Would this be the very same Patriot Act that Sen. Kerry voted for but now opposes?
Let's Just Roll Over like a good country - OK?
- Thread starter bikeCOLORADO
- Start date
So he voted for it. Everyone did, some are now saying that they re-evaluated the law and find it too restrictive.
In your world is it not acceptable to admit a mistake was made and try and fix the problem?
At any rate I confirmed what I susupected. When faced with a real issue that requires thought you were as impotent as usual.
There were 99 votes For... out of 100. How come he didn't oppose it at the time? Was it because it wasn't politically advantagous for him at the time?
Nice, like a parrot you said exactly what the bush campaigh has taught you to say, speak boy speak
The question in this election for me is who is lying the least... I think that Bush is a walking talking pile of lies so Im going for the lesser of the 2 :devil
Yes, it was advantagous. It's politics.
Why does Bush still support it, even though it's a crappy law?
Did you read it yet?
Why do you support it?
He voted for it because it was what "needed" to be done, but now its "election time". Of course he's going to oppose it.
Sweetness... that Kerry dude's a freekin' genius!!!
I'm like $tinkle... I'm waiting for a Kerry vs Kerry debate on TV...
Pfft, freedom is for pussies... Screw that hippy crap!
He voted for it because he caved in like 98 other senators did. So he's hardly in bad company there.
He's still a pussy. But I really don't think he can be as bad as Bush.
I noticed N8, that you haven't responded to my reasons why I don't want Bush re-elected...but you're on the Rush Limbaugh Kerry=Anti Bush platform pretty firmly, so I'm not that surprised.
He's still a pussy. But I really don't think he can be as bad as Bush.
I noticed N8, that you haven't responded to my reasons why I don't want Bush re-elected...but you're on the Rush Limbaugh Kerry=Anti Bush platform pretty firmly, so I'm not that surprised.
Please... take Bush's policy now and compare it to bush's policy 6-7 years ago... TOTAL OPPOSITE.
He dosen't appear to have one. His primary platform consists of the following; "I'm not George Bush."
That's good enough.
Not for me it isn't.
IMO, a candidate must prove to me why I SHOULD vote for him rather than just blathering on about why I shouldn't vote for his opponent.
That was so frikkin hilarious... I fell out of my seat when they did that chit.
I frankly wish the Democrats had put forth a candidate who was not a completely useless pile of worm castings. I have voted Republican, Libertarian and Independent and would like the opportunity to vote for a qualified Democrat if they could ever offer one up. After this lummox Kerry, what shining star will they offer up in 2008...Hillary Rodham Clinton??? 
In a system of only 2 viable candidates/parties, and considering this particular president.............. not being that person is good enough.
If the K Rove posse hadn't done the same thing to McCain as they are now trying to do with Kerry, you would have a very good point. Tragically, Bush is no McCain.........and if he "wins" again, it will be on anything but true merit.
McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.
You're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.
Really, you're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.
WHY?
Not that I even disagree. I'm just curious why you guys think so.
I think apples are the best fruit.
You do realize you're talking to a guy who actually thinks Bush is a good thing...
I'm a glutton for punishment...
I don't. I'm just doing with N8 what N8 does with Fox news. Listen and repeat, listen and repeat........
I totally agree. Unfortunatly for GW the economy is apparantly only growing on paper and his war on terror is widely perceived to be a war on Islam amongst Muslims. Not really hard to see why, especially when coupled with the unwavering support of the facist Sharon. The problem is, even for America, it's gonna be pretty hard to win a war against a whole religion. Especially one that the more damage you inflict on it, the more it turns against you and becomes more radical it's behaviour becomes.
In my opinion the w.o.t. could only ever be won by totally changing the way bush goes about it. Bush doesn't seem to have noticed than when ever he attacks a target in his w.o.t. the response gets stronger and worse each time (please don't let's pretent 9/11 was the unprovoked start) - maybe spreading a bit of peace might be helpful?
GW is clearly not about to stop killing and attacking, so voting him out of office is possibly one of the best ways to start winning this 'war'.
So, by choosing to do nothing we're suddenly winning the war? WTF kind of logic is that? I see your disdain for Bush, and I can understand that in alot of cases, as he is a conservative and you obviously are not nor are alot of people, but at least have a f***ing idea of how something is going to work better. How, on earth, has appeasement (which is exactly what youre suggesting) ever gotten anyone in the long term?At what point did I suggest doing nothing?
How about:
a) Withdrawing support for Arial Sharon and his policies re: the Palestinians
b) Formulating a WORKABLE plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, allowing Iraqis to profit from it rather than just Halliburton.
c) Stopping supoort of the X dictatorial regeimes around the world just because they happen to be selling us cheap oil
d) REALLY supporting free trade, especially with developing nations
and, you'll like this one because people get hurt:
d) Commit more resources to Afghanistan to do the job of getting rid of the Taliban properly - currently pretty difficult due to the wealth of anti-US feelings in the region
I personally think that this would be far more constructive than the current state of affairs.
How about:
a) Withdrawing support for Arial Sharon and his policies re: the Palestinians
b) Formulating a WORKABLE plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, allowing Iraqis to profit from it rather than just Halliburton.
c) Stopping supoort of the X dictatorial regeimes around the world just because they happen to be selling us cheap oil
d) REALLY supporting free trade, especially with developing nations
and, you'll like this one because people get hurt:
d) Commit more resources to Afghanistan to do the job of getting rid of the Taliban properly - currently pretty difficult due to the wealth of anti-US feelings in the region
I personally think that this would be far more constructive than the current state of affairs.
You dont make any sense.
You first say
Like that's what Kerry's plan is...even though he doesnt have one. But then you say..
and say something like
Which is neither a Kerry stance, nor does it promote peace.
Nor is or does this
And this gem will surely bring peace to the middle east.
In short, WTF are you talking about?
Here we go...
Likewise stopping support for dictatorial regeimes. Are you really saying you like the world full of dictators supported by the US?
I don't care if it's Kerry agenda or not, it's what I think needs to be done.
Actually, a hell of a lot of people are in agreement that the end of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the only way to start sorting out the middle east. Bush idea of supporting Sharon kill them all isn't really helping, what ever happened to the road map?
Getting rid of the Taliban WILL help promote peace. They are a highly devisive group, who don't just hate the west but also beleive in retribution and death for those (anyone) who don't agree with their uber strict interpretation of sharia law. If they remain in existance they are a threat to peace and human rights everywhere, especially moderate muslim countries in the short term.
Likewise stopping support for dictatorial regeimes. Are you really saying you like the world full of dictators supported by the US?
Ok, dont let this turn into a debate like yours' and Stinkle's did. Please stick to the point. This thread had turned to the topic of people voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. You said to Golgi's statements
Now, youre saying
Well, that's just dandy, but who the f*** cares?
I agree with that!
It started off with the US reaction to Spain's change of government - then it turned to people voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. Now it's changing again. All I did was suggest MY ideas for how we might progress. As you said:
I don't know what Kerry's answer will be. I hope it is a bit less belicose than Bush's. Those were my suggestions. Ignore them if you want. I think they'll work better than what Bush is doing at the moment. Is that OK with you? I'm totally happy to discuss them if you want.
If you don't care, don't reply.
It's not that I dont care...but it seemed, as it was in the Stinkle argument, that you were skewing what were your arguments with what was fact.
EDIT: And by fact, I mean what were Kerry's stances.
Good luck. We've been trying to find that out for a while. If you figure it out tomorrow, alert the media
AAHAHA!Originally posted by BurlySurly
Good luck. We've been trying to find that out for a while. If you figure it out tomorrow, alert the media
Good one.
Kerry's Manifesto
Ok, I had a bit of a google this morning on behalf of all you lazys. You can find a complete list of Kerry's election manifesto here, but you need to click through a couple of layers per issue (and there are a lot) to get to the meat of it.
However the big issues (as it were) I will post summaries of here (thanks MSN - did I just say that?):
1. Reduce U.S. reliance on non-renewable energy. In the Senate, Kerry has sponsored legislation to enforce strict fuel-efficiency standards on cars. As president, he would try again. He would give tax credits to companies that develop alternative automotive technology and to people who drive more advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles. Using incentives for innovation, he would aim to get 20 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
YAY! Worth voting for him just on that if you ask me!
2. Expand public and private health insurance. Kerry would automatically enroll any uninsured child with a household income up to 300 percent of the poverty level in the State Children's Health Insurance Program upon entering school. To help states afford this, the federal government would pick up the cost of all 20 million children covered by Medicaid. Kerry would let any company or individual buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He would add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare while loosening restrictions on making cheaper generic drugs. One distinctive feature of Kerry's plan is a "rebate pool" through which the federal government would reimburse each employee health plan for 75 percent of all costs that exceeded $50,000 for a single individual. This promise would sharply cut each insurer's risk and alleviate its need to raise premiums. Kerry estimates the plan's cost at $72 billion per year for the first five years. To pay for it, he would repeal some of the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it. Could be expensive, but isn't it worth it for good healthcare?
3. Institute mandatory and voluntary national service. Kerry would provide four years' tuition at a public university to any American who performed at least two years of national service. He would make some sort of community service a prerequisite for graduation from any U.S. high school. The high-school programs would be state-designed but federally funded. Under Kerry's "Retired Not Tired" program, seniors who performed at least 10 hours of service a week could get $2,000 per year to spend on health-care expenses or educating a young family member. Kerry would use Homeland Security money to train volunteers in emergency skills to compliment professional first-responders. He estimates the cost of his national service initiatives at $3.2 billion.
Woo! Kick your kid's asses into line! Interestingly, Switzerland is one of the only other western countries that does national service, but they do it 'properly' still - 2 years, full on military training, no questions, obligatory for every male. From visiting Switzerland I gotta say it seems to impact on society very well. Low crime, high employment, high standards of living, and so very very clean!
An since it's what most of us have been talking about recently:
Foreign Policy
Have a look here for the whole story, but once again, what we were arguing about:
From his website - cut and pasted from a long speech...
So, all this seems pretty sensible to me. I don't think I'd have much trouble voting for the guy. What about the rest of you
s?
Ok, I had a bit of a google this morning on behalf of all you lazy
s. You can find a complete list of Kerry's election manifesto here, but you need to click through a couple of layers per issue (and there are a lot) to get to the meat of it.However the big issues (as it were) I will post summaries of here (thanks MSN - did I just say that?):
1. Reduce U.S. reliance on non-renewable energy. In the Senate, Kerry has sponsored legislation to enforce strict fuel-efficiency standards on cars. As president, he would try again. He would give tax credits to companies that develop alternative automotive technology and to people who drive more advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles. Using incentives for innovation, he would aim to get 20 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
YAY! Worth voting for him just on that if you ask me!
2. Expand public and private health insurance. Kerry would automatically enroll any uninsured child with a household income up to 300 percent of the poverty level in the State Children's Health Insurance Program upon entering school. To help states afford this, the federal government would pick up the cost of all 20 million children covered by Medicaid. Kerry would let any company or individual buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He would add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare while loosening restrictions on making cheaper generic drugs. One distinctive feature of Kerry's plan is a "rebate pool" through which the federal government would reimburse each employee health plan for 75 percent of all costs that exceeded $50,000 for a single individual. This promise would sharply cut each insurer's risk and alleviate its need to raise premiums. Kerry estimates the plan's cost at $72 billion per year for the first five years. To pay for it, he would repeal some of the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.
Seems like a good idea on the face of it. Could be expensive, but isn't it worth it for good healthcare?
3. Institute mandatory and voluntary national service. Kerry would provide four years' tuition at a public university to any American who performed at least two years of national service. He would make some sort of community service a prerequisite for graduation from any U.S. high school. The high-school programs would be state-designed but federally funded. Under Kerry's "Retired Not Tired" program, seniors who performed at least 10 hours of service a week could get $2,000 per year to spend on health-care expenses or educating a young family member. Kerry would use Homeland Security money to train volunteers in emergency skills to compliment professional first-responders. He estimates the cost of his national service initiatives at $3.2 billion.
Woo! Kick your kid's asses into line! Interestingly, Switzerland is one of the only other western countries that does national service, but they do it 'properly' still - 2 years, full on military training, no questions, obligatory for every male. From visiting Switzerland I gotta say it seems to impact on society very well. Low crime, high employment, high standards of living, and so very very clean!
An since it's what most of us have been talking about recently:
Foreign Policy
Have a look here for the whole story, but once again, what we were arguing about:
From his website - cut and pasted from a long speech...
If you care to read the whole speech, he goes into a bit more detail.
So, all this seems pretty sensible to me. I don't think I'd have much trouble voting for the guy. What about the rest of you
s?