Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bush, Kerry, Or Nader
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Pythagorus
Yes, this is the last one.
MistressAlti
Don't you suppose we could all wait until a bit closer to election time? It's half a year away still...
Sir Psycho Sexy
oh god! save me from the politics!! *bangs head against the wall*
Sir Maxerpopple
This is the third poll you have made and have yet to create an "other" option. Tsk Tsk.
MistressAlti
QUOTE (Sir Maxerpopple @ Apr 19 2004, 07:35 PM)
This is the third poll you have made and have yet to create an "other" option. Tsk Tsk.

Consider that fixed.
Kyo
GAAHH!!! I HATE BUSH!!!
* uses a stack of pics for sword practice*
Coconut Monkey
4 people voted bush?

my gawd..

what part of lying incompentent weasel don't yall understand?


*puts on the asbestos suit*

i mean, at least tell me that you.. like.. maybe are voting for the party, or something, cause then that make sense.

i mean, you're voting repub out of principle, not because you think the country would be better off after giving another four years to Bush. Is that why?

cause what has he done with the first four? ahhhhhh

sjbbandgeek
QUOTE (Coconut Monkey @ Apr 19 2004, 11:10 PM)
4 people voted bush?

my gawd..

what part of lying incompentent weasel don't yall understand?


*puts on the asbestos suit*

i mean, at least tell me that you.. like.. maybe are voting for the party, or something, cause then that make sense.

i mean, you're voting repub out of principle, not because you think the country would be better off after giving another four years to Bush. Is that why?

cause what has he done with the first four? ahhhhhh


Incompetent weasel maybe, but his staff does everything for him anyway, and I like this staff. And besides, I'd never vote for a sissy rainbow monkey.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Apr 20 2004, 02:27 PM)
I'd never vote for a sissy rainbow monkey.

A what?
Sir Psycho Sexy
I still think Richard Branston should rule the world
Polocrunch
Give me Nader or give me glory! Now there's a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is - in the White House!

But, on a more serious note, Nader is by far the best choice for America. He's honest. It doesn't matter how much of a pig's ear he makes of the Presidency, as long as he's honest and everyone abroad likes him.
Patient #212
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Apr 20 2004, 10:27 AM)
And besides, I'd never vote for a sissy rainbow monkey.

Um... what exactly do you mean by that?

Anyway-- anyone but Bush. Really. I'm not really all that fond of Kerry either, but I suppose we might as well give him a chance and see how it goes rather than consensually throwing ourselves back down into the fiery pit of hell that has been the last four years.
The.Wheezing.Ghost
I just want Bush out of office, he's really angering me with the whole "Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman." thing, not to mention what he's done to this country. I'd like Nader in office really, but anyone but Bush will be fine by me.
CommieBastard
Look, just come back to the UK. We'd let you have your own Assembly and everything, really. Plus, just the name "Kingdom" is cool. You could have knights and stuff.

In all seriousness, I guess I'd go for Nader, since he seems to be the only actual liberal running.
Patient #212
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Apr 20 2004, 03:35 PM)
Look, just come back to the UK. We'd let you have your own Assembly and everything, really. Plus, just the name "Kingdom" is cool. You could have knights and stuff.

Oh, twist my arm. *Sighs*

/spam
gothictheysay
Who *should* be President? Oh, I didn't look at Nader so much...I'm a Kerry fan, even though I lean heavily liberal. I am bad. I just realized I should have looked more at Nader, so I would know his platform and if I should vote...he's Independent isn't he, and I fit into a democrat-independent category...well, I guess it's a good thing I can't vote. I voted Kerry. ::shame::
Joecool2025
Well what i think is that other countries are afraid of Bush since he pretty much doesn't care about the UN anymore, and are too afraid to attack us for fear of being destroyed, so I'd like to see Bush in for another term
Sir Psycho Sexy
QUOTE (Joecool2025 @ Apr 20 2004, 09:57 PM)
Well what i think is that other countries are afraid of Bush since he pretty much doesn't care about the UN anymore, and are too afraid to attack us for fear of being destroyed, so I'd like to see Bush in for another term

Yes, thats exactly what is required of a good president....idiot

the only people you can destroy are people who wouldn't attack you, and don't think you're military is invincible, it's not...

i just don't get it, bush seems to have actually done very little good for your country (if any)....and you still want him to be president again?! he's really screwed your economy right over....not that i'm complaining, thanks to him i get nearly $2 to £1 which makes shopping in your country VERY cheap for me biggrin.gif


edit: it just occured to me you might be being sarcastic.....please say you were
Sir Maxerpopple
Question for the Naderites. What issues does he stand for that you support? I would be interested to see if he would do a wide platform of what his issues actually are, and how closely he shall stay to his green ties.

I get so pissed off in my household when the word ass always follows Nader. When I explain how it is all part of the democratic system, that voting blocks are incredibly dangerous, I get told that he's going to screw over Kerry. Like Kerry is some sort of soul savior. I'm very happy that there are quite a few who are willing to go outside the two-party system on this forum. smile.gif
CommieBastard
The problem with the two-party system in the US, Max, is that the parties are, all cynicism aside, quite similar. The same thing is happening here. Third parties are increasingly becoming the only political alternative.

I don't know much about Nader's position on the various issues, my vote went to him on the general principles of his political philosophy. Were I actually a voter in America, I'd do a lot more research before coming to a decision.
Sir Maxerpopple
So the old jokes go Commie, the difference between democrat and a republican? A republican blows, a democrat sucks.

I agree completely, the demagoguery of the parties is at an all time high, aparently Americans never heard of number 10 in the federalist papers, that did NOT want factions, or parties, as it is a democracy ruiner.

I personally would not choose Nader, as he is a former green and likely to keep many green issues. Libertarians for me.
Pythagorus
Do we really want that idiot named John Kerry (shudders at the name) to be our 44th president? First of all, there will be a big tax increase. Tax increase= Less money for people= Less spending= Worse economy. If you think the economy is bad now, it will be even worse when/if Kerry takes office. Plus, the gas price increase. We think gas prices are very high now at $1.79, but if Kerry is elected they would jump to aproximately $2.29. That is just outragous if you ask me. Kerry would also lower national security levels, so terrorists would probably be more likely to attack. And, gay marriages and abortion. I am opposed to both, who in there right mind supports abortion and gay marriages. THINK. Abortion is killing, which was wrong the last time I checked, and marriage is strictly defined to being of a man and a woman. Voting Democratic= Voting for high taxes= Voting for bad economy= Voting for abortion= Voting for gay marriages= Voting wrong. Vote Bush!!!
Patient #212
QUOTE (Pythagorus @ Apr 20 2004, 06:50 PM)
Who in there right mind supports abortion and gay marriages. THINK. Abortion is killing, which was wrong the last time I checked, and marriage is strictly defined to being of a man and a woman. Voting Democratic= Voting for high taxes= Voting for bad economy= Voting for abortion= Voting for gay marriages= Voting wrong. Vote Bush!!!

*Hiss* I have to leave. I'll be back later when I've crafted a somewhat coherent response.
Guaraldi
As a much as I agree with you, Pythagorus, the gas problem can easily be solved by not driving those huge SUVs and gas guzzlers. Try a Prius maybe? It is an inconvience, but they pay about three times as much in Europe. I support Bush because, we see eye to eye on morals, and issues...for the most part. The amount of times Kerry has changed sides on an issue:35(I have a list somewhere, some of the issues are similar but they all are unique)! Hmmm, I want a more predictable president myself. Kerry is a war hero, congrats, but he proved to us that purple hearts are disposable. Before you get all over Bush about his service, they have the papers, they proved he was there. Bush's plans are helping stop terrorism, a major plus! On the gay marriage thing, this isn't about civil rights. Where do you see signs saying, "Gays only" or "Straights only?" This is about what is for certain people. A marriage is for a woman and a man, and a civil union can be for two people of the same gender. They can have the same benefits, etc. It is all fine with me.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that Nader wants to raise the minimum wage to $10, and well, that will cause more companies to go over seas, more people in the US will have to go on welfare, and with more people on welfare, taxes will have to be raised or other services will have to be comprimised to fit the need.

I could go on and on, but I need to go do some work on the lawn...
MistressAlti
QUOTE (Pythagorus @ Apr 20 2004, 05:50 PM)
Do we really want that idiot named John Kerry (shudders at the name) to be our 44th president? First of all, there will be a big tax increase. Tax increase= Less money for people= Less spending= Worse economy. If you think the economy is bad now, it will be even worse when/if Kerry takes office.

You do understand that the taxes Kerry wants to reinstate are capital gains and dividend taxes, and not the general tax cuts that went to the middle class, right?

Capital gains and dividend taxes don't affect most of the population. We're talking about the upper 20% of the wealthiest Americans that own 90% of the stuff that's being taxed. Bush cut those taxes in half during his term.

The 900 million in taxes that Kerry wants to put back in the budget is just money that corperate stockholders, who are not the ones who were affected by the economic downturn in the first place, were lucky enough to receive from their buddy Prez Bush.

All I'm saying here is, don't misrepresent Kerry as wanting to further tax the middle class back into economic recession, because that's not even a logical argument.
CommieBastard
QUOTE (Guaraldi @ Apr 21 2004, 12:03 AM)
Bush's plans are helping stop terrorism, a major plus!

Really? So, when he was told mid-2001 that there were nationwide suspicious activities consistent with preparations to hijack planes, and that New York was a probable target, exactly how many measures did he take to guard against this threat? It's not like it would have been hard to prevent. The procedure is called putting a lock on the cockpit door.
Pythagorus
Bush did not have enough information to prevent 9/11. HOW CAN YOU PREVENT SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN AND WHERE IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? If Bush had enough information, he would have taken the appropriate measures to prevent 9/11.
CommieBastard
Please explain to me why, if you believe terrorists are planning to hijack a plane with New York as the target (I can dig up the source if you want), you don't start taking security measures. The most basic of security measures would have stopped the 11/9/01 terrorists.
CommieBastard
Never mind that, I got your source right here (and before you start about it being a biased article, it links to its own, unbiased sources).

The relevant quote:

QUOTE
As Tuesday night's questions turned to the 9/11 investigation, Bush retreated again to the incontrovertible truths in his head. "There was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think [in] the prior government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale," he told NBC's David Gregory. Never mind that somebody who had worked in Bush's administration and the prior administration—namely, counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke—had raised precisely this concern about the 1996 Olympics. Never mind that the president's daily intelligence brief on Aug. 6, 2001—titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S."—had warned Bush, "FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." These were external phenomena and therefore irrelevant. What mattered was that Bush couldn't "envision" the scenario.
Sir Maxerpopple
QUOTE
marriage is strictly defined to being of a man and a woman.
Where might I ask? Not in the lawbooks that's for sure, and it doesn't matter if it isn't in the law books. Explain to me how a legal contract that can have NO correlation to religion can be governed by it?
Pythagorus
HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN OR A WOMAN MARRYING ANOTHER WOMAN? IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO OPEN UP THE NEWSPAPER TO THE WEDDINGS AND SEE TWO GUYS HUGGIN' AND KISSING EACH OTHER! THAT JUST LOOKS SICK. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, not 1 man + 1 man.

Oh. No. You did not just do that.

The Forum Rules clearly state that there shall be no homophobia on this board. That is a definite breach of the rules.

Everyone, please ignore Pythagorus' statement and go on debating as if it isn't here. It's staying until Mata sees it.

-Moderator MissyA
The Lorax
George Washington was right in warning:

"Political parties are bad."

...well maybe not in those words but it's the general idea. I mean look what it's spawned! The country is divided-I know people who won't talk to other cause there 'goddamned republicans(or democrats)'

I think the whole US system sucks. We're in debt up to our necks in debt, and all the president cares about are bloody weapons of mass destruction that weren't even there.

>.> Personally, Commie, I'd love to go back to the United Kingdom, but since i have several billon others that would club me for trying I guess I'll watch while the country gets even more screwed up.
Pythagorus
mar-riage (mar'ij) n. The state of being married; wedlock; the act of marrying or the ceremony entered by a man and a woman so as to live together as husband and wife. marriageability n. marriageable adj.

Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus
Sir Maxerpopple
Would you like to debate or scream? If the latter, don't bother responding to this. If the former, please continue.

True or false. Different things can gross out different people. True. Example? I find no problems with blood. Others faint at the sight of it. You find homosexual relations disgusting. Fine, good for you. However, remember, there are people who do not. Your values are not those of the entire nation. In addition, your personal values do not dictate law. Law is an objective code designed to protect people. It is not subject to individual whims.

Your arguement is it's gross so it should be illegal. I personally find picking your nose and eating your buggers repugnant, but should we ban it? Both these arguements follow the same premise. Both premises are faulty.

So...
QUOTE
HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH A MAN MARRYING ANOTHER MAN OR A WOMAN MARRYING ANOTHER WOMAN?
It's called relativism. Welcome to the 21st century. Hell, even welcome to the 20th century, relativism was kicking then too.
QUOTE
IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!
To you, yes, but remember you are not everyone.
QUOTE
I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO OPEN UP THE NEWSPAPER TO THE WEDDINGS AND SEE TWO GUYS HUGGIN' AND KISSING EACH OTHER! THAT JUST LOOKS SICK.
Well unless you are so traumatized as to turn the page I see no problem.

Gays hurt no one by simply being gay. Therefore what business does the law have in saying if they can't receive the legal benefits as straights if they don't hurt anyone?

===EDIT===

Sorry Missy, didn't see your edit before the post. I'll leave the post alone for now, if it needs editing feel free.

For the new post...
QUOTE
mar-riage (mar'ij) n. The state of being married; wedlock; the act of marrying or the ceremony entered by a man and a woman so as to live together as husband and wife. marriageability n. marriageable adj.
Sorry, but playing dictionary won't help you here. Marriage in terms of the government is a legal binding that provides rights provided by the government for the marriagees. It has no say about sexual preference.

Here's one to chew on. a lot of research shows homosexuality is genetic. So is race. Maybe black people shouldn't be allowed to marry, since that offends some people, like the KKK.

It's fine, Max, I just want the thread to continue as debate instead of a flame-fest. - MissyA
sjbbandgeek
My vote shall go to the first candidate that proposes that we slap huge taxes on companies that leave the U.S and force them to pay us more than if they never left the country. I doubt this will happen, so we're screwed for the next four years with the choice of two people that I find incompetent.

And on a side note, Nader is basicly sabotaging the democrats unintentionally by running in the first place.

If only Howard Dean won the candidatecy.
Guaraldi
hannity.com
QUOTE
Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:


1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.


2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.


3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."

4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:

In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)


Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)


7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)


"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)

America IS at WAR! You can't cut the military programs, and sacrifice safety.


Bill Clinton gave George W. Bush an assesment, around 50 pages long I think, and it talked about the security threats to the USA. Guess how many times the word Al Queda was in there. Zero. Bush did have some evidence, but I think Dr. Rice summed it up by saying there was no silver bullet that could prevent the terrorist attacks.
Pythagorus
OUR 44TH PRESIDENT NEED NOT BE A DEFENSE SLASHER!!! VOTE BUSH INSTEAD!
syuu
Pythagorus, is it? I'm going to be as frank as possible. Sit.

This thread is about who the next American president should be, not your personal beliefs about whether gay marriage is right or not. While that does have to do with election and who your choice is - Though it would be more productive to post in one of the gay marriage threads instead, and even there, don't be a jerk about it -, if your beliefs on that issue are harsh or corrosive to people on this board and any specific group of people whatsoever, you're going to find yourself warned.

I'm keeping an eye on this thread until Mata sees it, so please keep your homophobic comments to yourself.

For the record, I don't give a turkey sandwich about what Webster's says.
Sir Maxerpopple
QUOTE
A marriage is for a woman and a man, and a civil union can be for two people of the same gender. They can have the same benefits, etc. It is all fine with me.
Actually that isn't true.
QUOTE
The Vermont legislature passed a bill which created the concept of a civil union -- a marital state like marriage, but without the more than 1,000 federal government benefits that are automatically given to married couples.
(religioustolerance.org)
Vermont is the closest thing to gay marriage and even their version doesn't provide all the rights. Civil unions simply don't provide all the things that marriage does.
Guaraldi
QUOTE (Sir Maxerpopple @ Apr 21 2004, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE
A marriage is for a woman and a man, and a civil union can be for two people of the same gender. They can have the same benefits, etc. It is all fine with me.
Actually that isn't true.

How can my opinion not be true? It is mine, and mine only.
EvilSpoon
I think ( can't recall, sorry ) a certain state has made gay marriage completely legal.

Anyway, anyone but Bush. And anti-bigot. Yep.
Sir Maxerpopple
QUOTE
How can my opinion not be true? It is mine, and mine only.
You can believe a marriage is between a man and a woman for personal definition. However when discussing legality, personal opinion sare irrelevant. What I was pointing out as untrue was the fact that civil unions do not have all the rights of marriage.

Do you believe in inter-racial marriages? How about marriages for blacks at all? Blacks were only allowed to marry after the civil war, and inter-racial marriages came later. While the specific arguements against the two might be different, the gist and the eventual result shall be the same.

QUOTE
I think ( can't recall, sorry ) a certain state has made gay marriage completely legal.
In Vermont some lesbians were allowed marriage or unionization can't remember which but either way it isn't full blwon legal.
Coconut Monkey
I don't know guys..

Maybe you're a republican, so, liking Bush's staff is one thing, I guess. Thinking he's got an administration running everything for him behind the scenes. Which they apparently are doing, which is kinda scary. Because shouldn't a rational person be concerned by what's been happening lately, these last few months?

it's such a good, important thing.. the 9/11 commission. nobody can deny that the USA's national security future will be totally shaped by what is learned there.

Fortunately there are those like Richard Clarke who want to repair the system, who worked for years preventing attacks from al qaeda and similar groups--under both democratic and republican presidents--and so he testifies before the commission and tells them everything they want to know.

Unfortunately you have people Condolezza Rice, who first refuse to testify under oath.. who claim some kind of (false) executive priviledge to get out of it. or when they are instructed they must testify, including Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft in there too, but especially Rice, they make purposely misleading statements and say things that are the opposite of what Cheney had said the day before, or what Bush says the week after. This is a trustworthy administration?? This is the "grown-ups" back in washington? they act as if their backs are against the wall when they are called before a commission to protect their country

When it comes to the security of the country, is it "good politics" for the bush adminstration to play these kinds of games? Is it a safe thing to do for the people of the USA, to try to circumvent the 911 commission? these government officials do everything in their power to avoid their duty and testify, truthfully--that is under oath--(and therefore at risk of a perjury charge). Should you trust them? should you wonder about why they're trying to keep secrets? should you want to vote for them again if they still haven't come clean, if they can admit no wrong, or make no apology?

certainly, you don't have to make a decision on this question Today. the election is yet 6 months away. but, i'm just sayin', don't forget these questions when october, november comes around. cause there's a lot at stake.

-cm
gothictheysay
I'm scared. I'm really scared. My vote for Kerry, I agree with most of his ideas. Now I'm stepping back and watching because I am scared.

edit: probably more disgusted than scared.
Patient #212
Planned so long ago to respond to the first hint of homophobia from Pythagoras, but it's already exploded and been worked out in my absence. And everyone's already expressed my feelings on the subject. It's not even worth my time now...

QUOTE
OUR 44TH PRESIDENT NEED NOT BE A DEFENSE SLASHER!!! VOTE BUSH INSTEAD!


And our 43rd President need not be a small-minded, belligerent moron. But he is. Hmm... what percentage of the federal budget is currently being taken up by defense? I honestly can't remember specifically, but I seem to recall that it was something absolutely obscene. What about EVERYTHING ELSE? Defense needs to be cut if we're to keep the rest of the country's interests from going down the drain! Defense Slashing = Finally Some Sanity. Not that we don't need it... just not as the sole priority.
sjbbandgeek
I don't see Richard Clarke actually wanting to repair the system. And it seems to me that that commission is only attacking the Bush Administration, not trying to solve the terrorist issue.
And Rice didn't want to testify because she knew she'd be attacked.

That is what my thoughts are.
The Lorax
QUOTE (Patient #212 @ Apr 21 2004, 03:17 AM)
And our 43rd President need not be a small-minded, belligerent moron. But he is.

Amen.


/spam
Coconut Monkey
sjbbandgeek: - you ought to get a hold of Richard Clarke's book, if you can. of course he's the author so you might claim he's biased about himself or something, but as a first person account it's very enlightening. it explains a great deal about the US's counterterrorism and national security policy before and after 9/11.. and explains the shortcomings of the current, and previous, administrations in this regard.

basically, think of it as a preamble to the report that the 9/11 commission will be completing later this year.

Seriously, the commission is not attacking anybody.. They want questions answered, that's their job, and they simply will not be refused the answers they seek. so, as the attacks occured on the bush administration's watch, those admin officials, of course, must appear before the commission.

It's a bipartisan commission, remember.

And if the Bush Admin decides they want to refuse to appear before the commission and testify under oath, it puts into question whether they actually want to understand the government's failings on september eleventh, and whether they want to learn from those mistakes, and how effectively they want to protect america in the future.

it's a question of whether they are putting their pride first, or the safety of their nation...

-cm
sjbbandgeek
John Kerry proposes that he will create 10 mollion jobs in his first term in office.
But there are only 8.4 million people whom are unemployed.
Coconut Monkey
sjbbandgeek:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4609878/
QUOTE
"America cannot afford four more years of a president who is the first to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression," Kerry said at a rally in Detroit where he unveiled a sweeping plan to restructure corporate taxes. The plan would eliminate a feature of the tax code that offers favored treatment for large multinationals that expand overseas, allowing their overseas profits to be taxed at foreign rates that are typically far lower than U.S. levels.
...
Altman, a senior economic advisor to the Kerry campaign, said Friday’s speech was the first of at least three laying out the central planks of a program to restore economic competitiveness and create jobs. He said the promise of 10 million jobs over four years was reasonable, noting that the economy created more than 11.5 million jobs in the first four years of the Clinton administration.



http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/ns06062003.cfm
QUOTE
(June 2003) And while the numbers of job seekers keeps growing, the economy continued shedding jobs in May. A net 17,000 jobs were lost, according to the BLS. That included 53,000 manufacturing jobs, bringing to 2.6 million the manufacturing jobs lost since July 2000. The private sector now has lost a total of 3.1 million jobs since February 2001, shortly after President George W. Bush took office. That adds up to a bigger job loss than in any other recession since World War II, according to the Economic Policy Institute.



http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/
QUOTE
A net 2.6 million private-sector jobs—68,000 each month—have been lost since President George W. Bush took office. By March 2004, 8.4 million were officially jobless—but experts estimate the total number of unemployed and underemployed is more than 14 million.



Compare the Job Growth of the Last Ten Presidents:
(in thousands of jobs per month of office)

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/today...y/jobgrowth.cfm


Should I rest my case?

-cm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.