John Kerry

[rccar328]

Well, in the ongoing democratic primaries, it looks like John Kerry will be the democratic presidential nominee...but personally, I can't see why anyone would vote for him. From what I've heard, about the only thing he's got going for him is his war-hero status, and even that is questionable.

 

Furthermore, he has flip-flopped on so many major issues that it's impossible to tell where he stands.

 

Also, he equates attacks on his voting record with personal attacks on his patriotism. Now, it seems to me that questioning the voting record of a United States senator is a perfect valid method of campaigning...but that's just me.

 

It boggles my mind as to how this man could've even have been elected as a senator (until I remind myself that Teddy Kennedy was elected in the same state - but that's not really an excuse).

 

Am I missing something here? Does John Kerry really have a spine hidden in there somewhere and is just afraid to show it?

 

I believe that the "anybody but Bush" mentality that has been rearing its ugly head during the democratic primary season is a danger to our country - especially when John Kerry becomes that "anybody".

 

 

Here's a few more articles on Kerry, just for kicks:

John Kerry - betwixt and between

John Kerry's ambivalent patriotism

Flip-flop John Kerry running lop-sided

John Kerry's social security "wishcraft"

[wassup]

Frankly, I'm not too interested in any of these candidates. It is as if all the candidates (at least especially Kerry and Edwards) can talk about is how Bush did this wrong, did that wrong, etc. I hardly hear anything about what they mean to do. It has become too much of a pointless brawl between them.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Furthermore, he has flip-flopped on so many major issues that it's impossible to tell where he stands.

 

I find it ironic that Kerry states that the issue of gay marriage is unimportant yet emphasizes the importance over the issue of past military records. For the record, military service does not mean a better president, in fact it can lead to disasterous presidencies (Ulysses Grant).

[Acrylic]

I cant vote yet, but if I could, Id vote for Kerry, because I think he makes more sense than the other candidates,and WAAAY mroe sense than Bush.

[obi]

I say it's a Kerry/Edwards race.

I think they'd make nice running mates.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

I believe that the "anybody but Bush" mentality that has been rearing its ugly head during the democratic primary season is a danger to our country - especially when John Kerry becomes that "anybody".

 

I think that the fact that Bush has made himself SO hated it's CAUSED the 'anybody but Bush' mentality is a danger to our country.

[rccar328]

I find it ironic that Kerry states that the issue of gay marriage is unimportant yet emphasizes the importance over the issue of past military records. For the record, military service does not mean a better president, in fact it can lead to disasterous presidencies (Ulysses Grant).

 

On Feb. 27, 1992, Kerry delivered a speech on the Senate floor defending Bill Clinton's nonservice and avoidance of the draft as irrelevant and lamenting that Vietnam had been "inserted into the campaign." Another presidential candidate at that time, Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, was using his own Vietnam service as a political weapon against Bill Clinton (history does repeat). John Kerry told his fellow senators, "What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary ... . We do not need to divide America over who served and how" (emphasis mine).

 

This is an excerpt from this report...more Kerry flip-flopping - no one can use Bill Clinton's draft-dodging against him, but it's okay to sling around baseless accusations against President Bush. What's more, he said that Vietnam shouldn't be an issue, but it seems to me that Vietnam & Bush hatred are about all that Kerry's running on.

 

Plus, in the debate the other day, candidates Kerry and Edwards couldn't seem to make up their minds about gay marriage...they both stated that they opposed a federal Constitutional Amendment, but beyond that, Kerry's statements were confusing - I just couldn't tell where he stood. And Edwards contradicted himself by saying that gay marriage should be determined by the states and that one state's decision should not apply to all states, but he said that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes gay marriage the domain of the individual states, and says that one state's decision does not apply to all states.

 

And on top of that, from what I've heard of John Kerry, about the only solid things he has on his platform are that he's a Vietnam vet & that he hates Bush...but that's not enough to make a president.

 

I think that the fact that Bush has made himself SO hated it's CAUSED the 'anybody but Bush' mentality is a danger to our country.

 

The reason that liberals in America hate Bush is because he's showing true leadership, and he's not leading in the way that you want him to. But the fact that you don't like Bush is no reason to vote for someone like John Kerry.

 

I cant vote yet, but if I could, Id vote for Kerry, because I think he makes more sense than the other candidates,and WAAAY mroe sense than Bush.

 

I say it's a Kerry/Edwards race.

I think they'd make nice running mates.

 

Well...I watched the democratic debate the other day, and I thought Kusinich made the most sense...he was wrong, but he made more sense than anyone else that was there.

 

I think that the reason that Edwards is in the race at all is that he wants to be VP - he was totally pandering to Kerry through the whole debate.

 

Aside from that, these aren't really reasons to vote for John Kerry.

 

First off, why does he make more sense? How can waffling on every significant issue make sense?

 

It seems to me that the only definitive position that Kerry has taken is that he hates Bush and that he's a veteran. But hatred for Bush does not mean that he has a positive vision for the future of America. He has stated that he wants the US military to be controlled by the United Nations...the very same United Nations that allowed Saddam Hussen render their word meaningless...

 

He railed against Wal-Mart during the debate. But his wife owns over $1 million in stock in Wal-Mart.

 

What's more, he condemns what he calls, "Benedict Arnold CEOs," who ship jobs overseas...but all the while he ignores the fact that his wife is one of them.

 

So you say you're voting for John Kerry...fine. BUT WHY??? Is it just hatred for Bush? If so, that's a pretty irresponsible vote.

 

I'm only trying to understand...

[SkinWalker]

Bah.

 

Anybody can post links to op-ed garbage... I was surprised that even you chose to link to the "drudge report." Sure, Matt broke the Lewinsky scandal, but his claim that Clinton admin staff vandalized the whitehouse prior to vacating was entirely baseless. As is a lot of his crap.

 

I look at the evidence. Kerry has an apparent history of listening to constituents and his campaign pledges seem more realistic than Bush's.

 

In addition, Bush has a history of failure within the whitehouse and appears to care little of the constituency. Moreover, his ethics are questionable for reasons I've posted elsewhere.

 

Perhaps you'd like to take the top ten challenge I posted in one of the Bush threads? It involved naming the top 10 things Bush has accomplished since taking office.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

He railed against Wal-Mart during the debate. But his wife owns over $1 million in stock in Wal-Mart.

 

Matt drudge garbage... it might not even be factual coming from that highly questionable source. Hell, you might as well quote Limbaugh.

 

But assuming Kerry's wife does have over a $1 million in stock at Wal-Mart, does that mean that she is intimate with all the details of her stock portfolio, or that she trusts a financial advisor to get her money in the best possible places? I think the fact that he's willing to criticize the very company he's invested in says a little about the fact that he cares about his investment on some level....

 

If that's an indication of the dirt that the Republicans are going to sling at Kerry, it's going to be a landslide.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

What's more, he condemns what he calls, "Benedict Arnold CEOs," who ship jobs overseas...but all the while he ignores the fact that his wife is one of them.

 

More out-of-context-op-ed stuff.... but I ask you this: did his wife create the Heinz legacy and drive the corporate decisions to invest in the manner in which it did?

 

Wouldn't she be a bit foolish to refuse the money / assets that she was entitled to?

 

I'm predicting a landslide election....

 

Originally posted by rccar328

So you say you're voting for John Kerry...fine. BUT WHY??? Is it just hatred for Bush? If so, that's a pretty irresponsible vote.

 

Perhaps. But disappointment and distrust for Bush might be reason enough to give another reasonable candidate a chance. To date, there is no indication that Kerry could be a worse president than the dismal failure that occupies that office now... not to fire Bush would be suicide for our country.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

I'm only trying to understand...

 

Hard to do when you blindly subscribe to partisan dichotomy. You obviously think me to be a "left-wing liberal," but you might be surprised to know that I've voted Republican more times than Democrat.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

The reason that liberals in America hate Bush is because he's showing true leadership, and he's not leading in the way that you want him to.

 

Ahhh, you see, this is where we differ. I was under the impression we lived in a Republic, where our elected officials are supposed to mirror our beliefs and do what we expect of them.

 

I dont hate bush because of his "leadership" capabilities. I hate the fact that he has lied to us, and it seems that he is doing everything he can to get our attention off of the economy he's sent down the tubes.

 

Even if I had liked him up till now, his new constitutional ammendment would have made me seriously question putting him back in office, and I probably would have ended up voting against him. To me, banning gay marriage is biggotry, plain and simple.

[rccar328]

Well, Skin, you can trash Drudge all you want, but I've found him to be much more reliable than your ever-loved ever-liberal NPR...

 

Kerry has an apparent history of listening to constituents and his campaign pledges seem more realistic than Bush's.

 

Yeah...Kerry does have a history of listening to his constituents, and telling them exactly what they want to hear, no matter what side of the issue they're on.

 

How do you explain the letters that Kerry sent to the same constituent taking opposing sides during the Gulf War:

 

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22, 1991

 

 

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31, 1991

Taken from this report.

 

 

Wouldn't she be a bit foolish to refuse the money / assets that she was entitled to?

 

As far as Kerry's wife goes, I don't blame her for accepting Heinz co., but it is extremely hypocrytical of John Kerry to blast companies that move jobs overseas when his wife owns one such company. He's calling his own wife a traitor.

 

Perhaps. But disappointment and distrust for Bush might be reason enough to give another reasonable candidate a chance. To date, there is no indication that Kerry could be a worse president than the dismal failure that occupies that office now... not to fire Bush would be suicide for our country.

 

You say that I "blindly subscribe to partisan dichotomy," but all I'm doing is laying out what facts (or theories) that I've heard about John Kerry and asking why people consider the most liberal senator in America to be a "reasonable candidate." All I've seen is duplicity, empty words, and partisan politics.

 

I was under the impression we lived in a Republic, where our elected officials are supposed to mirror our beliefs and do what we expect of them.

 

But sometimes, a president is called on to lead the country in ways that, while sometimes unpopular, are in the country's best interests. The President is supposed to be a leader, not pander to every whim of the liberal agenda. And just because his beliefs don't mirror yours doesn't mean that there aren't many people in America who agree with many of the President's policies. (but that's not really what this thread is about.)

 

there is no indication that Kerry could be a worse president than the dismal failure that occupies that office now

Maybe if you look past the fact that Kerry's a spineless, ultra-liberal senator who wants to subjugate United States foriegn policy to the will of the ever-impotent United Nations. Maybe if you look past the fact that he wants to raise taxes, which may give the federal government more money in the short-term, but would be a hardship to working-class Americans and would encourage more businesses to move more jobs out of the US, ruining our economy in the long-term (that's why we here in California got rid of Gray Davis). Maybe if you look past the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind on where he stands on the important issues facing our nation. If you ignore who John Kerry really is, then yeah, he does look like a pretty good choice.

 

You seem to want to turn this into a Bush-bashing forum...but that doesn't really answer my questions about John Kerry - what does he bring to the table? Where is his positive vision for America? What is his plan for economic improvement? What is his plan to stop terrorism? Why do you consider John Kerry to be a "reasonable candidate," beyond the stupidity of "well, he's better than Bush," which is the only argument I've seen here so far?

 

You can attack me, you can attack my sources, but that does not provide any real answers to what I'm asking here. I really am trying to understand what, other than hatred for Bush, makes John Kerry such a great candidate.

 

When you have some real answers, let me know...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Well, Skin, you can trash Drudge all you want, but I've found him to be much more reliable than your ever-loved ever-liberal NPR...

 

And yet, NPR (to my knowledge) has never fabricated stories, routinely avoided the fact-checking process, or lied to their listeners. Matt Drudge has told a lot of truth over the years. But he's told a lot of lies/fabrications/etc. as well....

 

Also, I base the likelihood of NPR being the most objective source of information on the fact that I don't always agree with their editorial/commentary standpoints and that they appear willing to tell all sides of an issue.

 

But enough on that.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

How do you explain the letters that Kerry sent to the same constituent taking opposing sides during the Gulf War:

 

 

Taken from this report.

 

If you can't produce the actual letters (or links to them), I won't bother trying to explain them at all. I'm not saying they don't exist, but why bother discussing hearsay evidence. Let's deal with what is factual or verifiable.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

As far as Kerry's wife goes, I don't blame her for accepting Heinz co., but it is extremely hypocrytical of John Kerry to blast companies that move jobs overseas when his wife owns one such company. He's calling his own wife a traitor.

 

If it's relevant, I'm sure it will come up when Rove gets deep in his smear campaign.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The President is supposed to be a leader, not pander to every whim of the liberal agenda.

 

Or to every whim of the neo-conservative agenda?

 

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Maybe if you look past the fact that Kerry's a spineless,

 

I don't know that "spineless" is an accurate description, even as a caricacture. One doesn't earn a Bronze Star and several Purple Hearts by lacking a spine... One finds a convenient way to avoid having to earn such medals to begin with.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Maybe if you look past the fact that he wants to raise taxes, which may give the federal government more money in the short-term, but would be a hardship to working-class Americans

 

Working class Americans are getting the shaft as it is. An increase in Federal taxes cannot be avoided and expect the economy to improve. As a homeowner, I've watched my local taxes increase at least as much as any "taxbreak" the Bush admin has offered. There is simply no way to pay for all the Bush admin wants to spend and not raise taxes. In fact, the Budget that Bush offered during his State of the Union danced around the issue, but in 2005, the Bush admin (if still around) would have the ability to hammer the "working class" American.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

and would encourage more businesses to move more jobs out of the US, ruining our economy in the long-term

 

I believe that just the opposite will be true under the Kerry ecomomic plans.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

John Kerry - what does he bring to the table? Where is his positive vision for America? What is his plan for economic improvement? What is his plan to stop terrorism? Why do you consider John Kerry to be a "reasonable candidate," beyond the stupidity of "well, he's better than Bush," which is the only argument I've seen here so far?

 

Reviving American Manufacturing

To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will provide new tax breaks to manufacturers who produce goods and create jobs in the United States. He will provide relief for manufacturers that provide quality health care and retirement. John Kerry will strongly enforce trade laws to assure that American industries are on a level playing field with our trading partners. To guarantee that American manufacturing will be strong in the future, John Kerry will invest in research and development, give tax incentives to help industries upgrade, and work to assure a highly qualified workforce.

 

State Tax Relief and Education Fund to Create Jobs and Stop Painful Budget Cuts

John Kerry will create a new "State Tax Relief and Education Fund" that will help states so they don’t have to make cuts that hurt our economy with an additional $50 billion over two years. This fund will stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax and fee raising that are inhibiting our economic growth and causing layoffs. This fund includes $5 billion to stop state cuts in health care that hurt workers and patients and $5 billion for homeland security to stem layoffs of police officers and fire fighters. Kerry will, also, give additional money to states by fully funding the No Child Left Behind education law and special education.

 

Prepare Americans for 21st Century Jobs by Opening the Doors of College for All

John Kerry’s will create a new "College Opportunity Tax Credit" that will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition for public colleges. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable so that it helps the most vulnerable students. John Kerry has also proposed a "Service for College" plan, which will provide the cost of four years at a public college to young people in exchange for serving their communities and country in national service for two years. His plan says to all students, if you work hard and give to your country, your country will make sure you can afford a college education no matter who you are.

 

A New 'First Defenders' Initiative to Assure Local Responders are Equipped and Ready

by assuring first defenders have the gear to do their jobs safely and effectively. John Kerry has proposed creating a new fund for fire fighters – named after a September 11th hero, Father Mychal Judge, the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department who died delivering last rites. The Father Judge Fund would be similar to the COPS program and will hire up to 100,000 new firefighters and to provide the equipment necessary to assure firefighters are prepared. Kerry also believes we must restore funding to COPS to realize its initial mission of 100,000 new police officers.

 

Reforming Domestic Intelligence

Many of the examinations of 9/11 have raised serious questions about whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis. Kerry believes that the Bush Administration’s proposed Terrorist Threat Integration Center, (TTIC) will not be able to do the job, given its dependence on other agencies' analysts, the bureaucratic divide created between people identifying vulnerabilities and individuals charged with eliminating those vulnerabilities, and the number of people in charge which could complicate efforts to work with the state and local governments on information sharing. John Kerry believes that simplifying the bureaucratic charts makes more sense. America needs an independent intelligence capability that focuses explicitly on domestic intelligence.

[toms]

i don't get to vote, but if i did then I think the "anybody but bush" philosophy would guide me.

 

I don't know much about kerry as we haven't been exposed to him very much. (guess you wouldn't know much about Michael Howard).

 

It seems to me that you have to decide what you want in a politician. You can base decisions entirely on their policies, or you can decide that their past or their personal life are also important.

 

I somehow expect that you won't find a single high level politician in almost any country who hasn't got something in his past. Politicians these days are subject to so much scrutiny of their past (both professional and personal) that SOMETHING is bound to pop up. I doubt my life, or almost anyone here's life would stand up to that much crutiny without something that looked bad coming out.

 

I tend to be very dissillusioned by the whole system, to be honest. It seems to be such a closed club, where people with friends and influence gain more, and those on the outside have almost no chance to break in.

 

It boggles my mind as to how this man could've even have been elected as a senator

 

Frankly, it boggles my mind how MOST of these politicians could be elected.... it seems to have very little to do with ability. It doesn't matter where you look it all still seems to be a big club. Arnie (Kennedys) winning in california, politicians like Ann Winterton (UK) repeatedly getting second chances, politicians who arn't elected in one area becoming candidates for another, etc...

 

To even get to the stage of being a candidate you need to know the right people, to get the money and influence to win you need to make so many deals, but once you are in, you can continue to make mistakes and continue to get bailed out.

 

Frankly, it boggles my mind how most of the last few US presidents could have been elected to anything, let alone the presidency.

 

Regan was blatetly an idiot, clinton was smarter but with obvious flaws, bush is an idiot. It seems clear that the population of the US likes to elect people who aren't too smart based on their general likeability rather than their policies.

 

Bush failed school, got into top college, failed college, failed army, failed several buisinesses, got made ceo of more buisinesses and ended up president. How did that work??? I wish my life worked like that... the worse i did the more money and power i got.

If he was anyone else he would have flunked school and then that would have been the end of his chances... he'd have had a low paid job for the rest of his life.

 

---

 

I tend to be of the opinion that i'd rather have someone who was smart as president, rather than someone who wasn't... but that is obviously just me.

 

---

 

From the little I have seen, Kerry's main attraction seems to be that he fits some sort of idea that americans have of what a president should look like. Distinguished, greying hair, etc... The war hero bit just adds to the image. Personally, i don't think you should elect a president based on his "look"... but then if that wasn't the main criteria we would have had al gore winning the last one. Having said that, Kerry doesn't seem particularly to be any worse or any better than his opponents. ANd if the bush presidency has taught us anything it is that it isn't hugely the man who wins that makes much difference... it is those who come into power with him, and the promises he had to make to get into power that actually affect policy, not the man himself.

[ShadowTemplar]

rccar, did it ever strike you that the vast majority of the links you use are to news providers who are owned by Rupert Murdoch?

 

the very same United Nations that allowed Saddam Hussen render their word meaningless...

 

The UN allowed Hussein to render their word meaningless??? Are you saying that you understand the meaning of the UN's words better than Kofi Annan? Gee, some people...

 

why people consider the most liberal senator in America to be a "reasonable candidate."

 

Perhaps because 'liberal' means right-wing in most parts of the civilized world.

 

I really am trying to understand what, other than hatred for Bush, makes John Kerry such a great candidate.

 

I can't really answer that, because I had my hopes up for Clark. At least with him, you'd get a Prez with enough scope to see beyond your own border.

 

Maybe if you look past the fact that he wants to raise taxes, which may give the federal government more money in the short-term, but would be a hardship to working-class Americans and would encourage more businesses to move more jobs out of the US, ruining our economy in the long-term

 

Raising taxes could be used to lessen the financial ineqality in a country, which would lead to higher long-term economic growth. Labor unions and financial support of the poor lead to higher economic growth because it stimulates demand. It's textbook socio-economics for High School level. Besides, it leads to increased social stability and a higher level of patriotism.

 

it is those who come into power with him, and the promises he had to make to get into power that actually affect policy, not the man himself.

 

Sad, but true.

[rccar328]

If you can't produce the actual letters (or links to them), I won't bother trying to explain them at all. I'm not saying they don't exist, but why bother discussing hearsay evidence.

 

The original report was in the Boston Globe, Feb. 27, 1991. That's the best I can find so far.

And speaking of hearsay, thanks for finally responding to my question, but where'd you find all that?

 

If it's relevant, I'm sure it will come up when Rove gets deep in his smear campaign.

Well...hypocracy may be irrelevant to you, but it matters to me.

 

Or to every whim of the neo-conservative agenda?

Well, Bush was elected as a conservative...there is always the possibility that his policies mirror his beliefs. Kerry, on the other hand, has taken too many opposing positions on issues - what he says and how he votes have been contradictory on many occasions.

 

Now to your arguments:

 

Reviving American Manufacturing:

Tax Incentives? Sounds a lot like tax cuts for those rich, big corporations to me...

 

State Tax Relief and Education Fund to Create Jobs and Stop Painful Budget Cuts:

So instead of paying for this at the local or state level, we get to filter the money through the federal government? Sounds like federal micromanagement and redistribution of wealth to me...as well as being a huge spending plan...

 

Prepare Americans for 21st Century Jobs by Opening the Doors of College for All:

As a college student, I wouldn't mind a program like this...except if our economy is as bad as you say and our deficit is already so large, how's he gonna pay for this?

 

A New 'First Defenders' Initiative to Assure Local Responders are Equipped and Ready:

Good idea...but once again, it's another massive spending program.

 

Reforming Domestic Intelligence:

Well...1 for 5 isn't too bad. This sounds like a really good idea. I'd need a lot more details, though, before I'd buy into this.

 

 

What all this looks like to me is lots & lots of spending...how's that gonna fix our deficit? One of the things I don't like about President Bush is his willingness to spend money on liberal social programs (or unwillingness to use his veto on them). So far, what I see here is John Kerry's plans to spend any money he gains from a tax increase - that won't fix our deficit. In fact, that's how Gray Davis screwed California up so much.

 

Also, you've shown me a domestic terrorism defense plan, but how does Kerry propose we deal with international terrorism? All I've heard is his willingness to turn our armed forces over to the UN, who rendered themselves impotent by not enforcing their own resolutions on Iraq (ShadowTemplar, that's what I meant to say).

 

Raising taxes could be used to lessen the financial ineqality in a country, which would lead to higher long-term economic growth.

 

How? By letting the federal government redistribute the wealth? By allowing America move more and more toward socalism (which is a stepping stone toward communism)? In a capitalist society, redistribution of wealth should not be the function of the government. Competition is the fuel of economic growth in capitalism. Redistribution of wealth by the government is sometimes okay on a limited basis, but on a large scale, it can be disatrous (i.e. the modern wellfare state).

 

Personally, i don't think you should elect a president based on his "look"...

 

I agree...and so far, all I've seen of Kerry is lots of "look" and little substance.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

And speaking of hearsay, thanks for finally responding to my question, but where'd you find all that?

 

From the source: www.johnkerry.com. A link I posted in the Election 2004 thread.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

I agree...and so far, all I've seen of Kerry is lots of "look" and little substance.

 

I totally disagree. I see a lot of substance, some of which I disagree, but I still believe Kerry to be the best choice for the leader of our country. Particularly when the alternative is considered.

[rccar328]

From the source: http://www.johnkerry.com.

Thanks.

 

Also, I found this story on NewsMax.com...it's unconfirmed but interesting...and if confirmed, it shows even more of Kerry's hypocracy.

[rccar328]

Here is another story, this one about Haiti.

 

In particular, I would like to emphasize this quote made by John Kerry:

 

"He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier."

 

Now, that's a far cry from the John Kerry who said that the President rushed into the war in Iraq...

 

And on top of that, what interest does the US have in Haiti?

 

Do they have vital economic or material resources that we need (or want) to protect? (NO WAR FOR BANANNAS!)

Do they pose a threat (or even a potential threat) to US national security?

 

No? The only interest that I could see for the US to get involved in Haiti was for humanitarian reasons, which didn't seem to matter much when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own people...

 

Note: I'm not saying that oil was the reason we went to war in Iraq...if it was, prices here in California wouldn't be up over $2.00 per gallon...

 

One more point on Haiti - according to this report, the "multinational force" moving in to secure Haiti consists of the US, France, and Canada. According to John Kerry, all of the nations that assisted us (US) in Iraq didn't constitute a "multinational force.":

 

The Democratic front-runner, a four-term senator from Massachusetts, voted for the war in Iraq but has since been highly critical of the way Bush conducted it and its aftermath. He said the United States must work with other countries "instead of walking alone."

Source

 

Yet, nowhere have I seen or heard of John Kerry criticizing the President for not having a "multinational force" or "international coalition" when going into Haiti.

Seems a bit hypocritical to me...

[rccar328]

I found this report today, and found it to be very disturbing. Here are some highlights:

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The report says that John Kerry's campaign is saying that Kerry is going to put "repairing" our nation's credibility above defeating terrorism.

 

This scares me. That's about all there is to it. You wannt know about what I fear, Skin? What kind of message is this gonna send to a hard-line Iranian government? What's this gonna say to what's left of Al-Qaida? When the President of the United States goes crawling up to the United Nations and the "international community" to appologize for America's "sins," it's gonna tell the terrorists that they can walk all over us, and we aren't gonna do a thing about it.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

When the President of the United States goes crawling up to the United Nations and the "international community" to appologize for America's "sins," it's gonna tell the terrorists that they can walk all over us, and we aren't gonna do a thing about it.

 

Ugh. No it ISNT. It's going to tell everyone that we're SORRY for behaving like assholes.

[rccar328]

Ugh. No it ISNT. It's going to tell everyone that we're SORRY for behaving like ***holes.

 

So...we should apologize for taking action that the rest of the world didn't have the resolve to take? We should apologize for liberating a people from a tyrannical leader? We should apologize for standing up to an evil regime instead of letting Hussein terrorize and murder his own people?

 

If America goes crawling up to the UN to apologize, the terrorists who want nothing more than to murder Americans will see America as weak, and they will take action. Why should we apologize for doing the right thing?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

All I've heard is his willingness to turn our armed forces over to the UN, who rendered themselves impotent by not enforcing their own resolutions on Iraq (ShadowTemplar, that's what I meant to say).

 

I guessed as much. You appearently don't think that dubya has a better understanding of the UN's demands than the UN? That the UN is unfit to interpret its own resolutions?

 

How? By letting the federal government redistribute the wealth?

 

By regulating the economy. If you take money from the rich and give them to the poor, you increase demand, because poor people can't afford to put money in the bank. So instead of having all the nice money gathering dust in a bank account, you can turn them into demand for consumer goods. Also, it will increase domestic demand, because poor people buy basic goods, which are produced locally, whereas rich people are more likely to buy luxury goods, which are produced in places like China and Taiwan.

 

By allowing America move more and more toward socalism (which is a stepping stone toward communism)?

 

America? Socialism? Communism? Don't make me laugh. America is probably the most right-wing country in the world (short maybe of Iran, Israel, and the Papacy).

 

In a capitalist society, redistribution of wealth should not be the function of the government.

 

If redistribution of wealth is not the function of a government, then what is the function of a government? To pay for an inflated military? To bribe, coerce, and spy on your allies? To make the rich richer and the poor poorer? What the hell is government about if it's not about redistributing resources?

 

Competition is the fuel of economic growth in capitalism.

 

Demand is the fuel of the capitalistic economy. This has been common knowledge since New Deal.

 

Redistribution of wealth by the government is sometimes okay on a limited basis, but on a large scale, it can be disatrous (i.e. the modern wellfare state).

 

Please explain how the Scandinavian Welfare States got out of the last two major world-wide economic busts relatively unscathed, if the welfare model is such a disaster.

 

rccar: In '97 Iraq tucked out the UN. That was a legitimate reason to engage, and such engagement would have been backed by most of the UN. There is a world of difference between going up against a Russian veto and going up against the entire Security Counsel

 

"He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier."

 

Now, that's a far cry from the John Kerry who said that the President rushed into the war in Iraq...

 

The situation is different. The Haiti Prez may not be a good guy, but most of the rebels are much, much worse. Also, this is a situation where something concrete is happening. There is a change for the worse in the situation. And the international community backs the insertion of US personnel.

 

And on top of that, what interest does the US have in Haiti?

 

Do they have vital economic or material resources that we need (or want) to protect? (NO WAR FOR BANANNAS!)

Do they pose a threat (or even a potential threat) to US national security?

 

It's in your back yard, for one. You are gonna get a truckload of refugees. That's a pretty strong interest.

 

Note: I'm not saying that oil was the reason we went to war in Iraq...if it was, prices here in California wouldn't be up over $2.00 per gallon...

 

Uuh, high prices. If you were to pay for the environmental damage, you'd have to pay $100 pr. gallon.

 

One more point on Haiti - according to this report, the "multinational force" moving in to secure Haiti consists of the US, France, and Canada. According to John Kerry, all of the nations that assisted us (US) in Iraq didn't constitute a "multinational force.":

 

You basically had a bunch of vassals, minor countries and mercenaries in Iraq. A force that you've bought doesn't count as 'multinational'

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

I found this report today, and found it to be very disturbing. Here are some highlights:

 

 

The report says that John Kerry's campaign is saying that Kerry is going to put "repairing" our nation's credibility above defeating terrorism.

 

This scares me. That's about all there is to it. You wannt know about what I fear, Skin? What kind of message is this gonna send to a hard-line Iranian government? What's this gonna say to what's left of Al-Qaida? When the President of the United States goes crawling up to the United Nations and the "international community" to appologize for America's "sins," it's gonna tell the terrorists that they can walk all over us, and we aren't gonna do a thing about it.

 

Erm, no offence, but that hardly seems a balanced article to base your fears on. It is basically a one-sided editorial. I guess it might be true that he will spend 100 days traveling the world and making friends with terrorists... but i really don't think it seems likely do you?

 

Its much more likely that he intends to attempt to repair the US's image in the international community, attempt to get it to cooperate occasionally instead of threaten/blackmail and attempt to address the actual reasons WHY so many people hate the US.

 

Haiti is a event that is occuring. Iraq was a country that hadn't changed or done anything new for the last 7 years. One required immediate action if it was going to do any good, the other did not.

 

Iraq wasnt a multinational force, it was the US and britain and a few countries that were threatend/blackmailed/bribed into going along so that it could be claimed to be a multinational force and so the US could wash its hands of it and leave the rest of the world to clear up the mess.

 

Notice how France, a country that isn't on the best terms with the US, and other countries all went into Haiti with very little notice, no huge arguements and debates at the UN, no fuss????? Strike you as different to Iraq??? wonder why?

 

-----

 

There is a huge arguement in the UK at the moment because the UK government has dropped a procescution under the Secrecy Act because they would have had to reveal the legal advice that they were given before the war. THe general consensus among most independent lawyers is that the war was illegal. When the UK told the US this their response was "get new lawyers".

 

There is also the fact that the US and UK were tapping the phones of Kofi Annan and the rest of the US diplomants, and the Weapons inspectors.

 

The UN was undermined by the US which blackmailed countries into voting what it wanted by saying that if they didn't they would ignore the UN anyway. THose countries couldn't be blackmailed a second time for the final vote that would have made the war legal so the US ignored them, said it was legal anyway and went in anyway. THAT is what made the UN impotent.

[rccar328]

Erm, no offence, but that hardly seems a balanced article to base your fears on. It is basically a one-sided editorial.

Well, the article is unbalanced for two reasons (at least, these are the two that I can think of off the top of my head):

1. The liberal "mainstream" press doesn't report this kind of negative story about democratic candidates due to their own biases.

2. It is written with a definite conservative bias.

 

I won't deny the bias in the article...but I agree with its interpretation.

 

Here's why I base my fears [of John Kerry's proposed foriegn policy] on it:

It [the campaign email] was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

This isn't being reported by the mainstream American press, but the hard-line Islamic press loves it. Why? Because if John Kerry wins the election, America's off their back! And even if that's not his plan, that is definitely the impression he's making in the Middle East.

 

Iraq was a country that hadn't changed or done anything new for the last 7 years.

One of the reasons we sent troops into Iraq was because we didn't know for sure what was going on, and it was strongly suspected (and verified by CIA sources inside Iraq, as told by George Tenet) that Sadam was decieving the UN weapons inspectors. According to what David Kay said, the climate of corruption and deception going on with Iraq's WMD programs actually made Iraq more dangerous than was originally thought.

 

Iraq wasnt a multinational force, it was the US and britain and a few countries that were threatend/blackmailed/bribed into going along so that it could be claimed to be a multinational force and so the US could wash its hands of it and leave the rest of the world to clear up the mess.

Personally, I don't think it would be possible for the US to threaten/blackmail/bribe all of those other nations into supporting us in Iraq, at least not without word getting out of the scale of the corruption that would have to be involved...but reguardless of that, there's one HUGE problem with your argument:

 

Multinational=more than one nation.

 

If it had just been the US and Britian, that would be a multinational force (remember that whole American Revolution thing around 1776? we're not one country anymore...)

As it was, there were more nations than just the US and Britian...the United Nations is not required in the formation of a multinational force, just more than one nation.

The "unilateralism" argument doesn't work for the same reason - America wasn't the only country engaging in the war. It only takes two nations to remove "unilateral" status, and we had more than that, no matter what reasons they joined up.

 

The UN was undermined by the US which blackmailed countries into voting what it wanted by saying that if they didn't they would ignore the UN anyway.

How is that a motivation to vote in a certain way? "Vote how I want or I'll do it myself." The most predictable response in that case (if they truly opposed it) would be, "Fine. Do it yourself. See if I care."

 

THose countries couldn't be blackmailed a second time for the final vote that would have made the war legal so the US ignored them, said it was legal anyway and went in anyway. THAT is what made the UN impotent.

But you're ignoring the fact that Iraq blatently disregarded resolution after resolution, with very little response from the UN. There were some economic sanctions, but there is a multitude of evidence that those sanctions were being violated (by such nations as France and Germany), and therefore had no meaning.

The truth is that George W. Bush shouldn't have had to send troops into Iraq because Sadam should have been removed from power by the United Nations YEARS AGO! But because the UN refused to put down the growing threat that was Sadam Hussein, the President decided to put together a coalition to do it for them.

 

America? Socialism? Communism? Don't make me laugh. America is probably the most right-wing country in the world (short maybe of Iran, Israel, and the Papacy).

America may be one of the most right-wing nations in the world, but there is an undeniable trend toward socialism in the left in America (and John Kerry is on the extreme left of the left-wing of the democratic party). Personally, I would prefer to avoid that trend.

 

It's in your back yard, for one. You are gonna get a truckload of refugees. That's a pretty strong interest.

You're right, that is a pretty strong interest. And one that the Coast Guard has been handling quite capably without the use of ground troops, thank you very much.

 

A force that you've bought doesn't count as 'multinational'

Once again, if the force consists of more than one nation, it is a multinational force (or international coalition, whichever you prefer). The reasons for other nations' joining the coalition don't mean that it wasn't truly multinational. Multinational simply means more than one nation. It doesn't speak to motives.

 

 

But I didn't come here to argue the Iraq war with y'all...I already did that in the Iraq in Retrospect Forum, and if anyone wants to take that back up, I'd be perfectly willing to do so (after I finish my finals in 2 weeks). I came here to talk about good old Mr. Kerry...

 

This is a quote taken from www.johnkerry.com under the "Foriegn Policy" section:

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

-John Kerry

Gee, where do I start?

"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics."

Well, as far as "enlightened self-interest" goes, all it takes is reading George Tene's speech to see that according to the info we had, the self-interest was there in Iraq (unless he's referring to something else entirely here, but I doubt that).

 

"a diplomacy that commits America to lead the workd toward liberty and prosperity."

Well, we did free two Middle-Eastern countries from oppressive regimes and trying to set up diplomatic governments there...and that's without a doubt more free and prosperous than tyranny.

 

"A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease."

Well, according to some of John Kerry's statements (those made when it was popular for him to do so), Kerry said that Iraq was not an imminent threat. In fact, President Bush agreed with him in the 2003 State of the Union speech (see Iraq in Retrospect link above...it's in one of my posts).

What's more, Hussein was engaging in denial of democracy (yeah, they said he was elected in a fair election, but who honestly believes that?), our intelligence strongly pointed to the existence of "destructive weapons" (see George Tenet speech), and endemic poverty was rampant. I think the only thing he wasn't engaged in was endemic disease...

 

So, according to a quote on John Kerry's own campaign website, the war in Iraq wasn't so bad after all...especially when you consider these statements made by John Kerry (his are near the end).

 

If redistribution of wealth is not the function of a government, then what is the function of a government?

How about to protect the people? First you have a national defense, in the form of the military, then you have the protection of the people from threats coming from within the nation (which are handled by the police force or the FBI).

Beyond that, what functions the government takes are a matter of opinion (i.e. welfare, social security, socialised medicine, etc.).

Personally, I would prefer tax cuts to the tax-and-spend policies that Skin pointed out from Kerry's website. He'll have already spent any money he made from tax increases, and when revenues decrease because businesses have decided to leave America to aviod the higher taxes, it'll be California on a grand scale...

[Hiroki]

Am I the only one disturbed that Bush has tied with Kerry?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

the hard-line Islamic press loves it. Why? Because if John Kerry wins the election, America's off their back! And even if that's not his plan, that is definitely the impression he's making in the Middle East.

 

Then the assholes in Tehran are gonna be very sorry, very soon. That aside, however, I think that going into Iran will be incredibly stupid. There is a growing democratic movement there. An invasion will enable the priests facists in charge to lable this freedom movement as traitors and american puppets, and possibly swing public opinion in their disfavor.

 

One of the reasons we sent troops into Iraq was because we didn't know for sure what was going on, and it was strongly suspected (and verified by CIA sources inside Iraq, as told by George Tenet) that Sadam was decieving the UN weapons inspectors. According to what David Kay said, the climate of corruption and deception going on with Iraq's WMD programs actually made Iraq more dangerous than was originally thought.

 

But the boss in the CIA presented dubya with intel saying that Iraq wasn't developing WMD. In other words: Dubya knew that Iraq didn't have WMD, because the CIA told him that. I don't know what your sources are, but mine is Politiken, one of the three largest and most respected newspapers in Denmark.

 

Personally, I don't think it would be possible for the US to threaten/blackmail/bribe all of those other nations into supporting us in Iraq, at least not without word getting out of the scale of the corruption that would have to be involved...

 

Ah, but it did get out. Reports were abundant that dubya was threatening to cut trade agreements with some of the temporary members of the Security Counsil if they voted against him. And 'all those countries' is a rather rich way of putting it. You had what, ten? With Australia and England (and Japan?) being the only ones worth really mentioning.

 

but reguardless of that, there's one HUGE problem with your argument:

 

Multinational=more than one nation.

 

If it had just been the US and Britian, that would be a multinational force (remember that whole American Revolution thing around 1776? we're not one country anymore...)

As it was, there were more nations than just the US and Britian...the United Nations is not required in the formation of a multinational force, just more than one nation.

The "unilateralism" argument doesn't work for the same reason - America wasn't the only country engaging in the war. It only takes two nations to remove "unilateral" status, and we had more than that, no matter what reasons they joined up.

 

So if a bankrobber hires five goons to help him, it suddenly isn't 'his' bust anymore? Sorry, pal, but you have to do a lot better than that.

 

How is that a motivation to vote in a certain way? "Vote how I want or I'll do it myself." The most predictable response in that case (if they truly opposed it) would be, "Fine. Do it yourself. See if I care."

 

Hey, nobody's saying that dubya's blackmail was smart. Or subtle.

 

But you're ignoring the fact that Iraq blatently disregarded resolution after resolution, with very little response from the UN.

 

And you don't think that it sould be up to the UN to judge what was a violation of their own resolutions?

 

There were some economic sanctions, but there is a multitude of evidence that those sanctions were being violated (by such nations as France and Germany), and therefore had no meaning.

 

Source?

 

The truth is that George W. Bush shouldn't have had to send troops into Iraq because Sadam should have been removed from power by the United Nations YEARS AGO!

 

Agreed. He should have been removed while we were there in '91. But just because he was living on borrowed time doesn't mean that anyone was allowed to go in and whack him.

 

But because the UN refused to put down the growing threat that was Sadam Hussein, the President decided to put together a coalition to do it for them.

 

"Growing threat"? That's rich.

 

America may be one of the most right-wing nations in the world, but there is an undeniable trend toward socialism in the left in America (and John Kerry is on the extreme left of the left-wing of the democratic party). Personally, I would prefer to avoid that trend.

 

: You have never even seen a socialist. Kerry may be on the far right wing of the Social Democratic movement, but socialist? Don't make me laugh.

 

You're right, that is a pretty strong interest. And one that the Coast Guard has been handling quite capably without the use of ground troops, thank you very much.

 

Heh. It's still an interest. And I'm willing to bet that your coast guard isn't catching more than a fraction of the refugees.

 

Once again, if the force consists of more than one nation, it is a multinational force (or international coalition, whichever you prefer). The reasons for other nations' joining the coalition don't mean that it wasn't truly multinational. Multinational simply means more than one nation. It doesn't speak to motives.

 

I will simply direct you to my robber analogy above.

 

"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics."

Well, as far as "enlightened self-interest" goes, all it takes is reading George Tene's speech to see that according to the info we had, the self-interest was there in Iraq (unless he's referring to something else entirely here, but I doubt that).

 

He's talking about enlightened self-interest. That does not include bashing people over their heads and taking their stuff.

 

"a diplomacy that commits America to lead the workd toward liberty and prosperity."

Well, we did free two Middle-Eastern countries from oppressive regimes and trying to set up diplomatic governments there...and that's without a doubt more free and prosperous than tyranny.

 

Two? That being? In Iraq, all you've managed to do is remove the lid on the religious fundamentalists. And I can't think of any other country around there that you've been stomping all over lately.

 

"A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease."

Well, according to some of John Kerry's statements (those made when it was popular for him to do so), Kerry said that Iraq was not an imminent threat. In fact, President Bush agreed with him in the 2003 State of the Union speech

 

But a fractured UN is a far greater long-term threat than Iraq could ever become.

 

What's more, Hussein was engaging in denial of democracy (yeah, they said he was elected in a fair election, but who honestly believes that?),

 

Notice the word 'diplomacy' last time I checked, you used 'agressive negotiations' towards Iraq (to put it nicely).

 

our intelligence strongly pointed to the existence of "destructive weapons"

 

Yet the CIA warned dubya that those weapons only existed in the imagination of exiled iraqis who wanted to make a bid for power in the 'liberated' Iraq.

 

and endemic poverty was rampant.

 

Bombing them back to the Stone Age sure helped a lot [/stinging sarcasm].

 

So, according to a quote on John Kerry's own campaign website, the war in Iraq wasn't so bad after all...especially when you consider these statements made by John Kerry (his are near the end).

 

Even if the war was not, the fracturing of the UN was.

 

How about to protect the people? First you have a national defense, in the form of the military, then you have the protection of the people from threats coming from within the nation (which are handled by the police force or the FBI).

 

That is self-evident. And I could add the maintainence of infrastructure, such as roads, rail-lines, power supply, schools, etc. But that merely goes towards maintaining the government. Surely that cannot be an end in itself?

 

Beyond that, what functions the government takes are a matter of opinion (i.e. welfare, social security, socialised medicine, etc.).

Personally, I would prefer tax cuts to the tax-and-spend policies that Skin pointed out from Kerry's website. He'll have already spent any money he made from tax increases, and when revenues decrease because businesses have decided to leave America to aviod the higher taxes, it'll be California on a grand scale...

 

The 'tax-and-spend' policies are actually advantageous to the economy. Makes it easier to counter reccessions.