It's a shallow reason. That's my point. But hey....if that's all that's important to some...

Yes I admit it I am a very shallow person thats why I am known far and wide as a man of wealth and taste....

The main thing I don't like about Kerry is that he represents the extreme Left wing of the Democratic Party....even Lenin would think he was a little too Lefto

Well that's better!

Please elaborate? What makes you think that? details please....

After the 2000 and 2002 election the Democratic party was taken over by the extreme Liberal wing of the Dem partyt...U know those guys who brought you Dukasis, Mondale and Jesse Jackson...Kerry is merely a puppet of Teddy Kennedy.

Can you elaborate as to why you feel this way? Any examples to demonstrate this to be true? (prefer to discuss Kerry in this context...)

Kerry is for a Socialist American built upon the European Model..meaning HIgher Taxes on the Middle Class..either that or none of his plans will work...Less indivdual freedom...His Health Care insurance means government control.

Nancy Pelosi as Minority whip in the House of reps....he first statement was, "I am here to counter the extreme polices of the Bush Admin."

Terry McAulief as DNC Chairman.....

Kerry is a Senator from Mass....who has the political power in the Dem party in MAss....why Teddy do

Kerrys voting record in the Senate clearly shows that he is for Higher Taxes , reduced Military, Gun Control, and more social programs...

First of all, thank you for answering. I hear these things....but no one usually explains what they mean.

What do you mean "higher taxes on the middle class?" What Kerry has said is taxing those who make $200,000 or more in an effort to be fiscally responsible (what a concept, huh?). Have you heard differently? Or do you feel that $200,000 is middle class?

As far as his healthcare, from what he's stated, he wants all American children to be covered, but wants to make it more affordable for others to purchase (this means...not free.....affordable). He wants people to buy their own insurance, just wants them to be able to afford to do same.

Why do you feel this type of healthcare is modeled after a socialist society (where free healthcare is available for all)?

Cool Chicky U may not like Bushy...but at least give the American people a decent leader who represents at least a modicum of the people...and not this represenative of the...of the ....Socialist Left...a veritble LEFTO

1. Cheney is the one who led the "reduced military". All of congress, republicans and democrats alike were behind that after the cold war. So, in my opinion, that's a moot point. Blame Kerry, then blame Cheney, as well as all Bush I and many, many of your republican guys....

2. Have you specific bills regarding these other issues so that we may discuss intelligently?

Canadian health care is so great that they come to the USA for treatment....

Do U really think that only the 200K earners will be affected...and Busy was exactly right with Sub Chapter S corps ALOT of small businesses will be affected by the 200K tax rollback

Second Kerry doesn't like the Dividend tax break....this is the first tax law that makes SAVING money over spending it benifical...not since JFK in the 1960's started taxing the interest on savings accounts has America had a law that promotes savings....

Soc Security...get your calculator out and take 20% of your SS contribution over your working life time and compound the interest at lets say 8% which is a modest return...I venture to say that you will have quiet a nest egg there... vs giving the money to the govt so that they can use it for the general fund...

and that nest egg you have acquired will provide a nice income and U will be able to leave it to your family to boot....

The NRA rates Kerry an F on his voting record on GC. Inspite of his claiming to be a gun owner...and hunter....I would bet that with 72 hours of a Kerry Presidency he would sign an Executive Order banning Assualt Weapons on National Security grounds...

Do you have any idea what our deficit is? Do you realize we have to add troops (there is a shortage). Do you know that the deficit has increased to rediculous proportions?

How in the hell are we supposed to pay for this massive pork barrel spending?

Unfortunately, Bush is spending like a drunken sailor. We can't continue to allow the deficit to grow at this rate. $450 billion in the RED is just PROJECTED for FY2005.

Can't have it all....the republicans need to decide what's more important.

And regarding this 200,000 hurting businesses..it's a HUGE exaggeration. please read this:

http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html

Why did the NRA give him an F?

And honestly...I believe it's so important that you keep your assault weapons...as long as your personal freedoms are taken away in the form of the Patriot Act. That's cool.

One thing Liberals don't get...

Ask yourself the question...Why would a fiscally conservative spend like a drunken sdailor....

Answer....If he didn't that recession would have turned into a DEPRESSION the likes of which we havn't seen since 1929...


Proof you ask....The Stock Market went through the WORST BEAR MARKET SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION..the SM is only an indicator of investor confidence and business conditions...


Why was it so bad.....

1. DOT COM Bubble
2. 911 opened the ABYSS and the financial system aka a house of cards almost came tumbling down
3. Stock Market scandals ...Enron, Tyco etc

Was Bushy responsible for it...He11 No

The economy and government is like the Titanic....when the wheel is turned it takes time for the ship of state to respond...the stage was set for all these things to happen in the previous administration...

Why <i>was</i> it so bad....

this is your statement...

It's 2004. We're supposed to be <i>projected</i>$450 billion in the red. It will probably be much higher than that.

Why the deficit initially went up, ok, I'll give you that....but there is no indication that this issue is going to be addressed. How long can you guys blame it on 9/11, dot.com, etc.?

You can't have it both ways. More revenue or less spending. Tax increases or reduce spending. You guys have to decide which is more important. We can't continue on this route. You do realize the value of the dollar has decreased quite a bit because of this skyrocketing deficit, don't you?

Just print more money. Duh.

;)

The mistake the Hoover Administration made in 1930 was to cut spending....the way out of a Depression is for the spending to remain the same while giving some tax relief to the people so they will spend...Third Interest rates must be lowered to help keep the economy liquid...

That was another proof of how serious this Recession was, that I forgot to mention why a fiscal conservative would spend like a drunk sailor on shore leave...the Interest rate havn't been this low in 40 some odd years...

So the Bush Administration did the RIGHT thing with it's fiscal policy...also being faced with a war doesn't help matters...

So, is the Iraq war saving our economy?

Question is....Would there be an economy left if the USA was not engaged in fighting Terrorist activities around the globe...or would the world have fallen into chaos...a veritble collaspe of civilization.

Sadam in HINDSIGHT posed no immediate threat..other than being able to thumb his nose at the US, bide his time for the end of sanctions to reconstitiute his weapons programs and support at LEAST Hamas with money for the suicide bombers families...

Sadam at the time looked like a more immediate threat...and in spite of all the bickering back and forth is better off gone than left in power...However it isn't the war that the Liberals are cryingf about it's the aftermanth...the continual bleeding out of the USA in lives and treasure...

I had argued that America wants instant gratification..that everything must be resolved in a one hour format...well life ain't like that and sometimes things gotta get alot worse before they get better...Is Irawreck a lost cause...???? I can tell U the USA is NOW in a position where it can't walk away and let the country fall into chaos...

Do you realize you have completely contradicted the stance of your Republican president on the eve of his invasion in Iraq - "greeted with flowers as liberators," "mission accomplished."

And kudos, Tabs; sounds as if you're finally admitting Iraq is a friggin' quagmire.

And since you won't answer my initial question (or can't), I'll do it for you. Iraq, as far as I can see, is not helping the economy. Not like in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. We still have a few million people out of work, right? So much for the good of war on the home front.

Here's a bonus answer to your question: yes, we would have an economy if the USA was not engaged in fighting Terrorism. We're not fighting terrorism now, and we still have an economy.

geez, why do so many equate a WAR as a friggin' quagmire?

tabs is spot-on. . ..America wants instant gratification..that everything must be resolved in a one hour.

Iraq is a friggin' WAR. We are not fighting 'insurgence' there. We are fighting terrorist, who are hell bent on seeing America FAIL.

What does "instant gratification" have to do with fiscal responsibility and making excuses that are no longer valid?

So the Bush Administration did the RIGHT thing with it's fiscal policy....operative word..DID.

Can't continue running up the deficit like this.

Oh, gimme a break? Do you actually believe what you've just posted?

If you can't see the one step forward, two steps back scenario perpetuating itself in Iraq, then clearly you just refuse to see it. The administration isn't even mentioning Jan. elections anymore because 1) Kerry'd be all over the unlikelihood of it like a wet rag, and 2) the administration itself knows it's a pipe dream given the unrest in the country.

Insurgents? Bush has used the word many times to describe the enemy we are fighting. Insurgents and terrorists are one in the same to Bush/Cheney.

And yeah, right: Tabs is spot on, not only because it's true, but because this was what the president initially promised. An easy war for downtrodden souls who want democracy. That was a resolved, committed statement from him. He wasn't "just saying."

Well I was on the phone while posting . . .wait; it's fine. Yep!

Iraq is chess, not checkers. THe "checkers" move of jumping king-saddam, was all part of bringing the chess-match to the virgin-seeking terrorists.

This is where we are now. We are lucky (I could have gone for "smart" there). . anyway, lucky that the virgin-seeking terrorists are hell-bent on pushing us out of their sand-box, and give it back to extremists, like them.

Unfortunately, few lib's seemed to have learned from Kerrys 1970's mistakes. Now we have the virgin-seeking terrorists are also hell-bent on pushing out the current leadership; GW Bush, Cheney, Powell, Condi . . .BECAUSE THEN THE AFGAN_IRAQ FALLS BACK TO THEM!

btw, word is the Iraqiis are sick of all these mosque-camping terrorists. They are starting to clean their own house.

Go back to my posts a year ago...I was saying the same thing...Irwreck has always been a mess, it was never a country until the Brits and French made it one...

And Wolfie said the most idiotic thing..."THat reconstructing Irwreck would be no more difficult than reconstructing France after WW2." Phew...

Today we still are fighting a war on Terror...but one has to realize most of it is not seen or heard...it exists in the shadows...

Like Deep Throat said, "Follow the money"....thats one key aspect in fighting Terror, who funds these terrorists..It isn't a glamourous endevor following the money...

Oh and running the deficeit...like the Clinton administration the Bush admininstration is hoping that by growing the economy Taz revenues will pick up..the tax breaks are like priming the pump..to stimulate growth...

Do U really thiink Clinton would have had a surplus if the economy wsn't growing...and don't give me he was so great...


The one thing great about Clinton and the economy was that he did nothing...he kept his hands off...that was partially true becaue the Repblicans controled the Congress for much of his term...you might have to say thanks to Alan Greenspan...for whispering in Clintons ear...and to Robert Ruben as Secratary of the Treasury....Also don't forget that the stage was set by previous administrations for Clinton to reap what they had sown...Remember the Ship of state like the Titanic doesn't respond immediately and takes time to turn....

I ask you this....

Why did Forbes announce recently that there is a record number of US billionaires this year?

http://www.factcheck.org/article118.html

Supposedly, it is seen and exists in Iraq. So WTF? :confused:

Oops, this is the link topic:

GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don't believe it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article118.html

Tabs, you are still not addressing the issue of what's going to be done with the deficit?

(And Bush owes a LOT to Greenspan as well).

Hey cooked_goose, no doubt the Bush smirk has you erked.

We have covered already many of these questions you demand.
So, how about YOU tell us why anyone should vote FOR Kerry.

Not "against Bush" . . . but FOR Kerry. ?

(I imagine the answer is short, in both length and insight.)

That's easy.

For one, root causes of terrorism

Kerry promises to work on getting all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission put into practice. Bush all but ignores these.

yeah? . ... did Bush cause 9/11?

NO! OMG.

But what he's doing now.......

ya mean standing-up for our country? . . .piss'n-off the french, and such?

No, I mean ignoring the many facets that are required to fight a war on terrorism and to protect ourselves within.

And he hasn't just pissed off the french, he's pissed off most of the world.