Sup, what happens to all employees that make between minimum wage and $15.01/hr. Do they get their pay scaled upwards? An entry level civil engineer with 4 yr degree starts at $14.90/hr at a local environmental engineering firm. That's $31k/yr. Of course, Memphis, TN has one of the nation's lowest cost of living, but there will obviously need to be huge changes in the pay scale (from minimum wage to $20/hr) to form equality. I think your idea is as cock-eyed as the premise of no government regulation of the marketplace.

actually the past few min wage hikes proved the eco models wrong. The logic was a steep increase would lead to fewer min wage employees. No country wide decrease could be measured, although it probably decreased min wage expansion where machines and other efficencies could be deployed.

fwiw.. in the early stages of an expansion business efficencies % show a rapid increase without much of an increase in employment. Employment numbers is a lagging indicator. Although full employment is considered at 3-4% todays numbers is measurabily extremely low.

That seems to be a fair thought. You would like to confound our government. . .and kerry is that man for the job.

Well, surprise! . . I agree with you . ..Kerry has a record of effectively confounding our government. I mean that IS the one thing he seems to live for.

You know, usually . .. in most times, I would say this splitting control is a good idea. When our government is feeling little presure to perform, we the people end up paying for some pathetic pork.

However, NOW is not the time for us to have weakness. We ARE the lone superpower. We are the ones pushing space & medical exploration. We are the ones leading in energy efficient technologies. We are the country providing the most relief to others (Cam, put away your "per-capita" argument)

Anyway, the USA is truely a great nation. If you have any interest in keeping it that way for a while longer, keep Kerry out of office. He is a high risk to our security. (there are a lot of Dem's I wouldn't say that about. Hillary, :eek: for example. )

We need a split of control now more than ever. I'd say the same if we had a Democratic congress and Democratic president.

The biggest Bush administration LIE: Iraqi "OIL" will pay for the war in Iraq?
<br>
Kerry may not make anything better, but if he keeps the big issues from getting worse, that will be a benefit we couldn't possibly expect with Bush. A democrat with his list of failures would have been toasted and re-toasted by the hypocrtical Bush supporters. Bush is proof positive that half of the nation is crazy.
Bush is not a conservative, he is not a true republican.
<br>
Bush blames ALL of his failures on Clinton, 9/11 and Iraq. Over 1000 men and women have lost thier lives in Iraq for what? So that we could parade pictures of Sadam's dead sons on TV when Bush doesn't want us to show flag drapped coffins of our own people coming home for the last time?
<br>
Bush hides behind his "moral" bullshat so that the bible thumping, machine gun toating, gay haters will cast their vote for the "man of god" because Kerry is a baby killer and he's a gonna take our guns and make us stop prayin in public.
<br>
The Bush administration wants as much "GOD" in our government as they can get, yet the don't want any Islamic leaders in the new Iraqi government. I guess if most Iraqis were good christians it would be okay.
<br>
Bush is a complete failure and an embarassment to those of us who are intelligent enough to admit it. John McCain would have kept me a republican.

"bible thumping, machine gun toating, gay haters " ?

Right'o then. Embs -- the voice of reason. :rolleyes:

IMO, Kerry is an embarassment. . . .even to those of us who are NOT intelligent. :cool:

Embs, I hope you go and vote. Do it for me, I'm not a citizen, I just want to live here.

That's a pretty big IF there.

Going on Kerrys record, he will make things much worse. (unless you like grabbing your ankles, and saying thank you monsieur, may I have another. )

Okay, one thing is that he will reverse the GWB poicy of putting industry officials and lobbyists in charge of enforcement of the environmental rules that govern *their own industries.*

It's hardly been talked about, but the Bushies early-on polled their supporters and found that loosening environmental controls would cost them core support. So the policy became: put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop. No enforcement of existing rules is far quieter than a public policy change.

(Island, you won't like the source, but the 'mainstream press' has completely ignored the full scope of this issue.)

http://www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/environment.html

I would have to differ with this assessment. If anything, Bush is a higher risk to our security, for the following reasons: in the form of breeding new terrorists, ignoring countries that harbor terrorists and have serious weapons that could damage us, only to invade soverign countries that are contained and possess no threat to us.

Kerry is better than that.

:) okay, tech. Fair enough. (there is a reasonable concern)

THe thing that gets me, is that it seem that the Kerry supporters have to reach deep-deep-deep to pull up just a FEW key issues. (which Kerry may have over Bush)

It seem Kerry will nuance over the deck-chair arrangement, and not appreciate that tip of the iceburg floating in the distance.

Some of the stuff that concerns us (half the country) is the notion of GWB without the need to worry about re-election. From even more blatant giveaways to supporters to attacks on more countries to the appointment of one or more Supremes, we feel there is a religious-right agenda that will be enacted over the protests of Democrats, independents, Libertarians and some Republicans both at the moderate and the conservative end of the scale.

We see warning signs in statements about democracy being 'God's gift' and a 'mission' to bring democracy to the middle east (New American Century stuff). We feel the Republican Congress will not be able to enforce the 2004 campaign promises any more than they were able to follow through with the 2000 promises re: nation-building, deficit control, education reform, etc.

Yep, I worry about that too. I've posted that before.

Though, we needn't worry about any landslide popular vote. . .he won't have any push there.

This thread, though, is about Kerry. . .what does Kerry bring ...

There's that old adage out of the frying-pan, and into the FIRE.

I think that the Kerry voters have been WAY too hasty in their drive to vote Bush out. Kerry is really really bad. Yet people are so uncomfortable with this country showing force, that they put on the blinders and HOPE that Kerry will be okay.

Kerry is NOT okay. . .or even a better choice than Bush. Kerry will sell US out on a whim. Kerry seems to believe he is superior to the rest of US. Kerry is completely out of touch with those who work, and turn the cogs of this economy. Kerry lies & panders worse that even Hillary.

and with Kerry as POTUS; EVERY COUNTRY AND TERRORIST WILL FEEL THAT THEY HAVE OPEN-SEASON ON AMERICA.

It will be like a feeding frenzy. . . terrorists, China, Russia . .. will immediatly start ripping off little chunks of American power, and Kerry will sit around, pontificate and nuance over what is happening. . .as it's happening. He will talk about it, and take no action to slow or stop it.

here are your words, Island amended to echo my feelings about this. It's a much more accurate picture...



I think that the BUSH voters have been WAY too hasty in their drive to vote KERRY out. BUSH is really really bad. Yet people are so uncomfortable with this country showing force, that they put on the blinders and HOPE that BUSH will be okay.

BUSH is NOT okay. . .or even a better choice than KERRY. BUSH will sell US out on a whim. BUSH seems to believe he is superior to the rest of US. BUSH is completely out of touch with those who work, and turn the cogs of this economy. BUSH lies & panders worse that even Hillary.

and with BUSH as POTUS; EVERY COUNTRY AND TERRORIST WILL FEEL THAT THEY HAVE OPEN-SEASON ON AMERICA.

It will be like a feeding frenzy. . . terrorists, China, Russia . .. will immediatly start ripping off little chunks of American power, and BUSH will sit around, pontificate and nuance over what is happening. . .as it's happening. He will talk about it, and take no action to slow or stop it.


__________________

Yet another reason to vote for Kerry.

Kerry Presidency Could Mean Cheaper Oil- Analysts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041101/pl_nm/energy_prices_election_dc&cid=615&ncid=1963&sid=96 378800

Island, I think you've completely gone off the deep end. Respectfully. You talk as if, well here are some of your words:

"Kerry will sell US out on a whim."

"Kerry lies & panders..."

"and with Kerry as POTUS; EVERY COUNTRY AND TERRORIST WILL FEEL THAT THEY HAVE OPEN-SEASON ON AMERICA."

"It will be like a feeding frenzy. . . terrorists, China, Russia . .. will immediatly start ripping off little chunks of American power, and Kerry will sit around, pontificate and nuance over what is happening. . .as it's happening. He will talk about it, and take no action to slow or stop it."

Now, if you can read that back to yourself and feel comfortable about your assertions, then either you are way out in left field, or John Kerry is the most clever and malicious candidate to ever run for political office. Worse than that, Kerry'd have to be an AlQueda member who is a mole in our political system. If you really think that, then we're all wasting our time reading your posts and responding to them. But if you think he's just a very bad presidential candidate then....well let's look at that.

Let's say that Kerry is elected, and that he attempts to use a broader approach to the terrorism problem. And let's say that his attempts backfire. But of course, in my hypothetical example he's POTUS, as you say. So if it comes down to defending our country or letting it be taken over by foreign powers, don't you think that any president would have a little problem with that?

Hey, I've said before that America is going to react violently to what has happened, and I'm totally okay with that. Afghanistan was a very necessary action, and I've have preferred to apply even MORE resources there. But then I hear that all liberals always prefer throwing flowers and kisses, but would never support American military action. So, I know that some people are deliberately twisting truth here, and it's not just Dubya and Kerry.

remember:

November 01, 2001
Eight of 10 Americans Support Ground War in Afghanistan
One in five is opposed; another one in five can be considered "reluctant warriors"


by David W. Moore

The latest Gallup polls shows that Americans favor the use of ground troops in Afghanistan by more than a four-to-one margin, 80% to 18%.

Yup, all liberals just hate the idea of the US defending itself on principle :rolleyes:

Let me add;

Kerry, as POTUS, will make this rift between left & right even deeper.

If you think Clinton was demonized, just wait for Kerry.

Kerry already has a HUGE population of PO'd Vietnam vet's.

Kerry has feigned (barely) a centrist image for the election. However he is has been so far left that even liberals will be embarassed by his pontifications on policy matters.

Currently Bush admin, is mellowing. Bush will no doubt clean some house. A kerry admin would be a true disaster for all of us. . . and a huge embarasment for this country, and the Dem's in particular.

Okay, that's a little less FANATICAL. Each president has to understand that he's in the hot seat. The media is going to sensationalize perceived mistakes and even character flaws at each and every opportunity. Hey, just watch any Saturday Night Live. It's does not matter who is president. Heck, the comedians are probably hoping for Kerry, since his image would be FAR easier to caricaturize.

But you've got a long ways to go if you're going to convince me that a vote for Dubya is a vote for national unity. I'm not even going to explain that one. If you think Dubya is centrist, then I'd be wasting keystrokes.

Hell, they're already claiming to heal the sick & make the lame walk, cheaper oil is small potatos. Within 4 years we'd have space trave, time travel, all women would all look like Carmen Electra or Jill Kelly, no more disease of any kind & a twin turbo in every pot, err uhh driveway, yeah thats it, a twin turbo in every driveway.

Oh, and folks who think Kerry is the most liberal member of Congress, or even close to the most liberal in the Senate......are not doing their own thinking, or their own research.

I don't think he's the most liberal member...he has to actually show up to work to be considered that. je je je

Sorry, this Topic needed some humor badly :)

Where is that bunny picture?

Ok.. Bush is a done deal winner..

so what'll happen to the Dems if Sen Dachle looses, besides castrating the Dem Senate?

Bush has lost this one, don't kid yourself. They won't manage to keep all young, black or educated people from viting this time.

There'll be another minority leader. There's more where he came from. Perhaps Senator McDermott. Or Senator Murray. Obviously you get more poundage with McDermott, but dynamite comes in small packages. Senator Murray is only about a hundred pounds, but she's a force to be reckoned with. Or should I say, she's a force with which to be reckoned.

cool.. I'll keep an eyeball on her..

Super is pulling your leg

Patty Murray--
"We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?," said Murray, who faces re-election in 2004. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty?

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Allow me to...um...break your ***** down, Dr. I:

1) Rifts: bitterness is as bitterness does. Repubs hamstrung Clinton over blowing a nut on a blue dress. That was just plain bitter. In the meantime, OBL was allowed to build up resources toward 9/11. Bitter and short-sided about real issues. What was the end result - rifts - rifts deepened, no less, by Bush's suspicious war and the ill-fated side effects of Socal Security breaking down as well as health care.

2) Demonized - by who? Are you laying out the Republican playbook before the man gets elected? Or, conversely, are you saying Kerry will win?

3) P.O'd Vietnam vets - I think America has p.o.'d Vietnam vets, and p.o.'d for various reasons. Swift boat vets don't account for all of them. Have you considered the amount of Vietnam vets who see Iraq and say to themselves, "Hmmm...that looks very familiar?" Who should they be p.o.'d at?

4) I'm still looking for Kerry's left-sided stance. If it's about military reduction, Cheney has to be the new Che Guevara poster child since he's concurrently supportive of military cuts.

5) Bush will not mellow. He's created a maelstrom of the world that his doggedness of himself and his policies that will not allow him to mellow out toward - even if he wanted. Secondly, Bush cannot mellow either internationally nor domestically since to him, "mellowing" will show weakness. OTOH, the best Kerry can hope for is to inherit this with some reasonable acumen toward a better solution and better int'l relations.

It only goes to show you one man's arrogance is another man's ignorance.

He had between a 95% to 99% voting turnout from as far as I can find, from 1999-2002. I presume 2003 was spent on work toward beating your buddy (a worthwhile cause).

Chill out Chick. Don't make me start posting my political opinions again.

Take a joke for what it is........

Rifts: bitterness is as bitterness does.
 

You are right to identify that bitterness drives bitterness.

though, Hmmm, you've seem to have glossed-over Michael Moores contribution to the bitterness. . . .Dan Ra^thers on going campaign of bitterness.

. . The Kerry Lies which go unchallenged by the mainstream press. Kerrys military records still not released.

I'm just telling you what I expect to see if the Dem's steals this election. The bitterness likely will go to a breaking point.

Oh well, I guess it has to end sometime.

btw, this is odd ...

Odd is as odd does...;)

Well he's not the first to say it. . .

" There’s a reason Bush calls Kerry the Number One Liberal in the Senate – THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS THE NUMBER ONE LIBERAL IN THE SENATE! What more do you want? My friends, this is about as good as it gets when voting for the Democrat. We don’t have the #29 Liberal running or the #14 Liberal or even the #2 Liberal – we got #1! When has that ever happened?
Those of us who may be to the left of the #1 liberal Democrat should remember that this year conservative Democrats have had to make a far greater shift in their position to back Kerry than we have. We’re the ones always being asked to make the huge compromises and to always vote holding our noses. No nose holding this time. This #1 liberal is not the tweedledee to Bush’s tweedledum.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

so now you believe michael moore? :D

any proof that Kerry is the number 1 liberal in the senate? Tell us his specific voting record on all the issues that determine Kerry is the number 1 liberal.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm

On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.
Each year, National Journal selects dozens of key votes (62 for the Senate in 2003) and divides them among three categories of issues: economic, social and foreign policy. On economic votes, Mr. Kerry tied with six other Democrats to claim the highest ranking of 93. It was the third year in a row that Mr. Kerry established himself among the select, small group whose members were cumulatively ranked as the most liberal in the Senate on economic matters.

Yeah Mark. . that's good, and everything. But these anybody but Bushers really won't believe it unless it comes from their favorite source, Michael Moore. :cool:

Of course, even then, if it doesn't fit with what they want to believe, they will continue to troll for more information. . . .never satisfied with the source, or whatever. (note cc's "I need more proof")

Yep, Kerry has the young, naive, impressionable types. . . no doubt about it.

And I thought it was democrats that were supposedly kept from voting?

I don't know Island, the libs have this new up and coming star they may follow - I think his name was Osama or something....

This would assume that all young, black or educated people will vite for Kerry, I'm sure quite a fair number will be viting for Bush.

Of course treating all black people as one giant ghetto-ridden viting block is not only a racist idea of the left, it's also why so many are turning turning out to vite for Bush; you know they like to think of themselves as individuals.

As for the educated thing....education does not equal intellect, and niether is a reliable measure of success, but it is the self-professed superior intellect of much of the left that lines the pockets of the Moores and the Soros's at the drop of a simple marketing ploy and it is also that which leads to the canonization of Massachusetts liberals and Middle Eastern terrorists.