Kerry: No Apology



  • Reply 41 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I can´t remember an election where I didn´t hear that.

    Reagan was worse.
  • Reply 42 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Anyone remember the last election in GB? The liberals backed Blair with the promise of a more fair weighted system.

    How is that proposal doing in the parliarment?
  • Reply 43 of 96
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member

    Originally posted by Anders

    For me the battle between Kerry and Bush is minor compared to the battle of the voice of diversity. Stuff like "A vote on Nader is a vote for Bush" is totally missing the point. A vote on Kerry is a vote for a political system that needs major reforming IMO and the future of democracy is more important than who is going to be in the white house the next four years.

    Um, no. Your responsibility in voting is to vote in your state for an Elector who then in turn votes for President. You are -not- voting to reform the political system. You -are- voting to elect a president (indirectly) for the next four years, -period-.

    If you want to change the political system -do not- muck with the Presidential races, -instead- vote for your local congressmen and senators and have -them- come up with rules or tinker with the election process and even Constitution to make things less 50/50. (Not advocating changing anything, just saying that Congress is the way to go about it)

    If anyone is trying to "reform the political system in a major way" in November they should just stay the hell home because that ain't the way to do it. -Do- vote for your person but don't think you are doing anything other than guaranteeing the greater of two evils being elected and sating your conscience to spite yourself.

    The hell with Gore having lost. Bush in office means more lost jobs, more war, more offshoring more etc. Nader -ought- to have been a statesman and just sat this one out for the benefit of the American worker and all the underdogs he -allegedly- fights for. Right now he's more of a paid-monkeywrench than stoic independent. Praying for the day a Bush-Nader financial link can be found. Alas that's way into ConspiracyLand...but I can dream.


    Originally posted by Anders

    And no. Nader is not close to my perfect candidate but he is the only major voice of treason towards the two party system right now so I use him as an example here.

    Voice of Treason? That's hilarious! Aye, that he is...
  • Reply 44 of 96
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,586member


    f you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.

    What does "focus on the lower class" mean? How? What is the solution? The problem is we've tried pouring money into poverty and blight to the tune of trillions of dollars over the last 40 years. It hasn't gotten's gotten worse.

    Oh, and how was Reagan "worse"?
  • Reply 45 of 96

    So reform it after Bush is gone. Right now we have one of the worst possible leaders in office. As evidence I suggest you look at the last 3 and a half years. The longer that guy is in office the more damage he will do.

    I am failing to see how voting for Kerry is going to fix the economy. He already said he is going to raise taxes on the people making over $200,000 but those are the small business people. If you read around for comments by these small business people they are just going to cut back on their employees and not work as hard because this tax is ridiculous. How is their cutting back on employees going to raise jobs in america or in any way help the economy.

    Bush is trying to cut our nations debt by bring back the BEA (Budget Enforcement Act) which will cap increases on all discretionary spending at less than 1% It will also require that all spending increases be offset but decreases in other areas. It will require this. I for one hope this happens soon because I fail to see how Kerry is going to pay for this $900 Billion that he him self said ti was going to cost for this health plan.
  • Reply 46 of 96

    Oh, and how was Reagan "worse"?

    Because Reagan left the deficit at at 49% of the GDP higher than it was even during WW2? which is almost 20% higher than it is right now?
  • Reply 47 of 96
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member

    Originally posted by Northgate

    You achieved the presidency through crooked means.

    Not that the rest of your post isn't riddled with other unfounded opinions but it irks me when I still see Dems clinging to this garbage.

    Dems conveniently forget that "USA Today, the Miami Herald, the Tampa Tribune, the Bradenton Herald, Florida Today, the Tallahassee Democrat, the News-Press of Fort Myers, the Pensacola News Journal, Knight-Ridder newspapers, and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago (hired by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and several other newspapers) all reviewed the Florida election results of 2000, and found that not only did Bush win the ballots that were officially counted, but he also won after counting every ballot cast."

    Quoted part taken from an article on NR... yeah yeah its a conservative-bent publication so go ahead and discount it I guess.

    But back on topic, really I think its ridiculous that Kerry out and out calls them crooks and liars. What a crock. He's probably being non-apologetic because someone told him it'd make him look less "flip-floppish". :P Like someone said, if he really thinks that then by all means get some Senate committee on it. Otherwise its just hot air and fuel for the I-hate-Bush machine the Dems call a campaign.
  • Reply 48 of 96
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member

    Originally posted by Fellowship

    Two words: WHO CARES?


    Thank you. For those getting their underoos in a bunch, don't be such media sheep. Just because they imply it's "a big deal" doesn't make it so. They want headlines, that's it. Now they got one for the next week. Big deal. And no, it really wouldn't be a big deal if Bush said it either.

    I'm sure this kind of thing happens literally every day in both parties during every election.

    Voter: Go get 'em Bob!

    Bob the Politician: Oh you bet; we're not going to stop until we reach the mountain top!

    Meh. Who cares is right.
  • Reply 49 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member

    Originally posted by johnq

    Um, no. Your responsibility in voting is to vote in your state for an Elector who then in turn votes for President. You are -not- voting to reform the political system. You -are- voting to elect a president (indirectly) for the next four years, -period-.

    A vote on a third candidate is reforming the system from a two party system.

    1: When a third candidate is in the reach of the two others people suddenly have a viable choice. Game theory tells that the strategic play between two players are more - um - strategic than in a game with more players. The game cannot be controlled with more than two players, which is good for democracy because it forces the candidates to concentrate on their political messages. And going from three candidates to four is easier than 2->3

    2: If three candidates (or more) have almost the same number of votes it shows the need for some kind of representative system. Systems are not changed before its problems are becoming obvious.


    Originally posted by johnq

    If anyone is trying to "reform the political system in a major way" in November they should just stay the hell home because that ain't the way to do it. -Do- vote for your person but don't think you are doing anything other than guaranteeing the greater of two evils being elected and sating your conscience to spite yourself.

    Thats why the voting percent is so low in US. "Go out and vote. This way you make sure YOUR country isn´t ruled by the worst of the worst. Only the slight lesser worse of the worst". "Drink coca-cola. Because it taste a tad better than that shit pepsi". "Buy Mac OS 10.0. Because it sucks slightly lesser than Windows ME"
  • Reply 50 of 96
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    haha funny historical thing from an NR article about campaign ads/tactics (yes i've been reading it a lot lately, sue me)


    Jonah Goldberg wrote

    In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife was smeared as a bigamist, his mother a hooker, and he a murderer. Meanwhile Jackson's people put out the word that John Quincy Adams was a pimp for the czar of Russia. Now that's going negative!

    Makes the Kerry-Bush dirt slinging look mundane. I think they need to be more creative! :P
  • Reply 51 of 96
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Anders, I like your style and I admire the earnestness.

    But "this time" I cannot have Bush. I don't know if Kerry will be better or worse, I just know it will not be Bush.

    I -do- know that unless Nader has a miraculous resurgence enough to win (which is an astronomically huge impossibility) then it means Bush "might" win. Not an option.

    I'm too unemployed, too uninsured, too job-stolen-by-cheap-Indian-labor, too mother is on SSI to want Bush in office. Selfish? You bet.

    Its a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not a government of the well-off principled elitists, by the well-off principled elitists and for the well-off principled elitists.
  • Reply 52 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Fair enough. I just think as long as you accept the system and only replace its leader you will live with a less than optimal system. The sooner the system is replaced the better. And the argument "this time its important" will always be used.
  • Reply 53 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I don't think Kerry will be "not as bad" I think he'll be a whole lot better.

    There are fundamental differences in the way Kerry sees government and the way Bush does.

    To think that some third party candidate would be the solution just because they're what? More Progressive? Like it or not this country is moderate... with some of them left leaning and some right leanings... any candidate that is too far outside the middle won't get elected...

    I would love for a super progressive candidate to get elected... but I doubt it could ever happen outside the democratic party.

    That's why the Bush team are trying to portray Kerry as reckless on defense and taxes.

    "he wanted to cut 1.5 billion in intelligence over 5 years!!!!'

    ummm and what finally passed was even more...

    from the Wash Post.

    In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

    The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress." The NRO, which designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated that amount of excess funds.
  • Reply 54 of 96
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    progressive progressive

    Call it what it is. Radical left.

    Don't change the label when it's product people don't like.
  • Reply 55 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Then can I call you a fascist? Rightwing nutjob perhaps?
  • Reply 56 of 96
    James Taranto (scroll down about a third of the page) over at observes: "... it's telling that Kerry is running such a grubby little campaign whereas Clinton took the high road eight years ago."

  • Reply 57 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    There you go! Some nobody says it, so it must be true!


    I haven't seen any Kerry's TV ads yet... so how do you know what kind of campaign he's running? I think Kerry is just hitting back as hard as he gets... or harder... he has no illusions that the right wing isn't going to throw everything they have at him.
  • Reply 58 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Hmmm.. crooked? Liars?

    If you read very carefully... it's apparent to even Hastert he can't trust the policy makers in the Bush administration.

    Speaker Hastert. Well, we can still do a lot. I mean, when we started talking, some people started talking about $375 billion. It wasn't sustained by the revenues coming into the highway fund. And that was talking about probably what they perceived as needs, but it wasn't sustained by revenue. We always have been able to sustain a highway bill with the revenue that came into it. The White House has laid out the parameters that we have to sustain it with the revenue. That has always been where we are at in principle, and we will have a highway bill that is sustained by revenue.

    So we will take care of roads and bridges. That is an increase, about a 25 percent increase over what we had the last time, and so, you know, it is increased. I think Members will have their needs met, maybe not quite as fully as they would have hoped, but they will have their needs met. We need to get a bill done. I think it is important to have that certainty of letting of those contracts over a 6-year period of time. We need to move forward and get that work done.

    Q You met with the administration yesterday. Did they say they would support the target number? Speaker Hastert. We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it.

    Q But did they say they would sign?

    Speaker Hastert. They didn't make a commitment.

    Q Did they say they would veto it?

    Speaker Hastert. They didn't say they would veto it.

    Q Is that with the President or with the people?

    Speaker Hastert. That is with the President. I don't deal with his people anymore.

    Q Mr. Speaker, do you anticipate the assault weapons ban renewal? It expires in September.

    Speaker Hastert. The Senate was going to go through the bill first. It kind of fell away over in the Senate. I am not sure what is going to happen.

    Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don't deal with his people anymore?

    Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren't getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do.

    Q Just on this issue or on

    Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

    Q Or in general?

    Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

    Q Sir --

    Q What kind of numbers were you getting from them?

    Speaker Hastert. Different numbers.

    Q Different from?

    Speaker Hastert. Where they added up.

    I find it interesting that the Press only covered his attack on Kerry but not what he said right before that... which is what's above.

    Here he is saying I don't trust the numbers Bush's people give me... they don't add up... so I won't deal with them on this issue anymore...

    Anyone see a pattern? Underestimating the Medicare bill... underestimating the cost of Iraq... unrealistic employment targets... underfunding of NCLB...
  • Reply 59 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member

    Originally posted by Anders

    I can´t remember an election where I didn´t hear that.

    Reagan was worse.

    At least Reagun had some intellect. This guy's like a bull in a china shop.

    Also Reagun didn't create what was a the time the biggest deficit in history in just his term. He was the previous record holder however I'll give you that.
  • Reply 60 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member

    Originally posted by SilentEchoes

    Because Reagan left the deficit at at 49% of the GDP higher than it was even during WW2? which is almost 20% higher than it is right now?

    The deficit had been running for awhile before Reagun.

    This is what I've been trying to convey. A really remarkable thing happened during the Clinton administration. A surplus! I remember hearing about the deficit when I was in Jr. high ( they call it middle school now ). That was in the middle 60's.

    Dubbya did this all by himself.

    Imagine what he could do in another 4 years?

    The thing is I didn't like Reagun but I'd rather have him back than Dubbya. Hell! As I've previously stated I'd rather have Nixon back than Dubbya.

    So let's get someone else in there even if the person is marginally better because you can't get much worse.

    It's the only way change has a chance of happening.

    I've gathered that you're european and perhaps don't live here but we do and have to deal with this first hand. And even if he's gone we will have to live with the legacy for years to come.

    And Anders, there's people suffering out there right now because of this.

    Also as the recent war has just shone the world has to live with Bush and his legacy also.
Sign In or Register to comment.