Actually, I'm not sure if Kerry is going to be able to keep the tax cut promise. He'll try, I'm sure, but in the end I think whoever wins will have to do a little tax raising somewhere down the line.

Of course, if a question asks if you'd be willing to make a promise in the camera to the American people -

Would ANY candidate not do it?

I think there were quite a few dumb questions in the debates - that either were one sided or were lame questions "Describe your opponent without using his name" or something like that.

But that's another discussion.

True, anyone would promise while looking into the camera if asked. That's not the point. The point is it is a noble man who will keep his promise. It's a pretty damn big promise to say you're not going to piss away 2.5 trillion from senior citizens who need that money.

Actually his backward stance on homosexuality and pro-life issues would get him a surprising amount of the vote based on that alone.

I actually agree with what SAJN is saying here (kill me now), just wish he had phrased it a little more eloquently. I dont understand why people voted for John Howard in our recently election after all that he has done, yet somehow he managed to come out on top. I think people need to look at the big picture, do a little research, and make their own enlightened mind up. When you realise some of the things our nation's leaders do which never make it to the broadstream media, you might come to the realisation that there has to be a better alternative.

These people are the spokespeople for our country, and like it not, we are ultimately responsible for their actions. We put them there. Politicians dont change. If you think your President has a good track record and is the man to represent your country and yourself to the rest of the world for the next 4 years, then by all means vote for him. Please, just make that an informed decision. Know what you're voting for, what he has done, and what he has the prerogative to do again.

Demon_Nightmare, I'm not judging him on how he speaks. I know that many people stumble over words and are nervous during presentations. I'm judging him on the fact that he made up words because he didn't know the real words that represented what he meant to say. I'm judging him on the fact that many of his decisions were half-arsed, stupid, and overall bad. I wish that there were tons more people like me voting so we can get this over-aged child out of the white house. He needs to get a proper education and common sense before he even thinks of running a country! I think that there should be a requirement where the person running for president has graduated from Princeton, or Harvard. But that's just wishful thinking I suppose.

-vote kerry-edwards 2004-

In response to Demon_Nightmare:
It is another subject. Go ahead and start one if you want, I'd be happy to post in it. I don't want to sidetrack this thread though, because I just made a long post.

I'm looking forward to the responses to my long post here!

And yet you still manage to come out with nothing to say.

There were many posts I was going to respond to but this one stuck out. You think that Cheney was really just thanking Edwards in their debate? The man was furious that Edwards brought up his daughter and graciously simply used his 90 second response to say he appreciated Edwards "kind remarks". That was so patently obvious. You say Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter in a non disrespectful way. How? By hypothetically assuming what someone he didn't know might say on an issue? Lunacy. And it is not Bush playing dirty. He didn't respond to Kerry's underhanded comment. Her parents did. And then Edwards wife goes out and says her mother is ashamed of her.

Kerry could of made his point by bringing up any number of homosexuals he knows opinions but he chose Cheney's daughter for a reason (even though he doesn't know her or her opinion). The reason was calculated (almost all debate responses are, of course) and certainly not an honorable one.

How about you run along and play and let the grown-ups talk here.

We're talking about politicians here, you realize. That's part of the game. Keery claims he isn't going to raise taxes in the lower and middle class brackets. I truly doubt that will happen.

And to the people who keep claiming the state of the economy is Bush's fault: Do you even have any clue what kind of control the US government has over the economy. There is only so much that can be done. The government can try to add money to the public's pocket, but if the public doesn't spend, the economy stays in the crapper. If you actually believe that a democratic president could have done a better job with what happened, you're foolish. Hell, Bush doesn't even make the call on monetary policy.

Then what are you doing. You place Kerry as someone with integrity, a man who can't even go one debate without a handful of lies. This is like a high school election all over. One one hand you have the kid who is thoughtful and isn't liked by all, but he wants to do the best he can. On the other hand you have Kerry, the "savior" who makes false promises and pretends to be every side of the coin to gain votes and plays on the emotions and fears of others by proclaiming myth as fact.

Wookie, the only possible reason they would be mad is if they're homophobes, which they are. Only bigots get mad if it is let known to the public that their own flesh and blood is gay.

Honestly, Wookie.

I didn't even know that Cheney had a lesbian daughter, but what, do you think that Kerry bringing it up is going to immediately cause me to believe that Bush and Cheney are evil because they have a homosexual daughter? Kerry was just using an example to answer a question. And if you had actually paid attention to Kerry's response, you might have learned something. The response was basically the best thing ever said by a presidential candidate on the issue of homosexuality every. And I'm pretty sure that Cheney's daughter agreed with Kerry's remarks, from what I saw on the news. So he was right.

So again, only a bigot would be ashamed of his lesbian daughter. Her mother getting so angry just because of a REFERENCE to her daughter's homosexuality is a large indicator of this.

Avenger, you jerk, don't miss my post near the end of the second page! I'm counting on intelligent arguments from you!

Avenger, Bush spent as much as any democrat did while at the same time lowering taxes. Kerry can't screw up any worse than Bush did. I don't think you understand how much tax money will be brought in from reverting the taxes for those of incomes greater than $200,000.

That is so ignorant. Could it not only slightly be possible that they were mad because Kerry USED CHENEY'S DAUGHTER FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Get a clue!

I dont know how the US economy works, but apart from obvious complete control of the fiscal budget the Australian government has pretty much direct control over the interest rate, the money supply, and indirect control over the balance of trades. There is no excuse for letting an economy go down the crapper while holding the strings to those 4 variables.

Not nearly as much as will be generated from taxing the additional revenue those tax cuts will create.

You don't even have cites. From now on, I'll consider you unworthy to debate against me and ignore your arguments, like you ignored mine.

WHAT political purposes?! YOU get a clue.

BUSH USES CHENEY'S DAUGHTER FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES! POSTING IT IN ALL CAPS MAKES IT EVEN MORE TRUE!

Maybe people don't respond to your posts cause you're a frog...

*waits for laughter*


=(

I like absurd humor!

Mere speculation, and no solid examples. Even members of Bush's own cabinet said throwing money at the rich the second time around in 2003 was the wrong thing to do. Giving the money to the middle class is the long-term solution. The rich are already getting richer (this is a fact). No need to throw even more money at them. And seriously, how many Americans have stock tied up in Microsoft and McDonald's? Seriously, revoking dividend tax was only a ploy to save Bush's buddies hundreds of millions, while doing nothing for normal Americans. That goes double for revoking the death tax.

I do. I'm talking about people who make less than that. I don't believe he will hold true to the $200,000 level he is claiming and lower the bar to the $100,000 range



I read it, but I'm pretty sure I'd jsut be recycling stuff I've already said

It was just a friendly joke. I don't really think you were being a jerk. I'm just hoping you can do a point by point rebuttal to my post, like I do to everyone else. It's fun, try it. Pleeeeeeaaaasssseeee. My really long post near the end of page 2.
An unanswered argument is often considered a winning argument. But that's no fun. You seem to be conservative enough but still have enough perspective to make a good opponent.

RE: the economy, Bush said his tax cuts would create a certain amount of jobs, and they fell short. Tax cuts during war=bad anyway.

All I can really say is, you can't always judge a President by what he does in office...many times you need to judge what happens after he's in office. I don't really care who wins, just please people, get your priorities, beliefs, and values down. Figure out what's most important to you. Some of these arguments are really petty and unnecessary.

I can see through your lies Gangster! You're voting for Bush because Kerry used to prosecute organized crime!

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that all of the U.S. SF were removed from Afghanistan. If you can prove it, I'll believe you. However, even if you're correct, you'll have to convince me that Bush gave the order personally to remove all SF from Afghanistan; to me that sounds like a military decision, not a Presidental one.




That's kind of a fine distinction. In my opinion, if Kerry did not trust the President to use the force as necessary, he shouldn't have voted to give him the power. When the vote was held, it was obvious that Bush was preparing to use the power. Kerry knew full well that it would probably be used. I really don't think he should complain about it, because I think when he voted for it, he knew it would most likely be used. In my opinion, that's hypocritical.



I watched the debates, and Kerry made the claim that Bush went to war without a plan for the peace. I find that illogical and extremely unlikely.



I don't read all the threads here; show me the citation if you want me to read it, please. I'm not jumping to conclusions. In my opinion, claiming that Bush and his administration and the military had no plans for the endgame is jumping to conclusions.




We don't know for a fact whether he had them or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What we do know is that A) he had them and used them in the past, on his own people; B) he was in clear defiance of seventeen UN resolutions; C) he was misleading the weapons inspectors and ordering his scientists to lie to them.



To be honest, I haven't looked deeply into the PATRIOT Act. I have a negative impression of it from what I've heard. That might be one issue to side with Kerry on. Frankly, however, had Kerry been President at the time, I honestly think he would have supported similar legislation. And I'm not sure that he would really try to get rid of it if he were elected.



Bush did not stop the flu vaccine from being imported. The company that produces it had part of the batch infected with bacteria, and their license was revoked. The President did not order the flu vaccine to be kept out of the U.S. Now who's misleading?



Yeah, sure, Bush has done nothing at all to try to help the economy. That's an illogical lie, and more FUD.



That's the only way in which Saddam was a terrorist? Excuse me, Saddam was a terrorist within his own country.




It's interesting that you say that, because your candidate, Kerry, said specifically that Saddam was a threat. More hypocricy.

What can the president actually do to create jobs? Honestly, not a lot. A strong economy is based on strong consumer confidence. Bush did everything the president can do to try to improve that. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to record lows, but people weren't jumping on those low rates. The public drives the economy, not the president. Until the public starts spending, creating the need for more jobs, not much is going to happen.




Kerry has very publicly supported use of force in Iraq before Bush was president. I've read, and I'll see if I can find them, Kerry talking about Saddam and his WMDs.



That's debateable (not the WMDs at this point). There were major abuses of the Food for Oil program, plus Iraq wasn't very cooperative with the UN in the 90s. He should have been removed from power after Desert Storm



No argument here



He wasn't funding Al Quida, but did send money to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers.



No kidding



Those reasons are enough for me to support removing him from power. It would have been done sooner, but Clinton, in his infinite wisdom, decided to take the pressure off Saddam.

Thanks! But now I don't feel like debating anymore, so I'll do it later. I promise I'm not trying to duck out either.

Anyway, I have just found the number one reason why everyone should vote for Kerry.
Bush wasn't this cool.

...he looks like a drunken hippie...

Hah hahahaha. blujay, you're a riot. Being ashamed of your child because he or she is gay is treating them in a way that is wrong, therefore it is not a separate issue.

That's not the point! Looks who's standing next to him!

Hmm...you've got a point there.

You mean to tell me that it is wrong to be ashamed of someone for doing something that is immoral and wrong?

I fixed your quote for you. Maybe that'll answer your question.

What's your point, frog? No need to beat around the bush (ha).

BTW, I thought you didn't feel like debating. Eh?

First of all, I don't think homosexuality is immoral and wrong, therefore it would be unethical for me, personally, to be ashamed of anyone for being homosexual. Especially my own child!
Second of all, how do you even know the Cheney family believes in the Bible? Why drag religion into this? After all, you are the one making all the religious inferences.
Thirdly, see dry gear the frog's post above. Who's to say being gay is not who you are, but what you do? You?

Edit: Oh, and to answer your question, yes! Being ashamed of someone for a petty offense such as homosexuality, assuming it's even a sin, and further assuming you can choose whether to be gay or straight, is dead wrong. You should love them, not be ashamed of them. It's religious fanatics like you who cause a boatload of problems psychologically in other people you aren't even aware of. Not only that, but most religious opponents of homosexuality point to a few arcane passages in the Bible, as if that makes their bigotry suddenly OK.

blujay:
I kind of got pulled back in momentarily.

My point is that she didn't choose to be a lesbian. That's just who she is, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Even if the bible says not to do something, it doesn't make it immoral and wrong. It just means you yourself shouldn't do it.
Bleh, I really don't feel like debating. Maybe I'll come back to this and give a better answer.
I'd be going over the same ground anyway.