What will POTUS Kerry make better?

[island911]

What will Kerry make better, if he manages to take the election?

We have three big issues here;
--Middle-East (IslamoFacist) terrorists,
--Economy
--healthcare.




Seriously, do those voting "for" Kerry believe:

-- he could help anything smooth-over with the reliefworker-head-chopping IslamoFacists in the middle east?




-- that he understands the plight of the Costco-consuming middle-class. .. and knows which government programs will free them of incessant shopping?



-- that this 757 buying man (well his woman, anyway) with access to ANY of the best Doctors, would want to further hamstring medical progress and break-thru's . . all to ensure the masses have a waiting list to affordable band-aids?


-OR-

do you figure; what the hell, none of those things are THAT big of a deal. Let's just have some champagne, throw a hailmary vote and hope we don't end up looking incredibly stupid for doing so. (?)

[Superman]

Creating new threads to post Rhetorical questions? I mean, I'd post a serious reply, except I think it would be out of character here.

[island911]

So your saying that I have mischaracterized the head-chopping IslamoFacists in the middle east?

C'mon super, you can see beyond the obvious rhetoric, and see the question.

[Superman]

Island, honestly I see a potential for a question but I'm not sure if you're the slightest bit serious. Youv'e got some pretty silly pictures there, at least one was photoshopped. If you're still going to pretend that Kerry wants to kiss the terrorist and give them a bouquet of flowers as a method of national security, then no. I'm not going to do any intellectual fencing with someone who is dishonest to that extent.

For example, even as a Dubya hater I can quickly understand and respect the notion that it is important for our country to inflict some instant and attention-getting pain upon our enemy, or the nearest substitute. I expect my country to react like that. The world expects it. And I am somewhat comfortable with that. Nations need to know that messing with the Old Girl is going to sting a bit. No, it's going to sting a LOT.

But I would never ever, in a million years, expect a similarly serious or concilliatory message from you. When one person is attempting a serious discussion, but the other person is posting photoshopped cutsie little insults, I guess the cutsie guy has the most fun. Have fun at someone else's expense. I imagine they are getting smart, though.

[Superman]

BTW, Social Security would need to be on the list.

[island911]

Sometimes satire makes the point. . . ."cutsie" or not.

The point is, I get the feeling that the Kerry voters are being hasty. Really not thinking through WHAT the ramifications of a Kerry POTUS.

No doubt to me, this country has some serious problems to handle. The lib's list them all, say they are due to POTUS Bush.

So, I'm accepting the lib's part about there being big problems. BUT I'm challenging anyone of you Kerry-voters to tell me how POTUS-Kerry would make things better.

[gaijinda]

Kerry has been talking up the "wage gap" issue more than usual lately. But for this he does not even have a "plan". That women in the workplace make less than men is thrown out there as some kind of Right Wing conspiracy. Women often leave the work force to have a family, and then often come back to work part time, besides a million other reasons. How does Kerry get away with this crap??

[928ram]

Something I never see brought up is Kerry present "job"; checks and balances.

Here we have Kerry blaming all the world's ills on President Bush, and trying to tell us that he has a "plan" to cure everything the evil Bush has done wrong. (which is everything according to Kerry)
Now Kerry has been employed as a member of the senate for many years, but in the last 4 years can someone tell me what Kerry has done (or attemted to do) to counter what he calls Bush's mistakes or failures? *****ing about it doesn't count. It is what he is being paid for, and if so many things that Bush does are so wrong, you'd expect the senate floor to be knee-deep in legislation with Kerry's signature on it. Now I'm sure he'd done "something" in the last four years, but if he has all the solutions to the world's ills and a "plan" for everything, where are these plans while he's been collecting that fat paycheck??
Or are we to believe that we as a country are not worthy of Kerry's services and "plans" unless we elect him President and should be left to suffer otherwise?
Now that we've gotten to know what an a$$clown Kerry really is, I'd say there was/is more than a little haste in nominating him, and as much as I can't believe I'd say this; I'll be mad at Hillary for not throwing her hat in the ring if Kerry wins because bad is one thing but now we've got worse.

[island911]

You lib's got NOTHING real-world positive for Kerry.

Kerry is not the man for the job(s).

Anarchists would be happy with Kerry. But how about you other Kerry voters . .. are you going to be happy with the ineffectual Kerry, after your high of dis'n Bush disolves?

[Superman]

Well, I still suspect that you believe you are asking for something that does not exist, and that when suggestions arrive you intend to laugh down your sleeve some more. But you did ask nice, so I'llplay.

Womens' wages. Gajinda, this is not about loss of earning power because of a gap in employment history. This is about actual rates of pay for exactly the same work with exactly the same experience. I have done compensation analysis and the research project I always wanted to complete but never had the time is one where I would back out the effects of different aspects of jobs (working conditions, noise, danger, education needed, etc), and be left with sex as a compensable factors. I suspect that having exterior plumbing gets you 10% to 20% more pay, over all.

It can be somewhat complex, but the point is that some jobs are undercompensated based on the demands of the job, and these are the jobs that traditionally have been mostly women. Teaching and nursing come to mind, and those occupations are deeply embroiled in change right now. So, market forces eventually will cause those problems to find an equilibrium, but what Kerry probably has in mind is to deliberately push those kinds of occupations closer to equilibrium.

Terrorists. Dubya seems as though he has the diplomacy of a Neanderthal diesel-mechanic. Actually, a Neanderthal diesel mechanic probably has at least some diplomatic skills. Dubya's plan seems to be to use our military to pummel Muslims, and if they're not the right guys, well then probably the right guys will still get the message. No, actually his plan is even dumber than that. We know that the guys we're after are largely located on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So, we've pulled most of our people from that area. Now, if you guys understand that plan and think it's a good one, then I guess you're way ahead of me.

Kerry's plan would be much more complicated. Like most things in life. IT would be nice if all we needed were mortars. But a real, systematic strategy to secure our country against future attacks would HAVE to involve other nations. No matter how angry Dubya makes the Muslims, we probably cannot scare them so bad that they stop attacking us (this is such a silly sentence).

It's kinda like if you ask both candidates what kind of tires are best. Dubya might have an instant answer. Kerry would seem to vacillate. It would then become obvious that Kerry understands the problem better. Even on the same car, different tires work best in different conditions. Dubya would seem confident, or at least he would seem like he wants to seem confident. Kerry would be seen as a flip flopper.

Government impacts on economics, for example, are sometimes counterintuitive. Prevailing wage law, for example. It's the kind of law that conservatives love to hate. According to them, it inflates the cost of public works, it reduces the amount of PW construction that can be accomplished with the available funds. It interferes with the hallowed "market forces." But in reality, it also keeps contractors from artificially depressing local wage standards to get a competitive advantage. It keeps out-of-state contractors from underbidding our local businesses, importing their cheap labor and making off with our tax money while increasing our unemployment. It helps to prevent the erosion of local construction skill banks (at prevailing wages, construction is a serious career....at $10 per hour it is a transient occupation). Differences in bids reflect differences in efficiences......not who can find the cheapest labor. So it protects more than local workers. It protects our economy by keeping tax dollars here, and it protects local businesses.

And yet it is hated with a purple passion by the conservatives. There are two reasons for this. The most likely is that these conservatives just have not thought it through. They see the "simple" analysis, and won't continue to listen to "the rest of the story." Either that, or a cheap, inefficient contractor has their ear.

So, that's my preliminary answer. With just a few specifics. Dubya makes it sound like it's all so very simple. But if I have noticed anything about analysis, it's that the correct answer to every question is the same. The correct answer: "It depends." These intricacies seem to be lost on Dubya, not lost on Kerry.

Overall, do you want to have a President running our country who hates government and does not believe in it? Or do you want your government run by folks who understand government, and believe in it, and know how to operate it? right now, it's like there's a child in the cockpit, playing with the levers.

[dd74]

Kerry will bring "good hair" back to the White House. Teresa is guaranteed a spot with the Mamie Eisenhower "bangs" if she'd just loosen up and switch conditioners.

[island911]

Well thats all good bush-bashing filler, but you really haven't said what real-world positives Kerry would bring. Save, you say Kerry is a better politician.

For the sake of argument, I'll go along with that. SO, do you really think that Kerry is such an effective politician? He has been a Senator for DECADES . . .and what has this "politically savy" man brought us?

Is it enough to sway terrorist in the slightest?

[gaijinda]

"So, market forces eventually will cause those problems to find an equilibrium, but what Kerry probably has in mind is to deliberately push those kinds of occupations closer to equilibrium."

So what are you doing for a living these days Sup? Would you like Kerry pushing your occupation's wages around? Is that the job of the President of the United States? It is scary to me that he might actually have such ideas in his mind.

Unequal pay may very well exisit (I tend to think so less than most, as I have seen my co-workers W-2s), but there is no law on the books that could be removed or any other law that could added that could change this phenomenon.

Kerry is a joke, he brings up these disingenuous code phrases to scare up the votes of the feebleminded.

[MichiganMat]

this thread is lame.

island, how many times must we explain? I would think you would atleast remember the reason even if you don't understand them.

christ.

[fintstone]

Just once would help.

[cool_chick]

Root causes of terrorism.

Kerry has promised to adopt all the suggestions of the 9/11 commission, which address both force and root causes.

Bush doesn't stand a chance at this point of developing a coalition of moderate muslims to work towards this goal. All Bush is doing is making them (and the world) more angry. Which of course is not addressing this problem, and just helps the terrorists recruit more of them.

Even if Bush wanted to start, I don't think he can anymore.

That's what it comes down to me. That's what Kerry promises that I want to see finally happen.

[island911]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Root causes of terrorism.

Kerry has promised to adopt all the suggestions of the 9/11 commission, which address both force and root causes. .. ..

Well "promises" from Kerry aside, I've got to say I think that you don't understand that according to the 9/11 commission report, Bush's actions (which he statrted prior to any report of the obvious) are right in line. ...Kerrys Plan is suspect.

You have thrown up the words : "Root causes of terrorism." many times now; w/o explaination. Just a hope that those words will mean Kerry has a leg -up there.

Here is a link to the 9-11 commisions Overview: The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

I agree with most the view there. . . though believe there is some hedging going on.

The only PLAN Kery has is to pander. . .to tell people what they want to hear. Some people really want to hear how everything will be peachy-keen, if only they give rich-boy THE POWER. (because as a Senator for decades, Kerry just couldn't do SQUAT)

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by island911
The only PLAN Kery has is to pander. . .to tell people what they want to hear. Some people really want to hear how everything will be peachy-keen, if only they give rich-boy THE POWER. (because as a Senator for decades, Kerry just couldn't do SQUAT)

I didn't think Bush wasn't the best governor either. And we had even less to go on when Bush campaigned in 2000.

And personally, I don't think Kerry was that bad of a senator, as everyone makes him out to be. Have you researched his voting record, vote by vote?

I think Kerry can do a good job. And as everyone mentioned here, which is true, balance would be restored...democrat/republican. I honestly don't like when a president and congress is controlled by one party, either democrat or republican.

And finally, I don't know how you feel about issues such as abortion, christian things, etc., but the next president can affect our future for possibly decades to come in the form of Supreme Court. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer. He's 80. Stevens is 84. I honestly think that Bush would pick the most conservative justices possible. Not that I want liberal judges either, I want fair judges. And I feel extreme conservative judges could possibly hinder our freedoms by eventually shaping our constitution to be the Bill of Restrictions instead of the Bill of Rights.

States are already anticipating this and are prepared to make abortion illegal.

I'm not for or against abortion, but I'm afraid if it becomes legal, I'll be supporting these additional indigent kids with my tax dollars.

[techweenie]

Hmmm... how about Kerry won't be a complete disaster on all those fronts like Bush is.

[island911]

Well, all be. . .. cool_chick can answer a question without a rhetorical question as an answer. nice

"supporting these additional indigent kids with my tax dollars." Well I've never had a dog in that fight, but why would you think that additional kids would be indigent?

In fact the big problem with Social sec. is the so-called "Baby-bust".

The pill, and common-place abortions have slowed population growth. SO I expect you are fine letting Social Sec. go dry .. . .not having enough indigent kids to support YOU in your old age. LOL

more later ...