13 things Kerry must do to take the election

[GSTamral]

1) He must make America forget that he has more than 20 times the wealth of his opponent, so they think he can relate to the middle class
2) He must stop taking heat over Vietnam and stop addressing those issues. He is only fueling the fire right now.
3) He must make light of Bush's lack of intelligence and wit during the debates.
4) He must carefully play his cards to make moderates think that Bush is trying to retie church and state together
5) He needs to stop focusing on Iraq, an argument he is losing ground with by the day, and focus on the battles he can win, such as health care and labor protection.
6) He needs to provide America with an actual outline, like the one Bush provided, to show he actually has a plan beyond criticisms of existing policy.
7) He needs to give up his Senate Seat, to nip in the butt the argument that he is doing everything based on partisan politics.
8) He needs to focus less on foreign policy, as oddly as it seems, because most Americans actually don't care about what France, Germany, or Canada thinks.
9) He needs to not just argue, but show how his domestic policy ideas will help corporations and non-manufacturing employees in America.
10) He needs to focus heavily on education, an area where Bush has a perceived weakness. He needs to make America forget how bad schools are in Massachusetts, and/or place blame for that on their current governor, as opposed to himself or Kennedy, and devise and show a plan to reverse the trends.
11) He needs to find a way to get more foreign born citizens to go out and vote.
12) He needs to find a way to get more minorities and women to get out and vote.
13) He needs to find a way to get his daughter to debate the Bush daughters. His daughter actually knows a few things, and has some capabilities in a debate structure. The Bush daughters are outright superficial morons.

[Drew]

Yeah, but one of the Bush daughter is hot, so I think it all balances out.

[Warriorbird]

Not much to disageee with. I think you underestimate Bush's wealth though.

[Wezas]

Too bad this hatred can't be backed up with facts. I believe you have issues, Tamral. And for your sake I hope Bush wins the election.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by GSTamral
6) He needs to provide America with an actual outline, like the one Bush provided, to show he actually has a plan beyond criticisms of existing policy.


Newsflash Tamral.. he already has:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas
Too bad this hatred can't be backed up with facts. I believe you have issues, Tamral. And for your sake I hope Bush wins the election.


LOL.. the word hatred really shouldn't be uttered by you Wezas.

I love you man, but for your sake, I hope Bush wins as well.

[Jack]

According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million, and John Kerry has a net worth of about $165 million to $626 million, which includes his wife's assets. The Center for Public Integrity has collected details of both candidates' income and assets. Bush's biggest asset is his Texas ranch, while Kerry's top income source is his wife's portion of the Heinz company.

[GSTamral]

What hatred Wezas?

What are you perceiving as hatred?
You want facts?
Fine, go to CNN.com

He is losing the argument on Iraq. 38 percent of americans now think it was a mistake as opposed to 48% a month ago.

just because someone doesn't like Kerry does not mean they hate him. I could just as stupidly argue that your "hatred of conservatism and Bush" cannot be "backed" by facts either, but its pointless. I don't like either candidate. So I'm voting for the one that will hurt my wallet the least.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

<13) He needs to find a way to get his daughter to debate the Bush daughters. His daughter actually knows a few things, and has some capabilities in a debate structure. The Bush daughters are outright superficial morons.>

WTF Does this have to do with anything? I could give a flying rats ass if he daughter is Sheena, queen of the Jungle. She's not running for president.

[Parkbandit]

626 million > 26 million

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Depends on how you factor the wife in.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
<13) He needs to find a way to get his daughter to debate the Bush daughters. His daughter actually knows a few things, and has some capabilities in a debate structure. The Bush daughters are outright superficial morons.>

WTF Does this have to do with anything? I could give a flying rats ass if he daughter is Sheena, queen of the Jungle. She's not running for president.

If Kerry could get the Bush girls into that see thru dress his daughter wore over in Europe for that film festival.. I'd be a happy happy man.

A perverted man, but happy none the less.

:yes:

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Jack
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million, and John Kerry has a net worth of about $165 million to $626 million, which includes his wife's assets. The Center for Public Integrity has collected details of both candidates' income and assets. Bush's biggest asset is his Texas ranch, while Kerry's top income source is his wife's portion of the Heinz company.

But including Teresa Heinz Kerry's personal fortune isn't wholly accurate. As Heinz Kerry has publicly noted, a prenuptial agreement keeps her money separate. Also, federal election laws limit how much of his wife's funds Kerry can use.

In 2002 financial disclosures, Kerry stated that assets in his own name were worth $409,000 to $1.8 million, and he had an additional $300,000 to $600,000 in assets owned jointly with his wife.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Jack
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million, and John Kerry has a net worth of about $165 million to $626 million, which includes his wife's assets. The Center for Public Integrity has collected details of both candidates' income and assets. Bush's biggest asset is his Texas ranch, while Kerry's top income source is his wife's portion of the Heinz company.

But including Teresa Heinz Kerry's personal fortune isn't wholly accurate. As Heinz Kerry has publicly noted, a prenuptial agreement keeps her money separate. Also, federal election laws limit how much of his wife's funds Kerry can use.

In 2002 financial disclosures, Kerry stated that assets in his own name were worth $409,000 to $1.8 million, and he had an additional $300,000 to $600,000 in assets owned jointly with his wife.

That's like saying my money is not my wife's. Do you really REALLY think if he needed a couple of mill to go buy a boat, she would tell him no? Do you believe that she makes him pay for dinners, cars, homes, etc??

Personally, I don't think either of them can maintain that they know how it is to be poor or not rich... but it is clear that Kerry has more loot than Bush.

[GSTamral]

that sounds like about 20 times the wealth to me.

[GSTamral]

So his wife buys everything anyway. as for the daughters argument, I never said it would win him all the votes, but some people DO care about family. If it changes some votes, that may be all he needs.

[Ilvane]

:tool:

Love this new smiley!!

Oh, and he's not as rich as his wife. That's easy enough to distinguish.

-A

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Newsflash Tamral.. he already has:

I actually laugh-snorted at that picture. I hate you (in the nicest way possible).

Jorddyn

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Jack
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million, and John Kerry has a net worth of about $165 million to $626 million, which includes his wife's assets. The Center for Public Integrity has collected details of both candidates' income and assets. Bush's biggest asset is his Texas ranch, while Kerry's top income source is his wife's portion of the Heinz company.

But including Teresa Heinz Kerry's personal fortune isn't wholly accurate. As Heinz Kerry has publicly noted, a prenuptial agreement keeps her money separate. Also, federal election laws limit how much of his wife's funds Kerry can use.

In 2002 financial disclosures, Kerry stated that assets in his own name were worth $409,000 to $1.8 million, and he had an additional $300,000 to $600,000 in assets owned jointly with his wife.

Either way you cut the cheese, Kerry has access to much, much more money that G. W. Bush does, and his pre-Presidental lifestyle shows that.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. It's not that simple dealing with money on that level. I'm sure Bush's influence will net him a LOT more cash after his 8 years is finished.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. It's not that simple dealing with money on that level. I'm sure Bush's influence will net him a LOT more cash after his 4 years is finished.

Fixed your typo there.

You're welcome :smilegrin:

[Farquar]

I shudder at the prospect of four more years of shoot em from the hip foreign policy, the curtailment of the democratic process, and wanton federal spending, but I am becoming less than encouraged at current developments over at the Kerry camp.

Does Kerry even want to win?
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/002011.html

But then again...

"George W. Bush has inflamed the world, and especially the Islamic world, through his criminal invasion of Iraq. It is the primary reason al-Qaeda has endorsed his bid for re-election. And it led the experts at that bastion of radical dissent, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to speak "unanimous[ly] in giving warning that the War on Terror was doing more to recruit terrorists than to defeat them."

George W. Bush has squandered some two hundred billion dollars on the criminal invasion of Iraq, money that might have been spent on securing ports and borders, training and staffing airport and airline security, producing vaccines, controlling nuclear materials, and on and on.

George W. Bush has inspired a global rush to acquire nuclear weapons--from the North Koreans to the Iranians to the countries we have yet to hear about--as the only defense against the American juggernaut. The North Korean weapons purportedly can reach California.

George W. Bush has done nothing to stop the Israeli brutalization of Palestinian men, women, and children, the single most powerful provocation to the Islamic world and an injustice in its own right.

George W. Bush has shattered alliances with nations, like France, that have real armies, real intelligence services, and real experience battling terrorists, all assets in a serious war against religious fanatics with bloodlust for Westerners, and Americans in particular. (Imagine how the mindless American derision of the "wimpy" French must look to those who remember the war in Algeria?)

George W. Bush has appointed stupid, foolish, ill-prepared or strange men--sometimes all four at once--to critical posts charged with protecting Americans, from the Attorney General to the Director of Homeland Security to the Acting Director of the C.I.A. The President himself, who has no real experience, and who has made a mess of every professional opportunity he had in his life, inspires no confidence, and his choices are of a piece with his lack of experience and judgment. (George W. Bush, remember, is the man whom the leader of the Smear Boat Veterans, Houston attorney John O'Neill, called an "empty suit"!) Is there anyone with a brain in his head who, given a choice, would pick a prankish, spoiled frat boy, who has never had a real job, to protect his family? "

From: http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/001946.html

[PeaceDisturbance]

>Either way you cut the cheese, Kerry has access to much, much more money that G. W. Bush does, and his pre-Presidental lifestyle shows that. <

Wonder how Bush is outspending Kerry by such a huge amount.

Make no sense. :banghead:

Still makes now sense. :banghead:

Yep, makes sense now. :banghead:

Nope, lost it. No sense at all.

My head hurts.....

[Edited on 9-15-2004 by PeaceDisturbance]

[Warriorbird]

Way to go, Latrinsorm. I'll be you. You're wrong.

[Edited on 9-15-2004 by Warriorbird]

A vote for John Kerry is like a vote for Joseph Stalin.













In all seriousness though, I don't give a rats ass about Kerry's daughters. It's not our fault that the Muslim world hates everything that's not Islam and frankly, we don't need to be fighting a "sensitive" war on terror.

- Arkans

About minority voters:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040905.gif

[Farquar]

we don't need to be fighting a "sensitive" war on terror.

- Arkans

That's precisely the problem sentiment that exists among Americans today: the confusion of "lots of action" with "effective action." War against terror? I support it wholeheartedly.. Nuke em if we must. I DO NOT support bloody conflicts against (OIL PRODUCING) boogeymen regimes with phantom WMD's that will never be found.

I hate to drudge up Kerry's vietnam service again, but oh well. The guy had misgivings about the Vietnam before he signed up, yet he went anyway, because he did what was neccessary for the good of the nation. That shows me that even though he may balk at the progress of this so called war on terror, he won't think twice to act in the best interests of the United States. That is where my confidence comes from. That is where my hope comes from.

I would be proud to die in the defense of this country. I would not, however, wish it on my worst enemy to die in a far off land so the (for now)Prez and his cronies can profit off more oil contracts.

[Ravenstorm]

The "sensitive" war on terror is an invention or should I say blatant fabrication (that means lie) of the Republicans. What Kerry did say is:


"I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."

Raven

[Warriorbird]

So you did it yourself? Not exactly...thrilling, Latrin.

[i remember halloween]

that picture is awesome Parkbandit

[Warriorbird]

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo

[Warriorbird]

Stalin was a conservative.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So you did it yourself? Not exactly...thrilling, Latrin. Well, I have been listening to less U2 recently. Tell you what, WB. Just for you, I'll retroactivize and delete my other post.
Originally posted by Farquar
the criminal invasion of IraqI don't know where people (on both sides) got the idea that saying something over and over makes it true.
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to speak "unanimous[ly] in giving warning that the War on Terror was doing more to recruit terrorists than to defeat them."
When I think "expert on terrorism", the first profession that springs to mind isn't "economist".
George W. Bush has done nothing to stop the Israeli brutalization of Palestinian men, women, and children, the single most powerful provocation to the Islamic world and an injustice in its own right.Powell must've felt pretty dumb when he was hanging around Israel doing nothing, eh?
(Imagine how the mindless American derision of the "wimpy" French must look to those who remember the war in Algeria?) Lackaday, some Americans are making fun of the French? That's obviously directly attributable to Bush and not in any way a longstanding American tradition.
The President himself, who has no real experience4 years in office notwithstanding.
and who has made a mess of every professional opportunity he had in his lifeWe can't all marry ketchup baronesses.
who has never had a real jobI've always found anyone who says "never had a real job" is tailoring a definition to exclude every job their target has held.
inspires no confidenceThat's odd, I find him quite inspiring. I wonder if...
Is there anyone with a brain in his head who, given a choice, would pick a prankish, spoiled frat boyAh, that must be it. If I like Bush I'm a brain donor.

[Farquar]

I don't know where people (on both sides) got the idea that saying something over and over makes it true.

That's because it is true. Lemme do this step by step so you dont miss anything.

-Bush based the Iraqi invasion on the premise that WMD's were present.
- There are no WMD's.
-We are still in Iraq.
- Thus, the conflict exists for some other reason besides WMD's.

Criminal, in the moral sense at the very least.


When I think "expert on terrorism", the first profession that springs to mind isn't "economist".

This is what academes call a "tongue in cheek" remark. Let me explain the import of this particular remark. Generally, economists are quite reserved in their political opinions, and Swiss ones more so. The author's point was that Bush's conduct is so egregious that even people who ordinarily wouldn't say much are saying pretty extreme things. Read it slower and pick up the sarcasm.


Powell must've felt pretty dumb when he was hanging around Israel doing nothing, eh?

Perhaps hyperbole, but theres still conflict in the area with no signs of improvement, and we're only getting the popular side of the story.


Lackaday, some Americans are making fun of the French? That's obviously directly attributable to Bush and not in any way a longstanding American tradition.

Wrong. The article never attributed it to Bush. The article only attributed the alienation of the French government with respect to the terror war. Try again.



The President himself, who has no real experience

Nope. No real experience. Usually, when people are elected president of the most powerful nation in human history, they have experience with foreign affairs, economic policy, etc. Bush? Nada. If you think hes the person that's been creating policy these past four years, then youre pretty naive.


The ketchup heiress remark

Ad hominem attack. Attack the argument, not the person. Try again.


I've always found anyone who says "never had a real job" is tailoring a definition to exclude every job their target has held.

Real job: a job that requires a modicum of responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY. Bush has had none. Every business he started in Texas eventually went bankrupt, but hey, it wasn't his money. If you're still steadfast in your resolve, then name me a single instance in GWB's life where he didn't make a complete mess of things. Name one.



iThat's odd, I find him quite inspiring.

Yes, you speak for us all I suppose. Its interesting how among people with post graduate degrees, more people support Kerry than Bush. Same with people that have college degrees. Bush leads in the segment of the population that 1) has only some college credits and 2) only finished high school. I guess he's inspiring his target audience. The audience that finds "Yeah we'll find those terr'ists and smoke em out, yee haw!!!" inspiring.


Ah, that must be it. If I like Bush I'm a brain donor.

Article didn't say that. Read this statement again, slower this time so you understand. It was a rhetorical question.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
-Bush based the Iraqi invasion on the premise that WMD's were present.
- There are no WMD's.
-We are still in Iraq.
- Thus, the conflict exists for some other reason besides WMD's.I'll give you credit for not saying he lied. However, I think your conclusion is flawed. The conclusion I would suggest is: "Thus, the conflict continues to exist for some other reason." The reason (to me) is obvious: we have to fix what we broke. It sucks that the intelligence was wrong, but we can't just throw up our hands and hope they pick up our mess.
Generally, economists are quite reserved in their political opinions, and Swiss ones more so. The author's point was that Bush's conduct is so egregious that even people who ordinarily wouldn't say much are saying pretty extreme things. Read it slower and pick up the sarcasm.So the point of referencing the WEF is that Bush has made some people angry?
Perhaps hyperbole, but theres still conflict in the area with no signs of improvement, and we're only getting the popular side of the story.I'm not trying to say Powell was effective, but it's erroneous to say Bush hasn't tried or blame Bush for a conflict that has existed for millenia.
Wrong. The article never attributed it to Bush. The article only attributed the alienation of the French government with respect to the terror war. Try again.When every paragraph starts with "George W. Bush", I get the feeling that everything in the article has to do with Bush. My bad. All we're worried about is alienating a government? It's not like this is the first time we've butted heads with a foreign nation.
Nope. No real experience. Usually, when people are elected president of the most powerful nation in human history, they have experience with foreign affairs, economic policy, etc. Bush? Nada. If you think hes the person that's been creating policy these past four years, then youre pretty naive.I don't see how Bush can be blamed for the bad stuff (war, amendment) but someone else did the good stuff. They all happened under his watch.
Ad hominem attack. Attack the argument, not the person. Try again.It's a race between two people (sorry Nader). Criticisms that apply to both candidates are, therefore, unnecessary, aren't they?
Real job: a job that requires a modicum of responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY. Bush has had none. Every business he started in Texas eventually went bankrupt, but hey, it wasn't his money. If you're still steadfast in your resolve, then name me a single instance in GWB's life where he didn't make a complete mess of things. Name one.That's easy, the Presidency. Plenty of responsibility (most of any job?), plenty of accountability (most of any job?), and he's getting votes. If you believe Tamral's polls, he's actually getting a majority of votes.
Yes, you speak for us all I suppose.I speak for me. That's all I have to speak for. It's simple logic: if a person says "This doesn't happen" and I provide one instance of it happening, I win.
Article didn't say that. Read this statement again, slower this time so you understand. It was a rhetorical question.
Is there anyone with a brain in his head who, given a choice, would pick a prankish, spoiled frat boy, who has never had a real job, to protect his family?A rhetorical question has an implied answer. That's what makes it rhetorical. Why don't you tell me what you think the implied answer is?

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
1) He must make America forget that he has more than 20 times the wealth of his opponent, so they think he can relate to the middle class
2) He must stop taking heat over Vietnam and stop addressing those issues. He is only fueling the fire right now.
3) He must make light of Bush's lack of intelligence and wit during the debates.
4) He must carefully play his cards to make moderates think that Bush is trying to retie church and state together
5) He needs to stop focusing on Iraq, an argument he is losing ground with by the day, and focus on the battles he can win, such as health care and labor protection.
6) He needs to provide America with an actual outline, like the one Bush provided, to show he actually has a plan beyond criticisms of existing policy.
7) He needs to give up his Senate Seat, to nip in the butt the argument that he is doing everything based on partisan politics.
8) He needs to focus less on foreign policy, as oddly as it seems, because most Americans actually don't care about what France, Germany, or Canada thinks.
9) He needs to not just argue, but show how his domestic policy ideas will help corporations and non-manufacturing employees in America.
10) He needs to focus heavily on education, an area where Bush has a perceived weakness. He needs to make America forget how bad schools are in Massachusetts, and/or place blame for that on their current governor, as opposed to himself or Kennedy, and devise and show a plan to reverse the trends.
11) He needs to find a way to get more foreign born citizens to go out and vote.
12) He needs to find a way to get more minorities and women to get out and vote.
13) He needs to find a way to get his daughter to debate the Bush daughters. His daughter actually knows a few things, and has some capabilities in a debate structure. The Bush daughters are outright superficial morons.


1) To me he seems like a man who has served his country faithfully his whole life. I believe he is going to do what he says and help the average Joe. Everyone knows hes wealthy already, no big surpise.

2) Agreed.

3) Agreed and my money is on Kerry that he will. As long as he doesn’t get emotional.

4) Bush has done a far better job of that than Kerry ever will.

5) Half agree. We still need a good way out.

6) He has. He and Edwards wrote A Plan For America (http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/) which is available for download.

7) Right now his campaign is more important. Bush isn’t giving up the Oval Office to campaign. Which is worse? One Senate seat or the President of our country not at their respective “jobs?”

8) Highly disagree. Its a global economy and a global war. We need allies.

9) See 6.

10) I don’t know enough to comment on this, but yes, focus on making our diploma (87% of the population, 4-5th in the world) and degree (23% of the population, no world rank statistic) rates the best in the world.

11) + 12) Everyone who wants to see him win should help, like we do here on the PC.

13) Agreed, but I’d make it an oil wrestling contest.

[edit to move]

[PeaceDisturbance]

>A vote for John Kerry is like a vote for Joseph Stalin.<

:nono:

[Back]

Originally posted by PeaceDisturbance
>A vote for John Kerry is like a vote for Joseph Stalin.<

:nono:

Yeah, WTF? How do you figure THAT one?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by PeaceDisturbance
>A vote for John Kerry is like a vote for Joseph Stalin.<

:nono:

Yeah, WTF? How do you figure THAT one?

The original statement was made, by none other than Arkans. Not Peace. Who knows what was in his mind. (Arkans that is.)

:blah:

[Farquar]

I'll give you credit for not saying he lied. However, I think your conclusion is flawed. The conclusion I would suggest is: "Thus, the conflict continues to exist for some other reason." The reason (to me) is obvious: we have to fix what we broke. It sucks that the intelligence was wrong, but we can't just throw up our hands and hope they pick up our mess.

I suppose I should have added that prior to the war, there was little to no evidence of WMD's. Additionally, according to Hans Blix, the U.N. weapon guy, the Iraquis were being completely cooperative with respect to weapons inspectors. So I stand by my initial conclusion that the conflict existed for a reason other than WMD.




So the point of referencing the WEF is that Bush has made some people angry?

Wrong. The point of referencing the WEF is not that some people are angry, but that people who are never angry are now angry. When even the most docile members of the international community are up in arms, this indicates that a greater number of every other subset of the community has also adopted a stronger viewpoint.


When every paragraph starts with "George W. Bush", I get the feeling that everything in the article has to do with Bush. My bad. All we're worried about is alienating a government? It's not like this is the first time we've butted heads with a foreign nation.

The article does have to go with GWB. The article didn't state, however, that Bush was responsible for American sentiment towards the French but just the current alienation of its government.

I'm not particularly worried about alienating a government. I'm worried about alienating many governments, which this administration has accomplished.


I don't see how Bush can be blamed for the bad stuff (war, amendment) but someone else did the good stuff. They all happened under his watch.

Good stuff? Please elaborate.



It's a race between two people (sorry Nader). Criticisms that apply to both candidates are, therefore, unnecessary, aren't they?

I said Bush was unaccomplished. You responded, well, Kerry married a Ketchup heiress. I don't see what one has to do with the other. You have the choice of 1) refuting the fact that Bush was unaccomplished or 2) pointing out that Kerry is unaccomplished.


That's easy, the Presidency. Plenty of responsibility (most of any job?), plenty of accountability (most of any job?), and he's getting votes. If you believe Tamral's polls, he's actually getting a majority of votes.

Well, I'm just going to gloss over the fact that the Presidency shouldn't be an internship, where one goes to grab some experience as they bumble through the job.

Your statement assumes that Bush is currently responsible or accountable as the President.

Do you think that he's really accountable for his mistakes? I doubt it. It's the middle class family that has to work a little harder, the soldier that dies in an Iraqi gutter, you and me. We are the ones that bear the accountability for Bush's mistakes. Long after Bush's reign has ended, his family and kids will still be nice and cozy on their Texas ranch. It will have been on the backs of the low and middle class that his "accountability" will be taken.

We do, however, have a chance to hold him accountable on 11/2.


I speak for me. That's all I have to speak for. It's simple logic: if a person says "This doesn't happen" and I provide one instance of it happening, I win.

I understood the article to mean inspiration as a national inspiration, similar to the Revolutionary War or WWII, where leaders united (most) of the nation into a singular vision in order to accomplish a clearly defined goal.

With a nation of almost 300 million people, it is almost a statistical certainty that some clown spouting hackneyed cliches and an indiscriminate military policy can inspire at least a few dolts.


A rhetorical question has an implied answer. That's what makes it rhetorical. Why don't you tell me what you think the implied answer is?

Sure. The implied answer is that given the previous agruments, no one will choose Bush to protect their family.

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Farquar]

[Hulkein]

Keep it pithy. No bloviating, that's my job.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
The point of referencing the WEF is not that some people are angry, but that people who are never angry are now angry.People caring about politics is a Good Thing.
Good stuff? Please elaborate. I was referring to the "making policy" remark.
I said Bush was unaccomplished. You responded, well, Kerry married a Ketchup heiress.Yeah. A guy marries a woman (a bunch of times) with craploads of money and doesn't get a "real job". I don't consider economic marriage an accomplishment.
Do you think that he's really accountable for his mistakes? I doubt it.This sounds more like a criticism of politicians in general rather than Bush in particular.
With a nation of almost 300 million people, it is almost a statistical certainty that some clown spouting hackneyed cliches and an indiscriminate military policy can inspire at least a few dolts.He's gotta be doing something right that you don't mention. That or you ivory tower intellectuals aren't in the polls.
Sure. The implied answer is that given the previous agruments, no one will choose Bush to protect their family. Ok, so the answer is "no", and the statement goes "Nobody with a brain in their head would choose Bush to protect their family." Therefore, if I am choosing Bush to protect my family, I do not have a brain in my head. That doesn't strike you as an insult?

edit: Bloviating?

[Edited on 9-16-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Ilvane]

Pithy..reminds me of the great Bill O'Reilly.

Oh, and by the way..did you guys know that Bush had never been outside of the United States before he became president?


-A

Please read my whole post next time. IT WAS A JOKE.

- Arkans

[Farquar]

People caring about politics is a Good Thing.

I agree, although your statement is ovverbroad and a bit out of scope. You assume that the individuals in question didn't care about politics before. Being public figures, they probably did. The statement about their anger reflected not the birth of political awareness, but its shift from presumed neutrality to that of disdain.




I was referring to the "making policy" remark.

Anyone can make policy. Making effective policy is another matter, however.


Yeah. A guy marries a woman (a bunch of times) with craploads of money and doesn't get a "real job". I don't consider economic marriage an accomplishment.

That's just one facet of his life you're focusing on. He was also: 1) a decorated soldier, as we all know by now; 2) an accomplished prosecutor; 3) lieutenant governor of one of the richest and most powerful states in the Union; 3) three-term U.S. Senator.



This sounds more like a criticism of politicians in general rather than Bush in particular.

That's quite true, but Bush is the president, and can affect more people at a greater degree than any other single man. That is the essence of the executive branch. I don't think it would be unfair to hold him to a higher standard.


He's gotta be doing something right that you don't mention. That or you ivory tower intellectuals aren't in the polls.

There's a reason for the label the "uninformed masses." There's a lot of em, and they're all over the place.


Ok, so the answer is "no", and the statement goes "Nobody with a brain in their head would choose Bush to protect their family." Therefore, if I am choosing Bush to protect my family, I do not have a brain in my head. That doesn't strike you as an insult?

From the original statement, you'd have to make the additional logical step that yes, you do choose Bush, before you become brainless.

It was insulting, and I don't think the statement was neccessary for the author to get his point across.

Anyway, I understand that the probability of convincing a die hard Republican to see the truth is quite miniscule.

I'll be happy if Kerry wins, and I'll be satisfied if Bush wins fairly. The very least I can hope for is that the democratic process takes full effect, and one party doesn't manipulate the system and steal the presidency like in 2000.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
Anyway, I understand that the probability of convincing a die hard Republican to see the truth is quite miniscule.I've been a Republican for like 2 years. Die hard is a bit much.
You assume that the individuals in question didn't care about politics before. No, I was assuming "every other subset of the community" had disinterested parties, because they do.
Anyone can make policy.
If you think [Bush is] the person that's been creating policy these past four years, then youre pretty naive.Ok then. Apparently you don't like any of Bush's (economic, environmental, etc.) policies?
He was also: 1) a decorated soldier, as we all know by now; 2) an accomplished prosecutor; 3) lieutenant governor of one of the richest and most powerful states in the Union; 3) three-term U.S. Senator. Ok, he was a soldier, a lawyer, and a politician. Bush was part of the reserve component, a ballclub owner, and a politician. I'd say that's a wash. (Facetious question: If Kerry was good at being a lawyer, is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
I don't think it would be unfair to hold him to a higher standard.The problem isn't that the standard is higher, it's holding him to a standard at all. Politicians do their job, and as long as they're not being criminal (or are sufficiently slippery to get away with it) they suffer no greater repercussions from their policies than anyone else. It's not like Bush is a dictator. There are, even in a Republican-dominated system, checks and balances. If there weren't, we'd have a new amendment, wouldn't we?
There's a reason for the label the "uninformed masses." There's a lot of em, and they're all over the place. We should make a system that doesn't rely on direct popular vote, then. Hmmm...
The very least I can hope for is that the democratic process takes full effect, and one party doesn't manipulate the system and steal the presidency like in 2000.

[Hulkein]

Yes Farquar, every Bush supporter is simply uninformed. We are all uninformed and blinded.

We may disagree politically but hey, at least you don't make sweeping generalizations.

[xtc]

I agree with MOST of the original post. This is Kerry's election to lose.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Pithy..reminds me of the great Bill O'Reilly.

Oh, and by the way..did you guys know that Bush had never been outside of the United States before he became president?


-A

HOLY SHIT!

Because I have been to the Bahamas, Bermuda, Mexico and Canada.. it MUST make me a better candidate for President because I did!

Sweet.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
I agree with MOST of the original post. This is Kerry's election to lose.

That was true about 2 months ago. Now it's Kerry's election to win.. since he's behind in most polls.

[Bobmuhthol]

Let goodplaces = United States
Let badplaces = Bahamas + Bermuda + Mexico + Canada
If goodplaces > badplaces then Bush still sucks.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
...since he's behind in most polls.

Actually, latest polls show Bush lost his bounce and we're back to neck and neck now. Exactly as expected though, admittedly, nice to see. The debates will probably have the only significant impact one way or another unless Kerry get really hammer home just how fucked up Iraq is. Fortunately, even Republicans in the Senate are saying how fucked up Iraq is now.

Raven

[Ravenstorm]

Oh, and since I absolutely hate making claims without backing them up...

The polls (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=625941 8)

The bipartisan Senators (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=624631 1)

And just how fucked up Iraq really is. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6257149)

Raven

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Oh, and since I absolutely hate making claims without backing them up...

The polls (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=625941 8)

The bipartisan Senators (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=624631 1)

And just how fucked up Iraq really is. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6257149)

Raven

OMG Reuters? Do you know how bias they are?

You might as well post polls drudge or newsmax!

:saint:

[Jack]

Doesn't look neck and neck to me.....


http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=863

[Ravenstorm]

The electoral-vote site takes a while to update. From what I've seen, they do so only once a day and based on new state wide polls.

Your gallup site: Sept. 3-5, 2004

Zogby: Released: September 10, 2004

Yes, dates do matter.

Raven

[Wezas]

I hate you Raven.

[Edited on 9-17-2004 by Wezas]

[Ravenstorm]

I bask in the warmth of your ire.

Raven

edited to ask:

Beat you to it?

[Edited on 9-17-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yes Farquar, every Bush supporter is simply uninformed. We are all uninformed and blinded.

We may disagree politically but hey, at least you don't make sweeping generalizations.

Weak attempt to undermine my view, but nice try I guess.

I read a poll demographic the other day, (I'm currently searching for the info, I'll post if/when I find the link because I really do use it a lot in posts and conversation) that essentially stated the following:

Kerry led Bush among people with post graduate degrees.

Kerry led Bush among people with college degrees.

Bush led among people that had some college education but had not finished college.

Bush led among people that have only a high school education and lower.

1. I assume, quite confidently, the following: Generally, the more educated a person is, the higher the level of information. Conversely, the less educated a person is, the less informed they are.

2. Comparing the two populations, those that are Kerry supporters tend to be more educated, and thus more informed. Bush supporters tend to be less educated and thus less informed.

Quite a departure from the view that ALL Bush supporters are completely uninformed.

[Chadj]

EVERYONE WHO <3 BUSH IS STOOPID.

[Back]

I’ve only got some college and I’m voting for Kerry. Ahh, I just love proving statistics wrong. :stretch:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
...since he's behind in most polls.

Actually, latest polls show Bush lost his bounce and we're back to neck and neck now. Exactly as expected though, admittedly, nice to see. The debates will probably have the only significant impact one way or another unless Kerry get really hammer home just how fucked up Iraq is. Fortunately, even Republicans in the Senate are saying how fucked up Iraq is now.

Raven

USA Today/Gallop has him comfortably in the lead by 15 points.

[GSTamral]

Fraquar, I would love to see that demographic poll, and if it applies nationally, or specifically to a single state.

NATIONALLY, in the last election,


Gore led Bush 61-29 amongst those without a high school degree
Gore led Bush 51-44 amongst those with a high school degree
Bush led Gore 48-47 amongst those with some college
Bush led Gore 56-42 amongst those with a college degree
Gore led Bush 58-39 amongst those with a postgraduate degree

Those numbers were posted by CNN.

Amongst registered voters, the lines fell very similarly.

Also,
Gore led Bush 86-9 amongst African Americans
Gore led Bush 61-35 amongst Hispanic Americans

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
edited to ask:

Beat you to it?

[Edited on 9-17-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Yes, by seconds.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Gore led Bush 58-39 amongst those with a postgraduate degree


It's because those liberal hippies spent their whole life in college.

[Jack]

You are correct on the Zogby poll, seems they don't update as often as I'd like, unless of course you pay a fortune to subscribe to their poll data... However, Gallup updates just about every week, and they just updated. For September 13-15 it shows 55-42, in the President's favor. Deffinately not neck and neck.

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, I read an article on that earlier. They compared the differing results on the different polls. They couldn't explain it.

Raven

[Farquar]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Fraquar, I would love to see that demographic poll, and if it applies nationally, or specifically to a single state.

NATIONALLY, in the last election,


Gore led Bush 61-29 amongst those without a high school degree
Gore led Bush 51-44 amongst those with a high school degree
Bush led Gore 48-47 amongst those with some college
Bush led Gore 56-42 amongst those with a college degree
Gore led Bush 58-39 amongst those with a postgraduate degree

Those numbers were posted by CNN.

Amongst registered voters, the lines fell very similarly.

Also,
Gore led Bush 86-9 amongst African Americans
Gore led Bush 61-35 amongst Hispanic Americans


Yeah I've been going nuts Googling my ass off and checking my blog trails. I know I didn't just make it up in my head cause I remember thinking as I read the thing, "that's different from how the 2000 came out."

[Farquar]

No, I was assuming "every other subset of the community" had disinterested parties, because they do.

Whether every other subset of the population has disinterested parties is not relevant to whether a group that was already interested had changed their views from one extreme to the other.


Ok then. Apparently you don't like any of Bush's (economic, environmental, etc.) policies?

No, I'm not a big fan of protectionist tariffs and oil drilling in Alaska.


Ok, he was a soldier, a lawyer, and a politician. Bush was part of the reserve component, a ballclub owner, and a politician. I'd say that's a wash. (Facetious question: If Kerry was good at being a lawyer, is that a good thing or a bad thing?)

If you didn't know, the whole Bush serving in the reserves is still open to interpretation. Ballclub owner? Try partner. I'm sure they let him make the important decisions too.

Being a good lawyer might not impress some people, but being an excellent prosecutor, putting criminals behind bars sure impresses me. Especially since prosecutors make 40-50k starting and starting private practicioners make up to 150k. Thus expands evidence of Kerry's selflessness when it comes to serving the public.


The problem isn't that the standard is higher, it's holding him to a standard at all. Politicians do their job, and as long as they're not being criminal (or are sufficiently slippery to get away with it) they suffer no greater repercussions from their policies than anyone else. It's not like Bush is a dictator. There are, even in a Republican-dominated system, checks and balances. If there weren't, we'd have a new amendment, wouldn't we?

Why can't I hold him to any standard? They suffer no greater repercussions than anyone else? That's patently incorrect. Look at the situation the U.S. is in now. You're saying that we're not suffering from repercussions?

As for the checks and balances, you're looking at it through the 4th grade, democracy and freedom will win out blah blah blah viewpoint. Some of the behind the scenes stuff going on is pretty scary (en banc reversals of overly "liberal" judicial decisions [see 4th circuit], secret firings and demotions of people that disagree with the administration, and most abhorrent of all, the expansion of warrantless arrests and detentions without charges. You don't find it scary that the government can now arrest you without cause, and hold you indefinitely without trial or legal representation? What about the fact that the government can now go to your public library and get a list of all the books you've ever checked out?

Our civil liberties are slowly being eroded, and certain people are hoping you're not paying attention.


We should make a system that doesn't rely on direct popular vote, then. Hmmm...

Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
Whether every other subset of the population has disinterested parties is not relevant to whether a group that was already interested had changed their views from one extreme to the other.Now we're getting somewhere. When you said "The author's point was that Bush's conduct is so egregious that even people who ordinarily wouldn't say much are saying pretty extreme things.", I took "ordinarily wouldn't say much" as a sign of apathy.
If you didn't know, the whole Bush serving in the reserves is still open to interpretation.The margin of interpretation of Bush's service is exactly equal to the margin of interpretation of Kerry's service. Questioning the (real) National Guard is just as incorrect as questioning the (real) Navy.
being an excellent prosecutor, putting criminals behind bars Which one of us has the 4th grade viewpoint? (And as a side note, shouldn't the guy on the Democrat side be the liberal?)
They suffer no greater repercussions than anyone else? That's patently incorrect. Look at the situation the U.S. is in now. You're saying that we're not suffering from repercussions?We're all affected, politicians and the public. Clinton doesn't have to pay less taxes because the economy did well during his administration. The fact that a number of politicians happen to be well off isn't Bush's fault.
Gore won the popular vote in 2000.That's my point. Good thing we didn't kowtow to the uninformed masses, eh?
You don't find it scary that the government can now arrest you without cause, and hold you indefinitely without trial or legal representation? What about the fact that the government can now go to your public library and get a list of all the books you've ever checked out?The second scariest moment of my life was 9/11. I'm not an expert on anti-terrorism, or government. If the experts say this is what we have to do to keep some nutcase from Oregon from blowing up the Empire State Building, then I respond where do I sign? To which they would probably respond you already did, and I would say ok.

[Farquar]

The margin of interpretation of Bush's service is exactly equal to the margin of interpretation of Kerry's service. Questioning the (real) National Guard is just as incorrect as questioning the (real) Navy.

I saw on CNN that certain parties are actually offering monetary rewards for Bush's proof of service. I'm not questioning the integrity of the National guard as a valid service branch. Kerry's got service records, bullet wounds and a slew of medals. I wouldn't call it exactly equal.


Which one of us has the 4th grade viewpoint? (And as a side note, shouldn't the guy on the Democrat side be the liberal?)

That's what prosecutors uh...do.

I may have liberal viewpoint, but people who commit crimes should be in jail, period.



We're all affected, politicians and the public. Clinton doesn't have to pay less taxes because the economy did well during his administration. The fact that a number of politicians happen to be well off isn't Bush's fault.

All that I said was Bush isn't really accountable and that we're paying for his mistakes. I dont know where politicians doing well came into the mix.




That's my point. Good thing we didn't kowtow to the uninformed masses, eh?

Well it was around 49 to 48m. Guess who most of the uninformed masses voted for?



The second scariest moment of my life was 9/11. I'm not an expert on anti-terrorism, or government. If the experts say this is what we have to do to keep some nutcase from Oregon from blowing up the Empire State Building, then I respond where do I sign? To which they would probably respond you already did, and I would say ok.

Who are these "experts" you speak of anyway?

That's the difference between you and me I guess. I don't negotiate with terrorists. When we start trading pieces of the Constitution for less of a chance of bring bombed, that my friend, is called negotiation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
That's the difference between you and me I guess. I don't negotiate with terrorists.No matter how bad and stupid their methods are, most terrorists have a legitimate concern that has to be addressed. You want to take the path of Israel and Russia, go ahead. It is working so well for them, after all. And that's only A difference between us, man. I'm thinking that would be a long list. :smilegrin:
That's what prosecutors uh...do. Nope. Prosecutors do their best to convince 12 random people that the accused is guilty. I hope you don't really think our legal system is perfect.
All that I said was Bush isn't really accountable and that we're paying for his mistakes. I dont know where politicians doing well came into the mix
Long after Bush's reign has ended, his family and kids will still be nice and cozy on their Texas ranch. It will have been on the backs of the low and middle class that his "accountability" will be taken.That's where I found it. If you're including Bush in "we", then I'm with you. It doesn't really sound like you are, though.
Well it was around 49 to 48m. Guess who most of the uninformed masses voted for? Buchanan.
Who are these "experts" you speak of anyway?People who spend their lives dealing with terrorism, matters of national security, that sort of thing. Who would you trust?

[Farquar]

No matter how bad and stupid their methods are, most terrorists have a legitimate concern that has to be addressed. You want to take the path of Israel and Russia, go ahead. It is working so well for them, after all.

There are ways to combat terrorism without destroying the Constitution. They may be less convenient for people in power, but hey, that's called checks and balances.


Nope. Prosecutors do their best to convince 12 random people that the accused is guilty. I hope you don't really think our legal system is perfect.

Wrong. Lawyers do their best to convince 12 random people that an accused is guilty. Prosecutors do their best to convince 12 random people, on behalf of the community, that a person accused of a crime against said community is guilty. See the distinction?

And as a lawyer, I know that the system is far from perfect.


That's where I found it. If you're including Bush in "we", then I'm with you. It doesn't really sound like you are, though.

True, all Americans will be affected, Bush included. But, the middle and lower class will be affected disproportionately. A $2000 tax increase will hurt a household that makes 50k a year more than one that makes 250k a year.


People who spend their lives dealing with terrorism, matters of national security, that sort of thing. Who would you trust?

I agree...like the people who wrote the intelligence report about invading Iraq. Like the people in the FBI that warned about possible airline based attacks a few months before 9/11. It seems that these days, the "experts" that give advice on national security also have lots of stock in oil drilling and exploration firms.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The electoral-vote site takes a while to update. From what I've seen, they do so only once a day and based on new state wide polls.

Your gallup site: Sept. 3-5, 2004

Zogby: Released: September 10, 2004

Yes, dates do matter.

Raven

Gallup poll was Sept. 13-15 and has Bush at 55% Kerry at 42%.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Farquar
I read a poll demographic the other day, (I'm currently searching for the info, I'll post if/when I find the link because I really do use it a lot in posts and conversation) that essentially stated the following:

Kerry led Bush among people with post graduate degrees.

Kerry led Bush among people with college degrees.

Bush led among people that had some college education but had not finished college.

Bush led among people that have only a high school education and lower.


Tamral posted statistics saying otherwise. Do you have any proof of yours yet?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Gallup poll was Sept. 13-15 and has Bush at 55% Kerry at 42%.

And the other 3 polls were just as recent and showed them neck and neck. Obviously, they contradict each other. Though I have noticed a lot more light red than dark red on the electoral-vote site so according to them, Bush's lead is shrinking. In any case, the debates should probably play a bigger role in things than daily sniping between the candidates.

Raven

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Ravenstorm]

What a coincidence. I just ran into this:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

Raven

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Farquar
I read a poll demographic the other day, (I'm currently searching for the info, I'll post if/when I find the link because I really do use it a lot in posts and conversation) that essentially stated the following:

Kerry led Bush among people with post graduate degrees.

Kerry led Bush among people with college degrees.

Bush led among people that had some college education but had not finished college.

Bush led among people that have only a high school education and lower.


Tamral posted statistics saying otherwise. Do you have any proof of yours yet?

Tamaral's post was re: the 2000 election.

Here it is:

According to the CNN/Gallup poll of August 23-25, (the most recent I could find with this data):

Education

Post-graduate
Kerry 54
Bush 41
Other 3

College graduate
Kerry 53
Bush 41
Other 2

Some college
Kerry 42
Bush 50
Other 4

High school or less
Kerry 43
Bush 47
Other 5

[Jack]

Originally posted by Farquar

I saw on CNN that certain parties are actually offering monetary rewards for Bush's proof of service. I'm not questioning the integrity of the National guard as a valid service branch. Kerry's got service records, bullet wounds and a slew of medals. I wouldn't call it exactly equal.

John Kerry does not have a single bullet wound. I don't know how you came up with that one. He applied for, and recieved three Purple Hearts, all of them for minor shrapnel wounds. Not a single bullet wound. Three bandaid wounds don't count as "Bullet Wounds". At least, not in my book.

Edited for gramatical error.

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Jack]

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack

Originally posted by Farquar

I saw on CNN that certain parties are actually offering monetary rewards for Bush's proof of service. I'm not questioning the integrity of the National guard as a valid service branch. Kerry's got service records, bullet wounds and a slew of medals. I wouldn't call it exactly equal.

John Kerry does not have a single bullet wound. I don't know how you came up with that one. He applied for, and recieved three Purple Hearts, all of them for minor shrapnel wounds. Not a single bullet wound. Three bandaid wounds don't count as "Bullet Wounds". At least, not in my book.

Edited for gramatical error.

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Jack]

Jack is correct. I didn’t know you could apply for Purple Hearts. I’m positive you can’t apply for Silver Stars though.

[edit for too many thoughs]

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Backlash]

[Jack]

If you are a comissioned officer, you put yourself in for a purple heart, if you are not, a commisioned officer puts you in for them.

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack
If you are a comissioned officer, you put yourself in for a purple heart, if you are not, a commisioned officer puts you in for them.

And a commisioned officer is someone who enlists after a certain age. Correct?

Like if you want to enlist when you are past 30?

[Jack]

No. A commissioned officer is a commisioned officer... There are two subsets of military hierarchy. Enlisted personel, and Commissioned Officers. For the navy, enlisted ranks go from Seaman Recruit, to Master Chief Petty Officer. Commissioned Officer ranks go from Ensign, to Admiral. To become a Commissioned Officer, one must have a four year degree, in pretty much anything, and apply for a commission. After his defferment for further education in Paris France was declined by his draft board, John Kerry applied for a Commision in the Naval Reserves. He was accepted, went through Officer Candidates School, then to the USS Gridley, a guided missile destroyer, which deployed on one West Pac, this is the first of his "Two Tours in Vietnam". After one year aboard the USS Gridley, John Kerry volunteered for coastal duty aboard Swift Boats. He served one month in training, then three months of duty aboard a Swift Boat. Somewhere in that time frame, he was promoted from Ensign, to Leutenant Junior Grade, and eventually to Leutenant. After three minor shrapnel wounds, John Kerry went home early, taking advantage of the Three Purple Hearts, and your tour is over rule. This rule was instated for people with serious wounds, John Kerry was never seriously wounded. He was never hospitalized for any period of time.

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack
No. A commissioned officer is a commisioned officer... There are two subsets of military hierarchy. Enlisted personel, and Commissioned Officers. For the navy, enlisted ranks go from Seaman Recruit, to Master Chief Petty Officer. Commissioned Officer ranks go from Ensign, to Admiral. To become a Commissioned Officer, one must have a four year degree, in pretty much anything, and apply for a commission. After his defferment for further education in Paris France was declined by his draft board, John Kerry applied for a Commision in the Naval Reserves. He was accepted, went through Officer Candidates School, then to the USS Gridley, a guided missile destroyer, which deployed on one West Pac, this is the first of his "Two Tours in Vietnam". After one year aboard the USS Gridley, John Kerry volunteered for coastal duty aboard Swift Boats. He served one month in training, then three months of duty aboard a Swift Boat. Somewhere in that time frame, he was promoted from Ensign, to Leutenant Junior Grade, and eventually to Leutenant. After three minor shrapnel wounds, John Kerry went home early, taking advantage of the Three Purple Hearts, and your tour is over rule. This rule was instated for people with serious wounds, John Kerry was never seriously wounded. He was never hospitalized for any period of time.

Ah, not age, degree. And they pay for your degree if you enlist. You get to travel, government holidays...

His wounds may not seem serious, but the fact that this lilly-white boy from good money and Yale sucked it up and went means something. A record of service to America, not his own interests.

[Jack]

I would agree with you, except for one thing. He recieved his commission in the Inactive Naval Reserves, as he requested. He just got unlucky and was activated. The only reason he even did this much, was because his deferment for further education in Paris was denied by his draft board. His application for commission in the Inactive Naval Reserve was done to avoid being drafted into the Army.

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack
I would agree with you, except for one thing. He recieved his commission in the Inactive Naval Reserves, as he requested. He just got unlucky and was activated. The only reason he even did this much, was because his deferment for further education in Paris was denied by his draft board. His application for commission in the Inactive Naval Reserve was done to avoid being drafted into the Army.

How do you know this stuff?

How do you explain the Stars?

Seriously. Are you one of those “top government sources who wished to remain anonymous” people I read about on a daily basis?

[Jack]

The Bronze Star and Silver Star Medals are what I assume you are talking about when referring to Stars...

He recieved the Silver Star for an unorthadox action, which though incredibly stupid, did have some bravery involved. He beached his boat, jumped off the bow, and chased down a Viet Cong fighter, who was either armed with a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, a previously fired B-40 rocket launcher, or unarmed, depending on who you ask. When he caught up to the fellow, he shot him.

A few interesting things to note about the silver star citation: There are three of them for this single event, It is listed on Kerry's DD-214 as a Silver Star with Combat V, two of the citations are signed by various admirals, the third is signed by Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy.

Why those are interesting things to note: Three citations for one event, for the same medal, obvious. The Combat V has Never been authorized for wear with the Silver Star Medal. You see, a Combat V is awarded for valor in combat, but the Silver Star is a Valor award itself, so it would be redundant, and unnescessary. It's a glaring error anyone with military experience would catch. Thirdly, the Silver Star must be signed by the Secretary of the Navy, not by an Admiral. Lehman does not remember ever seeing the award pass his desk in the eighties, when he supposedly signed it. Further, he does not recall authorizing the rewording of the citation that was done.

John Kerry recieved the Bronze Star for pulling Jim Rassaman out of the water. Earlier that day the Swiftboats were transporting a team of Special Operations personell, and they came upon a large cache of rice. John Kerry, and Jim Rassaman threw a few grenades into this cache of rice. John Kerry, ever the grenade dunce, was hit in the ass with shrapnel from his own grenade. They continued back to the swiftboats, and went on with their patrol. One of the boats hit an underwater mine, which blew it up into the air, wounding all aboard, and disabling the craft.

John Kerry ordered his boat to haul ass up the river, and haul ass it did. At some point Jim Rassaman was thrown overboard, either by being a clutz, a second mine that failed to do any damage at all to the boat, or a rocket that was launched at John Kerry's boat, depending on who you ask. He was left behind for several minutes, ducking underwater to avoid gunfire, or treading water, depending on who you ask. John Kerry finally turned his boat around, and came back, Rassaman was not able to climb up onto the boat himself, so John Kerry rushed forward and pulled him up. At some point John Kerry managed to scratch his arm, and applied for the Purple Heart again, citing his ass wound, and arm wound.

Meanwhile, the captain of the third boat in the group was aboard the disabled craft, performing damage control, and tending to the wounded. This man also earned a Bronze Star for the action, for his work aboard the disabled craft, and for taking the disabled craft in tow, and returning it to base.

[Back]

Nark.

[Back]

C’mon Jack, where are you getting this stuff. People want to know. At least I do.

Even though you paint it a certain way, again, I ask, how can you call a blue-blood silverspoon like Kerry a pussy if he voluntarily went through that kind of hell?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

ITS A CONSPIRACY I SAY.

TRUST NO ONE.

[Back]

SHM IS ON TO ME! FLEE!

Yeah, so I get a little paranoid. Its actually pretty funny to live in a shady world from time to time. Maybe its because I’m headed to the Spy Museum in a few hours. Heh.

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Backlash]

[Ilvane]

I want to know when getting schapnel in you is minor.

I'd be damned scared!

I'm not exactly the war fighting type though..so maybe to someone in the military it isn't that bad.:)

-A:heart:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I want to know when getting schapnel in you is minor.

When a small piece lands in your ass cheek and requires a simple procedure to remove it?

I've had worse wounds from paintball or fishing or hiking or camping or riding my bike or walking or playing football or playing basketball or about a billion other things.

[Parkbandit]

Jack is lying. John Kerry fought honorably those 4 months and to say otherwise is lying.

I hope you realize we will now dive into your personal life Jack and find out all the dirt we can about you. Where the hell do you come off saying such lies and spewing such hatred for a man that obviously was brave for going to Vietnam.

We won't even listen to you anymore since we already know the truth about John Kerry. He told us the truth already, so you must be lying.

Bastard.

[TheRoseLady]

Absolutely incredible that people are actually discussing the severity of wounds and if someone deserves medals.

Please put your partisan views aside and just realize that the guy served our country in an unpopular war that sent thousands home in body bags.

The man has 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star, to sit around now and discuss whether he deserved or didn't deserve them is nothing about armchair quarterbacking 35 years too late.

[Jack]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Absolutely incredible that people are actually discussing the severity of wounds and if someone deserves medals.

Please put your partisan views aside and just realize that the guy served our country in an unpopular war that sent thousands home in body bags.

The man has 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star, to sit around now and discuss whether he deserved or didn't deserve them is nothing about armchair quarterbacking 35 years too late.

If John Kerry's main campaign point was something other than his misrepresentation of himself as a war hero, then I'd gladly talk about something else. Two tours in Vietnam he says? His first "Tour" was aboard a guided missile destroyer, that spent two days in a port in Vietnam, where he never even left the ship. His second "Tour" was cut short by eight months because he applied to go home after his third Purple Heart.

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Jack]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Jack

If John Kerry's main campaign point was something other than his misrepresentation of himself as a war hero, then I'd gladly talk about something else. Two tours in Vietnam he says? His first "Tour" was aboard a guided missile destroyer, that spent two days in a port in Vietnam, where he never even left the ship. His second "Tour" was cut short by eight months because he applied to go home after his third Purple Heart.

[Edited on 9-18-2004 by Jack]

Jack,

You can't serious right? Let's have you visit these links and get some education.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040917_1894.html

Sorry if his "tours" of duty don't live up to your standards. But railing on about how he's 'No War Hero' is silly.

On the otherhand, if that's all you think that Kerry is about - then that tells me that you have done absolutely no homework.

Here's a link- you can read about the various issues and where Kerry stands on them.

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

[Ilvane]

And Bush is the champion of the military having proudly served during the Vietnam....but not fulfilling his duties in the national guard.

heh.

Now Bush's father was a war hero. The son didn't exactly follow in his footsteps.

-A

[Jack]

I'm not exactly a big fan of George Bush either, but last I checked he never claimed to be a war hero. And as for the website with Kerry's stands on things, is it updated daily for all the changes?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
And Bush is the champion of the military having proudly served during the Vietnam....but not fulfilling his duties in the national guard.

heh.

Now Bush's father was a war hero. The son didn't exactly follow in his footsteps.

-A

And this is better than those who talk about Kerry's war record?

I would have you check your precious factcheck.org.. but typically it only discusses 'facts' when they are damaging to Democrats.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Absolutely incredible that people are actually discussing the severity of wounds and if someone deserves medals.

Please put your partisan views aside and just realize that the guy served our country in an unpopular war that sent thousands home in body bags.

The man has 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star, to sit around now and discuss whether he deserved or didn't deserve them is nothing about armchair quarterbacking 35 years too late.

Absolutely incredible that people are actually discussing the service in the reserves.

Please put your partisan views aside and just realize that the guy served our country.

The man has an honorable discharge, to sit around now and discuss whether he deserved or didn't deserve them is nothing about armchair quarterbacking 35 years too late.

:)

[Scott]

What does Kerry getting a medal have anything to do with him being president? It reminds me of a book, "That was Then, This is Now." What happened year and years ago has nothing to do with how fit someone is for the presidency. I made a lot of stupid ass mistakes when I was younger, does that effect how well I can do something now?

What Kerry/Bush did in Vietnam was the past, this is now and that's what people need to focus on. The past is the past, the future is what everyone needs to worry about. I don't care that Kerry got some medals and I don't care that he threw them over a fence (even though I'm not sure if he did or not.) I don't care if George Bush didn't go to vietnam, nor do I care that he has a DUI. It doesn't influence my opinion of either man. Go by what they are doing now, not what they did years ago.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Absolutely incredible that people are actually discussing the service in the reserves.

Please put your partisan views aside and just realize that the guy served our country.

The man has an honorable discharge, to sit around now and discuss whether he deserved or didn't deserve them is nothing about armchair quarterbacking 35 years too late.

:)

You know Mike, the difference between my post and yours is that I actually said not one thing about Bush or the reserves. You on the other hand, posted that you had more serious injuries from a litany of sports.

I am not surprised that you turned my post around to suit your views, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's extremely poor form to compare injuries sustained on some sunny Florida day to those that occurred in or around some water in Vietnam while the enemy is lurking around trying to take your life.

You may not like Kerry, but please don't throw every ounce of credibility that you have on cheap shots that serve no real purpose.


Back to the real issues we go.

:kisses:

[Jack]

Real issues indeed. Aside from Kerry's war record, I don't know if he's really made any accomplishments. Since there are several Kerry supporters who regulary espouse their views about his ability to lead the country, maybe some of you can fill me in. What legislation has he sponsored, or even co-sponsored while serving as a senator? What committees has he served on, and what has he done while serving on them? That is more recent history, and quite valid to making a determination about his abilities as a leader.

Say the USA today, bush up by 13 points

saw

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Say the USA today, bush up by 13 points

They base their polls on Gallup. Ravenstorm pointed out last evening, that their method of sampling is definately not balanced. I don't remember which thread, but there are other more reliable sites to check the polls.

Here's the link:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html



[Edited on 9-19-2004 by TheRoseLady]

[Jack]

Is the New York Times still an acceptable source? Gives a pretty good break down of current poll trends, and a valid explanation for why the results are so varied currently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics/campaign/18explain.html

[Psykos]

John Kerry Vs George Bush -- you be the judge.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jack
Is the New York Times still an acceptable source? Gives a pretty good break down of current poll trends, and a valid explanation for why the results are so varied currently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics/campaign/18explain.html

It's only an acceptable source if Kerry is leading.

Duh.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Psykos
John Kerry Vs George Bush -- you be the judge.


:spammer:

[Psykos]

Or it was a joke. lighten up bitch.

Psykos



Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Psykos
John Kerry Vs George Bush -- you be the judge.


:spammer:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Back to the real issues we go.



So let me get this straight...

Bush's reserve duty would be an issue but Kerry's service in Vietnam isn't?

And if we have to get back to the issues.. let's simply look at his wasted 20 years in the Senate.

Oh wait.. that's not an issue either.. we should go to what he says he is going to do when he becomes President.

:rolleyes:

[Jack]

I seriously would like to know what sort of legeslation John Kerry Sponsored, or co-sponsored as a senator, and the comittees he served on. That will give a good picture of what his priorities are. His military record aside, what sort of things has this man done to help the country?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Jack
Is the New York Times still an acceptable source? Gives a pretty good break down of current poll trends, and a valid explanation for why the results are so varied currently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/politics/campaign/18explain.html


Jack - my man - did you actually read that article? Who is their 'expert'.....

"David W. Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll, said he believed ..."

The sad thing is that the majority of the public will see USA Today and believe that the polls are accurate. Gallups methodology is skewed.

I don't even pay attention to the polls. I was simply letting RangerD know about Gallup's methodology and he can draw his own conclusions on what to think.

I'll leave this whole line of discussion to Ravenstorm, perhaps he has more patience than I.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Back to the real issues we go.



So let me get this straight...

Bush's reserve duty would be an issue but Kerry's service in Vietnam isn't?

And if we have to get back to the issues.. let's simply look at his wasted 20 years in the Senate.

Oh wait.. that's not an issue either.. we should go to what he says he is going to do when he becomes President.

:rolleyes:

You know what, I was going to respond to this post. But it's more than abundantly clear that you missed your calling - you should have become a politician. No one on these boards can dodge an issue and put a spin on something better than you.

So, you win Mike! Congratulations.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I'll leave this whole line of discussion to Ravenstorm, perhaps he has more patience than I.

Nope. I gave up on debating politics here months ago. I'll merely point out certain things and let it go at that.

Raven

Roselady: I Really don't give two fucks. You can claim whatever you like is biased, what matters is what happens on that day in November. Then again, no matter the circumstances, if Bush wins you will have people screaming how he cheated the country and blah blah blah.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Roselady: I Really don't give two fucks. You can claim whatever you like is biased, what matters is what happens on that day in November. Then again, no matter the circumstances, if Bush wins you will have people screaming how he cheated the country and blah blah blah.

If you don't care then why did you bother to post it at all?

:shrug:

[Ilvane]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

This is an article about the Navy looking into Kerry's medals, and if they were given appropriately. Judicial watch was looking for more, but they explained it wasn't necessary.

-A

[Jack]

Originally posted by Ilvane
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

This is an article about the Navy looking into Kerry's medals, and if they were given appropriately. Judicial watch was looking for more, but they explained it wasn't necessary.

-A

That article says different things to different people I guess. To me all that says is the Navy IG looked at his record, and said the proper administrative procedure was followed, and that's that.

Now, since you all keep stating that the Vietnam War issue is no longer relevant 35 years later, please tell me what John Kerry did as a Senator that makes him qualified to lead the country.

[Psykos]

He said he didn't care about your opinion, not his own.. Get a fucking clue?

Thanks.



Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by RangerD1
Roselady: I Really don't give two fucks. You can claim whatever you like is biased, what matters is what happens on that day in November. Then again, no matter the circumstances, if Bush wins you will have people screaming how he cheated the country and blah blah blah.

If you don't care then why did you bother to post it at all?

:shrug:

[Ilvane]

This is off something called the D-Bunker on John Kerry's website. There is a lot of information, though probably not all he has done in the senate, these are all sourced as well.

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=33963

It's a long read, but I think it will give you some information.

-A

[Chadj]

Dear hipocrits,

STFU.

Love
Chadj


Dear non-hipocrits,

STFU.

Love,
Chadj

[Jack]

It would appear he's sponsored several bills to provide tax relief and other support to small buisnesses, none of them passed yet, each referred to various comittees, and sub comittees.

Also interestingly enough, he helped author the Patriot Act. Speccifically the money laundering portion, which he belives should be expanded. Too bad Bush=Hitler because he instituted the Patriot act...

He seems to be a big fan of Kyoto treaty, which would punish countries with various fines, large and small for violating stringent pollution standards. These procedes of these fines would then be given to poor countries, so that they can use the funds to reduce their own polution. So in effect, the US would be giving away money to third world countries that polute far more than the U.S. Not something I personally agree with or approve of.

He introduced a bill to reimburse family members who bought body armor for soldiers serving overseas. That is one thing I can't argue with, and will have to say I applaud.

He drafted the first gayfriendly anti-discrimination bill in the Senate in 1985. None would sign on to it with him or advocate with him. Too politically incorrect back then, I guess. I see why Ravenstorm is all over him.

Overall it does look like he did do something as a Senator, though for there's only one thing that caught my eye as being an important issue to myself, that of the Body Armor reimbursement. Enviornmental laws, tax breaks for small buisnesses, gay friendly legeslation, that doesn't make much of a difference to me personally. The Patriot Act, something Bush is regularly critisized for, having portions authored by John Kerry is rather ironic to me.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Jack
I see why Ravenstorm is all over him.

No, actually you don't. See, I didn't know he did that. :) I'm for Kerry because while he might make a good President, I've seen what Bush has done to harm America and its citizens. That outweighs any faults Kerry might have.

Raven

[Back]

A list (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d105&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Kerry++ John+F.))+01379))) of Kerry sponsored bills.

Taken from Thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov/)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
A list (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d105&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Kerry++ John+F.))+01379))) of Kerry sponsored bills.

Taken from Thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov/)

A list of meaningful legislation brought about by Senator John Kerry

Link (http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/)

:)

Now now.. don't be a hater :)

[PeaceDisturbance]

>>Roselady: I Really don't give two fucks. You can claim whatever you like is biased, what matters is what happens on that day in November. Then again, no matter the circumstances, if Bush wins you will have people screaming how he cheated the country and blah blah blah. <<

RangerD(umbass)1 you are a fucking idiot.


:troll:

Yahuh. :shibby:

You can sit there and argue the merits of various forms of unofficial polling. Ill just wait till november either way ;)

[Keller]

Keep fighting off the facts with those stingy words.
Were they weapons of mass destruction? Or weapons of mass destruction production capabilities? Now THAT was brilliant!
Oh wait, and Osama, Osama, Osama, Osama, Bueller, Bueller, Bue .... Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.


He needs to continue ignoring he and his cabinets ties to oil and big business.


He definately needs to ignore the fact that the major recipients of his tax cut save their portion and don't spend it at all. Oh, and also ignore that if that tax cut instead went to the lower-half they would spend the money (think, INCREASED DEMAND), increase production, increase jobs, and grow the economy. Not ignoring that would be terrible for America --- wait .. no, it would be terrible for rich people. No, wait again!! That would be .... good for all people?

He'll need to avoid actual interviews at all cost. (see Tamral's comment about intellect and wit)

He'll need the country to unite under freedom and vote for him.

He'll need blacks, latinos, women, gays, lesbians, and foreign-born AMERICANS to neglect their duty to vote, thus making a mockery of the money and LIVES we've lost trying to establish democracy, and yes, freedom, our overseas possession Iraq.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Keller]

[Hulkein]

<<He definately needs to ignore the fact that the major recipients of his tax cut save their portion and don't spend it at all. Oh, and also ignore that if that tax cut instead went to the lower-half they would spend the money (think, INCREASED DEMAND), increase production, increase jobs, and grow the economy. Not ignoring that would be terrible for America --- wait .. no, it would be terrible for rich people. No, wait again!! That would be .... good for all people? >>

Most poor people spend their tax-cuts non-taxable items like FOOD. Rich spend it on real estate, 100k dollar boats/cars, TVs, you know, very heavily taxed stuff.

Not to mention money in a bank or a portfolio of a rich man helps the economy.

[Keller]

Helps the economy by doing what? Giving him more money? Allowing him a tax break for investing? What part of that is more helpful than providing jobs and income to the millions without jobs so they can spend money and GROW the economy, not some assholes portfolio!!

[Hulkein]

Again, spending money on food doesn't help the economy grow. Investing in the stock market and other funds does.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Again, spending money on food doesn't help the economy grow. Investing in the stock market and other funds does.

The ag economy would whole heartedly disagree with that statement.

So would each state's department of revenue. Sales tax is sales tax.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Again, spending money on food doesn't help the economy grow. Investing in the stock market and other funds does.

Actually, any additional spending helps the economy grow.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Most poor people spend their tax-cuts non-taxable items like FOOD. Rich spend it on real estate, 100k dollar boats/cars, TVs, you know, very heavily taxed stuff.

Not to mention money in a bank or a portfolio of a rich man helps the economy.

What about the middle-class? The people I know the best. They DO spend their money on things like homes, cars, TVs, etc. They are not usually as fiscally responsible (notice, I think putting the money into mutual funds WOULD be the best thing for YOU ... but most people are idiots) and tend to blow their wad when they get it. I am not trying to argue for arguments sake. I am trying to show you that supply-side economics doesn't work.

For years people believed in Keynesian economimcs, then it was shown to be flawed. Don't let your overwhelming adoration for the only man in American history to TRIPLE the national debt to blind you when it comes to our childrens future. Let's find a plan that works, for all of us.

[Warriorbird]

It's just that what conservatives claim not to grasp is this, Parkbandit. Rich people get rich by keeping their money. It'd take a moron not to grasp it. Of course they "know" this, but they like to claim that trickle down economics helps the little guy. Then they get pet minorities like Tamral to puff up their point of view. Rather remarkably effective.

[Keller]

Rich people get rich because they offer goods and services that people want. They get rich because they don't live beyond their means and save their money. If any of you are in debt and need help, please see a financial advisor, Primerica will do your financial plan for free. I wish everyone financial success, rich, poor, and otherwise.

That being said, we live in a country with a social contract to protect the assets that people accumulate. Part of that contract is for the rich people to help the poor people. You can't have poor people in Iraq dying to protect your assets from "immenant threats" and then refuse to provide them with what most would agree are basic human needs.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Hulkein
Again, spending money on food doesn't help the economy grow. Investing in the stock market and other funds does.

Actually, any additional spending helps the economy grow.

No shit. I wasn't saying that it has literally ZERO effect, but a poorer man buying 100 dollars more of TV dinners has relatively zero effect.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Hulkein]

[Keller]

except when it's millions of poor people buying hundreds of millions of dollars in TV dinners.

[Keller]

except when it's millions of poor people buying hundreds of millions of dollars in TV dinners.

We're still talking about the same amount of money going back into the general pool. But instead of stockpiling the money, we're spending it to grow the economy.

[Wezas]

You all are making me hungry again.

[GSTamral]

Velocity of the spent dollar on durable goods ~ 2.7

Velocity of money saved in a bank account or invested in the market ~ 17.4, or 76% of the maximum threshold of the required minimum deposit ratio for accounts over 100,000.

Money spent on durable goods does have a net effect on the economy, but investment money and money saved in a bank is called power money for a reason.

Clinton's short term windfall surge in durable spending and government spending (ratio estimated at 4.5 but I have no proof of this beyond a number from a textbook from 1992) created a short term burst in spending, one that meets little inflationary pressures because most of the money spent was spent on workers, who turn around and create a second windfall, however, the bubble bursts in such a scenario every time. That's why, by 1999, we had recessionary pressures, and by 2000, we were in the start of what economists call a liquidity trap.

Luckily, we are no longer in that environment, even though we still have recessionary pressures. For more information on liquidity traps, see any textbook on the economics of Japan, which has been in the midst of a very very long and brutal recession due to some extremely socialistic economic policies.

Isn't it amazing how the fastest growing economies in the world also seem to have the lowest highest tax bracket tax percentage? Something no democrat would ever wish to admit.

The lower percentage at the highest tax bracket does not in fact exist for the just the rich. It exists for the upper middle class and lower upper class.

[Warriorbird]

Except you conveniently forget things like the Great Depression, the downturn after the 1980's, and Japan's bubble economy. Damn, that stuff sucks.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21shaviro.html?ex=1253505600&en=6b3b4455e8fe0250&e i=5090&partner=rssuserland

[Back]

An interesting paragraph about polls...


The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

An interesting op-ed (http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,5025667.column).


Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool.

Any editors of newspapers or television news shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible. On behalf of the public they profess to serve, they are indolent salesmen of falsehoods.

Still, Zogby says this (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859).


2004: It Is Not An 11 Point Race - by John Zogby

[TheEschaton]

Then they get pet minorities like Tamral to puff up their point of view.

Sadly, Tamral's (and mine as well, since I'm of the same ethnicity) particular ethnic group is increasingly Republican these days. Look at Bobby Jindal, eh? I was so excited that an Indian was running for a high public office....then confused and dismayed because he was running on a Republican ticket.

You would think the country whose heroes are Gandhi and Mother Theresa would produce people of a more liberal mindset. It must be true what my father said, the Indians who came to this country (himself included) forsook their culture and their pride for shameless opportunism....

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

A pet minority?

You mean like all the other pet minorities that Democrats have ensnared?

[Keller]

no no, democrats have lazy welfare-mother pet minorities. Different from just normal pet minorities, you should know this.