a war resolution, but rather gave Bush the backstop of military force if everything else failed. Bush chose war as the first option. Had Kerry voted against the resolution, you would have claimed that he supported Saddam Hussein. The Republicans control the Senate and crafted a resolution that was designed to create this choice, please do not desnigrate Kerry for having to deal with this situation.


Please don't play politics in our politics discussions.

I would say we have Constitution that has checks and balances and the overwelming majority gave President Bush the authority to use force. Don't give me this crap that I would have said Kerry supported Saddam.

After all of what has been said about the Vietnam War of how it divided our country and we would never let a President take us to War unless it was justified. That is what the Constitution says the job of the Congrss is....to check and balance the power of the President. But they overwelmingly not only believed the intelligience that Bush had presented them....they also had no indication from the Senate Intelliegence Commitee that both Kerry and Edward are members the intelliegence being presented to them and the U.N. was false.

If the American should be upset with anyone ....it should be first with the United States Congress fail to uphold the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. And second it should be the Media who fail to report and educated to the American public that Congress fails much more than the President......to perform its dutities and responsibilities to the American people.

It is much easier to blame one person (The president)....than 535 members. This has been true for decades and with Congress being reelected at 96% plus rate they are immune to being made held accountable for performing their duties. The Constitution provides for equal branches of power.....there certainly has not been equal responsibiity for blame.

"... we would never let a President take us to War unless it was justified"

Huh? You mean Congress approved Vietnam? What about Laos? You mean Congress approved Panama and Grenada? Of course, you can always go to war by proxy -- even when Congress strictly forbids you from doing so -- remember when the US funded the overthrow of the fairly elected Nicaragua government?

Presidents (particularly Right-Wing presidents) have never been troubled over accountablility when it comes to going to war ... it's just business.

Do you honestly believe that the Iraq war was justified? Notwithstanding the fact that Saddam was a bad man (there are plenty of those out there), that he treated his people poorly (which is none of our business, besides which, there are plenty of countries just as bad), that he was trying to get nuclear weapons (there are plenty of those, too), that he supported terrorists (just like Bush's good pals, the Saudis), do you really believe the invasion of Iraq, and all the repercussions we knew we'd encounter, was justified?

Don't forget the Dems did Kosovo with minimal Congressional support. Presidents like the occasional war, it helps their ratings.

I think we should have gone after North Korea, but Bush doesn't have the balls.