Can someone tell me the difference Kerry will make?

[Andy_Stephenson]

He has taken NAFTA and WTO off the table.

Any discussion of Israel is off the table.

He has talked about increasing troop strength...a'la draft?

He voted for the war...said he was lied to...how convenient for him to now stay in Iraq.

He has said he would support a Federal Marriage Amendment...depending on the wording.

Are we going to hold his feet to the fire on:

Prosecuting the War Criminals in the present admin?

If NAFTA and WTO are off the table...what is he going to do about outsourcing?

I would really like to feel good about supporting him for the right reasons...but I am finding it hard. Where did his honor go?

I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. Cause it would still be evil.

What is a boy to do?

"how do you tell a man he's the last man to die for a mistake?"
John Kerry 1971

[kalian]

1. You're not the only one doubting his stances....

I for one, see no difference and from what I have been reasing it
appears that we'll get plenty of the same and then some more.

Oh well...its not like we, THE people, matter anymore...

[trumad]

5. Why don't you guys try real hard to come up with some

Come on..You're smart Dems..er I think... So really..try..

Here, let me give you a clue to one... SC

[kalian]

6. Sorry....I don't like being BLIND when I vote....

[trumad]

11. Then open your fucking eyes

and quit pretending there's no Diff.... God Damn it...

[kalian]

15. Hey pal!

Its still a friggin FREE country. If I don't agree with the friggin
"dem candidate" that has been pre-selected for all of us...then
that's my friggin choice!

My eyes are wide open and what they're seeing is the worst that this
nation has EVER seen.

[trumad]

28. You're eyes aren't open...

Break down the one chance to get Bush .... Eyes wide shut Pal!

[kalian]

35. No, you're accusing me of literally....

"not being an American". If I don't vote for your candidate...I am
nothing.
YOU wake up pal. You're not much different in mentality.

[sangha]

196. It's incredible how some people can read anything into another's post

They can even quote words you never said

[Hav]

81. .

The majority voted for Kerry, deal with it. The people elected him, not selected. The talking points of the sour grapes group is getting tiresome.
Your eyes aren't open at all otherwise you would have realised that "the people" have spoken.
Your candidate didn't win, big deal. That's democracy.
You can waste your vote if you want, big deal.
But cut the bullshit.

[Cocoa]

184. Kerry was not pre-selected

in fact, he was declared out of the race, until the VOTERS voted for him in Iowa.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. SC? South Carolina?

:shrug:

[ret5hd]

33. supreme court (nt)

[Rose Siding]

2. Prosecute them?

This quote is from yesterday-

snip>
"Who knows, maybe after it's all over George Bush and I will be able to sit down together at a Red Sox-Rangers game and shake hands as friends," said Kerry. "That would be an election where all Americans would win in the end."

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...itics-headlines

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. Great so they are gonna have beer and

pretzels together.

:puke:

[blm]

78. There's no hope for any of you who want to say there's no difference.

So go vote for someone else so you can feel like you're satisfied that you have stuck to your belief that Kerry is evil.

The rest of us will be thrilled to vote for the one man who has made more of a difference in the last 35 years than most politicians put together....John Kerry.

Personally, I think some people are more vain about the time they invested in hating Kerry and believing all the disinformation that they helped spread. They can't let go or admit they were wrong.

Some people's vanity might just do the rest of us and the rest of the world a greater disservice than they may realize.

Sad.

[Old and In the Way]

94. The really ironic part would be-

If Andy wins his office because of Kerry's coattails.

[Andy_Stephenson]

97. blm...

Seriously...I am trying to get excited about the man...But give me a reason to. He comes up lacking in most catagories. He has not backed off patriot act etc etc. I would love to feel good about voting for him. Give me something I can sink my teeth into. Give me three sucinct reasons. Clear positions he has taken without any waffling. I really do want to know. You know my position...for me to be asking these questions is a big step for me. I have come around...but I want some meat and potatoes now...not waffles. I want concrete positions I can relate to. Your the Kerry fan I trust...so close the deal. Why should I support Kerry?


take your time I need to run to Safeway. Back in 10 minutes.

[blm]

119. Where the F*** do you get your information that you post such disinfo?

Kerry submitted legislation a few months back repealing parts of the Patriot Act. Don't tell me you never saw it posted here.

Kerry has a doable healthcare plan that the GOP cannot argue against. Allow the people to have the same healthcare given to Congress. Plus, take all catastrophic cases OUT of the system, automatically reducing premiums for all of us, especially small business employers. Offering healthcare will an easier option for small businesses.

He will immediately FULLY fund REAL alternative energy research. He wants true American independence from fossil fuels.

Kerry intends to shut down the offshore money pipelines that corporations and executives have been using to prevent paying billions of dollars in taxes. No corporation who does it will be allowed to do any work for the government. He also intends to earmark one third of government contracts for small businesses.

He intends to FULLY fund the infrastructure work needed in our school and other service buildings to put as many electricians, plumbers and construction crews back to work ASAP.

You know, Gbnc, there have been hundreds of threads here that have detailed Kerry's plans over the past year. You never read them?

Try spending a few hours at his site reading the issues and then read all of his policy speeches from the last two years. Catch up. You might surprise yourself.

[Andy_Stephenson]

122. I have been reading his site...

and his "progressive internationalism" sounds like warmed over PNAC to me, and that is what prompted this thread. I am wanting to learn...but some of his positions sound the same as * only the phraseology is different. Enlighten me....please.

"Kerry submitted legislation a few months back repealing parts of the Patriot Act. Don't tell me you never saw it posted here." Never saw it...but only part? Why not all of it? Where is a link please.

[tameszu]

140. No, PI is not even close to PNAC

If you cannot tell the difference between progressive internationalism and PNAC hegemonic stability/dominance, then you need to do more research for yourself. But here is a first step:

Progressive internationalism calls on all nations to deploy force and negotiation for the reason of advancing international norms, institutions, cooperation, most importantly in the form of justifiable international law based on the liberal democratic assumptions of instruments such as the United Nations Charter. The United States has a special responsibility to take leadership because of its wealth and power, but no special privileges. No country ought to be "above the law," even if we are still in the difficult position of mutually crafting the law as we go along.

PNAC relies on a theory of hegemonic stability that says that international peace and other democratic goals can best be pursued if the United States maintains its dominant status and sets the rules for everyone else, because it intrinsically knows best. The United States ought to have a special privilege to deploy force and act in the international arena, because international stability is dependent on *it*. Indeed, on this view, the United States is the wellspring of international stability and "law," and as such, the U.S. ought to be able define that law however it likes.

These are huge differences.

[IndianaGreen]

143. "The United States has a special responsibility..."?

This is rehash of Manifest Destiny on a global scale. Imperialism disguised as Coca-Cola.

[tameszu]

147. Your interpretation is rather lacking

Do you believe that the United States and other G-8 countries should transfer more money to developing countries because of its wealth and history as a colonial winner?

BTW, I am not even an American citizen, and coming from a distinctly non-mperialistic small country, I am wary of imperialism of all kinds.

But I know that the U.S.--and indeed, my country's--greater wealth and power does give them special responsibility to do more, because they can do more.

Note also that I said that neither the U.S. nor any other powerful country ought to have special privileges under international law. But they certainly have special responsibility to use the additional power and wealth they have wisely and equitably--sometimes that means giving it up (which I'm sure you support), sometimes that means taking the initiative (which they didn't do in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia, and millions died).

And I should also note a point of irony: you could say that of any country in the world other than maybe Mexico, my country has more reason to be creeped out by the idea Manifest Destiny. We know Manifest Destiny, and we can tell you that progressive internationalism is no Manifest Destiny.

[plurality]

146. PI is PNAC avec les Francais und mit Deutchland

It doesn't have a big problem with the whole ruling the world thing, it just says that we need to give our white friends across the pond an equal share in the plundering of the world. Sounds dandy.

[tameszu]

149. No, PI is the development of international law and the UN

You know, that little body that DK said that we ought to hand over control of Iraq to in 90 days?

The thing is, if you want to achieve international stability and peace, you need to have some way of institutionalizing it. You can toss around all of the suspicion and innuendo you want, but if you want to even get 1 step closer to achieving good ends, you need a constructive and pragmatic plan to get there on the other side of your placard.

Or what's your solution? Do you think international law will just create itself?

Even if your solution is to have the United States and all of the other great powers ceding their power to the world community as a whole, ensuring that these acts actually result in more harm than good requires some sort of plan for doing so. Progressive internationalism is the most workable plan I can see for doing this.

[plurality]

150. that's actually the one thing I disagreed with DK on.

The Iraqis want their country back, and they will kill ANYBODY that stands in the way of that, whether it's US troops or UN troops.

The UN is a good idea, but right now it's a tool for imperialism. The only body that means anything is the Security Council, and who controls it? The US, UK, France, Germany, and Russia, so I won't be expecting it to do anything that'll help the rest of the world anytime soon, and so far I've got about 600 years of history backing me up on that point.

[AntiCoup2K4]

167. Then why is a PNAC'er running PPI?

Will Marshall is a signator on every PNAC document since the invasion of Iraq. Obviously he modeled PPI after PNAC, but tried wrapping it in rhetoric that sounds a little "less fascist". Leopards don't change their spots. Neither do fascists.

[seaglass]

125. Where is your responsibility to inform yourself? n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

I have been trying...

but I am having trouble identifying with many of his positions.

[tameszu]

144. Three reasons, no problem

1) Environment. No contest.

2) Education--and before you go off on Kerry about voting No Child Left Behind, recall that Kerry shares the exact same position as his endorser, ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy, who was one of the bill's co-sponsors. Liberal Dems like Kennedy worked damned hard with Repubs to get a bipartisan education bill passed, with promises from Bush that he would fund it. Bush didn't.

3) The Supreme Court.

4) Foreign policy. See the difference between progressive internationalism and PNAC below.

[LWolf]

173. Sorry.

I don't care what Ted Kennedy says about NCLB. I care a lot that he worked so hard to get the worst piece of legislation to hit public education in my lifetime passed.

I gave the dems some reasonable doubt; I didn't accuse them of being stupid, short-sighted, or destructive for voting for the damned thing. But I expect them to see what it has done to us, and I expect them to repudiate that vote, and that piece of trash legislation.

As a teacher, hearing a democrat say that the problem with NCLB is that it hasn't been fully funded, and that if we just fund it, education will be hunky dory, makes me :puke:.

Honestly.

Now add the IWR and the Patriot Act. Yes, I understand that Kerry expected GWB to do something ethical with all of that permission as far as IWR goes. I understand that much of America, and probably much of Congress, was acting in fear when they went along with stepping all over our civil liberties with the Patriot Act. But, honestly. I knew better than to trust GWB. I knew better than to give him that kind of authority. Why didn't Congress?

I don't get a feeling of contentment or safety from "progressive internationalism." Somehow, I keep reading it "progressive imperialism." Freudian slip? Maybe.

I agree that Kerry would be much better than Bush on the environment and as far as Supreme Court nominees go.

I agree that Kerry is better than Bush, period. That's why I'll vote for him if I have to. But without some huge shifts in platform, he won't have my support for his agenda. That's the difference. Maybe that doesn't really make a difference; maybe as long as he gets the vote that gets him there, he and his core of support in the party don't really care about what the rest of us think.

[SheilaT]

3. I agree with you.

I am supremely unhappy that Kerry will be the nominee. I try to reassure myself by remembering that he won't be forwarding the extreme right wing agenda that Bush has supported, but I don't trust him to make the fundamental changes in this country that are needed.

I have never before felt as if I were truly voting between the lesser of two evils, but this November I will be.

[trumad]

8. Come on

you can find a difference...

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. Oh here is a difference

Kerry SnB (D)
Bush SnB (R)

Oh there is a difference!

[kalian]

16. LOL

[Hav]

84. Vote as you please. Spare us the bullshit.

[whistle]

7. Yes, the primary difference will be that...

...BushCo and Duyba will be gone!:bounce: :toast:

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. But not the policies.

and Bushco will still be free...Halliburton will still be in Iraq (as will our troops) with no bid contracts...nothing will fundamentally change. So tell me why I should support Kerry again?

[IndianaGreen]

130. Halliburton won't be in Iraq if Kerry is elected

Another corporation, one friendly to the Democratic establishment, will be the one getting the Iraq contracts.

Change in contractors, not change in policy!

The Real Record of John Kerry
By Joe Auciello

Unlike George Bush, who played dress-up on an aircraft carrier, Kerry is an authentic Navy veteran. Kerry argues that his experience of war in Vietnam will prevent the reckless deployment of military force, but, so he claims, that experience will also provide him with the courage and wisdom to use that force when appropriate and necessary.

Thus, Kerry tries to land squarely in favor of both sides of a defining and controversial issue. This stance, and Kerry’s current image overall, is a carefully calculated product intended to appeal to the widest market. When Kerry speaks about the Iraq war, he says yes and no at the same time. Shallowness and duplicity is no accident. It lets the peace movement think Kerry is, if not one of its own, at least an ally. And it reassures the more conservative voter that Kerry, the war hero, is a red, white, and blue patriot who won’t let America get pushed around by any foreigners, be they French or Arab. In other words, the Dixie Chicks won’t be invited to sing at a Kerry rally.

The Kerry candidacy is only the newest version of an old trick: the false choice of the lesser evil. It’s the dead-end idea that says, “Pull the lever for a bad candidate because the other one seems worse.” It’s the two-party shell game, where every electoral choice comes up empty. It’s the cynical charade of American democracy in action. Worse still, in defense of this rigged game, young American men and women are sent overseas to fight, kill, and die.

http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/kerry.html

[demsrule4life]

38. And that is about it

this election has become anyone but Bush. Don't matter a bit if the anyone is any better or not. What a great way to run an election and our country.

[Andy_Stephenson]

44. Amen!

Bush out at any cost...even if the nominee is only slightly better.

[Mairead]

9. No, you're for sure not the only one who sees few significant differences

...and those few, small.

[redsoxliberal]

40. After some long thinking

During the campaign, I trashed Kerry as much as possible. I was a diehard Deaniac, and I still am.
However:
- Kerry was one of the 99 out of 100 senators who voted for the Patriot Act. It was passed in haste, while everyone was terrified. It was clearly WRONG, but it was not unique, and he is now speaking out against it while Dubya still supports it.
- Kerry voted for the authorization of force, but at the time clarified his vote, saying that it was only if WMDs were found by weapons inspectors and if it was a MULTILATERAL force. He, along with the 50% of the country that was for the war back then and is against the war now, was lied to. He trusted his president. Too bad the president isn't credible.
- No child left behind would not be that bad if it was funded properly. Bush has not been funding it properly. Kerry had no way of knowing it would not be funded. (I don't see it as a terrific document in theory, and it certainly isn't in practice, but it is not horrible in theory.)
- Kerry is a liberal on the economy, many other social issues, and therefore will be better than Bush... significantly better.
- Kerry is for civil unions, and while that is unfair and unequal, it is much better than Bush' position. While I disagree with Kerry, this is an upgrade, and who's to say that Kerry won't shift left after he wins?

I loved Dean... I'm very disappointed he's not the nominee, but Kerry IS much better than Bush.

[NNadir]

13. If you don't know by now, you're probably beyond talking to.

[kalian]

18. Ah yes...blind obedience....

no questioning...no arguements....
Kerry can do no wrong... His policies are right on the money....

Hmm...who does that sound like...? :eyes:

[Andy_Stephenson]

46. Rush?

Rice?
Cheney?
Rumsferatu?
Asscrack?

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

53. "Ah yes. . .blind stubborness. . . "

willful misrespresentation, blatant oversimplification to make someone sound like evil incarnate
Kerry can do no right. . .

Hmm. . .who does that sound like. . .?

[chicagojoe]

17. He won't be bush. Right now, that would be good enough for me !!!

[kalian]

20. So...

when he keeps our troops in Iraq....its OK by you...
When he still allows the draft to occur...its OK by you...
When he continues to invade countries because of this "war on
terror"...its OK by you...
When he DOESN'T repeal the Patriot Act...its OK by you...


:eyes:

[Andy_Stephenson]

23. I think that is what

he is saying...:eyes:

[kalian]

26. So, we start marching with our left foot instead....

is that it?

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. What is his exit strategy from Iraq?

Does he have one?

[kalian]

22. Nope...he doesn't....

quite the contrary. He wants to be much more aggressive in
"taking out" the "terrorist group" AQ. :eyes:

I'd like for him to rewind the clock and conduct a thorough and OPEN
investigation into 9/11 and its instigators...you know, the assholes
in the WH and their neocon masters.

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. I'd like for him to....conduct a thorough and OPEN...into 9/11

Is he going to do that?

[kalian]

30. Hell no....

he's NEVER mentioned anything about 9/11... He justed vote "in line"
with everybody else. Never questioned... Never defied....

[zulchzulu]

68. Kerry has exit strategy

First thing he does is get our allies back that bush alienated. Secondly, he goes back to the UN and builds a more diverse UN force with our newly befriended allies and gets other organizations like NATO to go into Iraq and take the major burden off our troops. Thirdly, after building a much more multinational force, our troops could increasingly withdraw and have a much more international effort in stabilizing Iraq and that region.

Kerry won't cut and run. That would put Iraq into chaos. But he would solidify our former alliances and make for a much better situation in Iraq. It will not be easy or be done in a couple months.

[Andy_Stephenson]

73. So we get to stay in the ME forever then?

Outstanding...good job...and Kerry voted for all of this.

God...how could I not vote for him. His policies are so clear and unwavering.

[IndianaGreen]

113. "Kerry won't cut and run" = Continue the occupation of Iraq

John Forbes Kerry's foreign policy team is not progressive at all!

We will marching against the US occupation in Iraq on March 20, 2004, 2005, 2006 no matter who gets elected because when it comes to Iraq Bush and Kerry disagree on tactics, not on policy.

Not Quite A Dream Team

Laura Flanders is the host of "Your Call" heard on KALW-FM in San Francisco, and on the Internet, and author of Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species, forthcoming from Verso Books in March 2004.

Consider Kerry's foreign policy advisers. Ask the candidate's supporters, and the advisor they mention first is Joe Wilson, the Clinton-era National Security Council member who investigated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy weapons-grade uranium from Niger. Wilson won battle stars from progressives for going public with his findings, which contradicted the Bush administration's claims. Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was outed by a White House source or sources as a consequence.

Wilson may be a white hat, but it's hard to say the same about Richard Morningstar, Rand Beers and William Perry, three other members of Kerry's foreign policy team.

<snip>

A Kerry administration with Morningstar as national security advisor could be expected to keep the BTC on track. Nothing much would change in the worlds of agribusiness and trade either. In 1999, as U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Morningstar issued a scathing attack on EU policy barring genetically modified foods. "Politics and demagoguery have completely taken over the regulatory process," he said. Bush's Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, uses virtually the same exact words.

<snip>

Suffice to say that Beers was the public face of Clinton's deadly crop-fumigation program in Colombia. He once said under oath that Columbian terrorists had received training in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. (A claim he later had to withdraw.) "If John Kerry lets Rand Beers continue to guide his foreign policy, a Kerry administration will be no better for rural Colombians than a Bush administration," wrote Donahue. Voters who want Sen. Kerry to offer a humane alternative to Bush should demand that the senator pledge now not to make Beers secretary of state.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9966

[Guava Jelly]

21. Hes not bush

That should be reason enough...
Kerry and Bush are the only Viable Candidates right now.
We know That this next president will Appoint at least 2 maybe 3 Supreme Court Justices I myself trust Kerry Appointees over Bush's anyday.
Maybe hes not Mr right But he's Mr Right Now..And right now He's Brad Pitt next to Uncle Fester.
America is Bleeding under the Tumor of Bush..America Has Cancer.
And Kerry is all the Chemotherapy We got right now.
I'd say lets get rid of this damn cancer and back the only chance of curing our Country. that is to say J.F.Kerry

[kalian]

24. Nice mentality....

so, if the repukes would present a different repuke candidate then
you'd be OK with that as well... Based on your logic that is.

The infamous "ABB"....wheeeeee!

[trumad]

25. Here ya go

The fucking Supreme Court.,.. Do you want to see women lose the right to Choice...Bush gets in the Supreme Court tilts and ROE /WADE is finished. That's fucking huge ...

Do you want invade Syria? Bush gets in and the PNAC plan moves forward...

Do you want to to continue to alianate the rest of the world... Bush gets in and were screwed for years to come...

Do you want tax breaks to go to the top 2 percent...Bush gets in there they go!

Do you want the deficit to top a trillion bucks...Bush gets in and there it goes...

Do you want drilling in the Artic...Bush gets in and the drilling starts....

Do you want Kyoto...Kerry gets in and it's signed...

Do you want Halliburton to get favored contrats... Bush/Cheney get's in and they get richer!!!

Do you want us to get the UN in Iraq and start getting us out...Kerry gets in and it will happen!

And so on and so fourth...

So please don't fucking tell me there no diff because I say you all our full of it!

[kalian]

29. Oh really....?

Just WHERE does Kerry state that he would do the OPPOSITE of shrub?
Hmmm....?


http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=577

[trumad]

31. What..no answer to my post except this...

Refute my post...come on.... You can do it!

[kalian]

32. I'll refute you....

yes, shrub will continue his little charade...

If Kerry gets in...he'll continue the same shit, but with his
version...

[trumad]

34. Very bad answer

actually it isn't an answer.... You've got nothing Pal!

[kalian]

36. Where's YOUR proof?

Where are Kerry's stances? Where is it published?
Huh?
YOU'VE got nothing and you know it.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kalian]

45. But you counter with the same tactic...

I'm through with you.

[Guava Jelly]

43. Nothing printed

recorded ,documented presented displayed exposed affirmed suggested denied theorized proved will ever convince you to vote against bush.
So why are we wasting our time debating you...

[kalian]

51. So...what you're saying is that I "won't vote against Bush"....

just WHERE did I write this? :shrug:
How did you come up with this conclusion? Too funny....

[Guava Jelly]

54. Who else are you going to vote for then?

Surely not the scoundrel Kerry.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andy_Stephenson]

37. Hmmmm

The fucking Supreme Court.,.. Do you want to see women lose the right to Choice...Bush gets in the Supreme Court tilts and ROE /WADE is finished. That's fucking huge ...

b[]The Supreme court is 5-4 right now{/b]

Do you want invade Syria? Bush gets in and the PNAC plan moves forward...

Kerry owns a big chunk of oil stock...is he really gonna leave the ME with peak oil right around the corner

Do you want to to continue to alianate the rest of the world... Bush gets in and were screwed for years to come...

we are already screwed for years to come

Do you want tax breaks to go to the top 2 percent...Bush gets in there they go!

What is Kerry's tax plan

Do you want the deficit to top a trillion bucks...Bush gets in and there it goes...

Too late...by the time Kerry gets there it will be a trillion...he wants. Kerry will keep the war going...already said he wants to increase troop strength

Do you want drilling in the Artic...Bush gets in and the drilling starts....

Kerry owns a big chunk of oil stock...

Do you want Kyoto...Kerry gets in and it's signed...

One bright spot...but what are his motivations?

Do you want Halliburton to get favored contrats... Bush/Cheney get's in and they get richer!!!

Kerry won't stop the Halliburton contracts. Show evidence he will please.

Do you want us to get the UN in Iraq and start getting us out...Kerry gets in and it will happen!

I will believe it when I see it happening

[trumad]

50. God....

The fucking Supreme Court.,.. Do you want to see women lose the right to Choice...Bush gets in the Supreme Court tilts and ROE /WADE is finished. That's fucking huge ...

b[]The Supreme court is 5-4 right now{/b]
uhhh..What..Sandra's going to hang for another 5 years....

Do you want invade Syria? Bush gets in and the PNAC plan moves forward...

Kerry owns a big chunk of oil stock...is he really gonna leave the ME with peak oil right around the corner..
So Kerry's going to advance the PNAC plans because he owns OIL stock? :eyes:

Do you want to to continue to alianate the rest of the world... Bush gets in and were screwed for years to come...

we are already screwed for years to come..
Yah we are, but Kerry will fix that..

Do you want tax breaks to go to the top 2 percent...Bush gets in there they go!

What is Kerry's tax plan
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/ Try google next time

Do you want the deficit to top a trillion bucks...Bush gets in and there it goes...

Too late...by the time Kerry gets there it will be a trillion...he wants. Kerry will keep the war going...already said he wants to increase troop strength
You're asking me for proof... Where's yours?

Do you want drilling in the Artic...Bush gets in and the drilling starts....

Kerry owns a big chunk of oil stock...
there you go again...Kerry will drill in the Artic because he owns oil stock..shheeesss :eyes:
Do you want Kyoto...Kerry gets in and it's signed...

One bright spot...but what are his motivations?
You tell me since you know him so well..

Do you want Halliburton to get favored contrats... Bush/Cheney get's in and they get richer!!!

Kerry won't stop the Halliburton contracts. Show evidence he will please. What..you think he's going to continue giving no bid contracts out to Halliburton?

Do you want us to get the UN in Iraq and start getting us out...Kerry gets in and it will happen!

I will believe it when I see it happening
No you won't

[plurality]

128. here you go

The fucking Supreme Court.,.. Do you want to see women lose the right to Choice...Bush gets in the Supreme Court tilts and ROE /WADE is finished. That's

Abortion is a distraction, they'd never overturn Roe because then the millions of blind pro-lifers would have to find some other reason to vote for the Republican party and there aren't any.

Do you want invade Syria? Bush gets in and the PNAC plan moves forward...

Heard of 'progressive internationalism'? How about the Syria Accountability Act? Kerry's for both. More war regardless of how you look at it.

Do you want to to continue to alianate the rest of the world... Bush gets in and were screwed for years to come...

It's going to continue to happen as long as we have shit like Iraq, Haiti, Venezuala, etc, etc. Granted we might be able to win back the support of the white world, but the rest of it will continue to hate us.

Do you want tax breaks to go to the top 2 percent...Bush gets in there they go!

So what's Kerry's plan? Capital gains tax cuts, health care deductions, energy deductions, do you know how many deductions 75% of the population take...abso-fucking-lutely ZERO! His plans won't do shit.

Do you want the deficit to top a trillion bucks...Bush gets in and there it goes...

A study was done recently, even with Bush's cuts repealed and ALL non-military spending cut there'd still be a deficit, so how is Kerry going to do this, especially sinces he's going to continue the money sucking Iraq occupation.

Do you want drilling in the Artic...Bush gets in and the drilling starts....

Fuck the polar bears, I'm more worried about the people being killed in all these wars, wars Kerry isn't planning on stopping any time soon.

Do you want Kyoto...Kerry gets in and it's signed...

It was already signed, problem was the Senate voted 99-1 against ratifying it, is Kerry a hypnotist, how's he going to get 65 Senators to change their votes?

Do you want Halliburton to get favored contrats... Bush/Cheney get's in and they get richer!!!

Hallibuton get's all those contracts because they have no competition. The only way they'll stop getting contracts is if there's an end to American occupation of planet Earth, I don't see Kerry changing that.

Do you want us to get the UN in Iraq and start getting us out...Kerry gets in and it will happen

Nope, Kerry will get a few token French and German troops in as well, the Iraqis will kill them too, and we'll be there for another decade until we realize we should have left the day after yesterday.

[emulatorloo]

39. Show me where JK said he would support Federal Marriage Amendment

Sorry you can't.

Show me where George Bush makes the following statements about gays and gay families that are on the Kerry Website:

<snip>

Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families

John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.  He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees.  He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Support for Civil Unions

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

<snip>

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

Tell me again how GWB and JK are just the same.

[Andy_Stephenson]

42. "same-sex civil unions "

Seperate but equal...Jim Crow laws anyone?

[redsoxliberal]

47. true... but where's the amendment to the constitution? n/t

[emulatorloo]

48. tell me how quick we will get to gay marriage from Bush Position

and how quick we will get there from JK position.

Seems like a hop skip and jump from JKs.

Seems like a trip to mars from GWBs.

What part of GWB is totalllllllllllllllllly antiiiiiiiiiiii gaaaaaaaay is so hard to understnd?

[Andy_Stephenson]

49. BTW

His comments were posted here at DU.



"Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays and lesbians but that he opposes marriage for them."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/


"Even though John Kerry is now supporting an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage."

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=9733

[emulatorloo]

55. Sorry, wrong answer, thanks for playing!

Mass amendment is not a Federal Amendment, which is what was asserted in the thread starting post.

JK, HD, JE all said gay marriage was a state issue. Tell me where GWB said this in his FEDERAL constitutional amend?

2ndly, Kerry said would support Mass Amend depending on whether supported full rights for gay couples. (Please show me where Bush has said he wants full rights for gay couples?)

3rdly Kerry has long said he is against gay marriage and for civil unions and equal protection. Again show me how this is GWB position? All I hear from GWB is anti-gay.

[Andy_Stephenson]

56. Kerry has long said he is against gay marriage and for civil unions

Seperate but equal...

[emulatorloo]

61. Kerry is hung up on the word "marriage" but not hung up on rights

GWB is just hung up w his friends in the religious right.

We will see gay marriage a lot quicker if Kerry is pres that if bush is pres. . .Teresa is already talking about how people will get used to the idea.

[KittyWampus]

57. Please, Facts Confuse Those With An Agenda

which bascially involves agitating rather than effecting real change for the Common Good.

[Andy_Stephenson]

60. He opposes Gay marriage...

Supports civil unions. Whoopie! Seperate but equal.

[emulatorloo]

63. One more time. . .tell me how much GWB wants rights for Gays. . .

I cannot get so hung up on the word "marriage" that I can't see the difference between the Kerry and GWB positions. . .

I also believe that marriage is more likely to come in a friendly enviroment (JK whitehouse) than a hostile one (GWB whitehouse)

[Andy_Stephenson]

65. "I cannot get so hung up on the word "marriage""

are you gay or straight?

[emulatorloo]

75. Because you asked

straight in a long term relationship 20 years before we were "Married" by a JP just so we could share health care benefits. Neither of us big on "Marriage" as a cultural institution and would have preferred civil union had that been an option.

On the other hand, I am certainly PRO gay marriage and was wanting to apply for a marriage liscence w a same-sex friend in a local action on city hall. Until my spouse reminded me that I couldn't since I already had one. Always the sensible one I guess.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. And I am in an 18 year relationship.

If your not gay...you cannot understand the slap in the face Kerry's stance means. If he were truly a champion of the GLBT community...he would come out strongly in support of us. But I fear, that like Clinton...he will court us and then drop us after he is elected.

[emulatorloo]

85. JK has a history of supporting GBLT community . . .he will not drop

See this article at Human Rights Campaign re his record on GBLT issues and legislative record - see sidebar especially

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Campaign1/20041/Presidential/Interviews/John_Kerry_Three-Term_Senator_Has_Stellar_Record.htm

Here's hoping you can be married soon/

[Andy_Stephenson]

88. Under JK

it will only be a "civil union" seperate but equal.

[emulatorloo]

92. Here is what I believe - no politician will drive this

it is going to be driven thru civil disobedience and courts.

it will happen faster in a friendly environment (JK whitehouse, liberal judges in SCOTUS)

it will happen slower (years and years and years) in a hostile environment (GWB and right wing reactionaries in SCOTUS)

[union_maid]

58. If you don't see differences, you need new specs.

Just on a couple of issues:

He specifically says he doesn't support a federal amendment. He said he'd have to see the wording on a state amendment but said he would not support amending the constitution of the U.S. in that way.

On the issue of the Supreme Court - As I'm sure you know, Utah has charged a woman with murder for refusing to have a caesarian section performed. If the issue of choice isn't compelling enough for you, the RW seems intent on prosecuting women into brood mare status where a woman wouldn't even have the most basic control over her own body during pregnancy. This is something that must be stopped.

Just this year the SCOTUS of the US narrowly decided that people couldn't be prosectuted in their own homes for consensual sex just because the were of the same sex. It ain't gay marriage, but it could have gone the other way and if Bush had had the chance to make some appointments it probably would.

If there was not even one other issue separating these candidates, and there are plenty, those should be compelling enough for any American who values personal freedom to commit themselves to trying to replace Bush with Kerry.

[JI7]

59. kyoto, cafe standards, other environmental issues

kerry would create jobs through investing for development of alternative sources of energy. this shows it's not a question of jobs v environment always and that to help clean up the environment and to conserve DOES create jobs. he would work with other nations to find common ground on kyoto treaty. he has attended many international conferences dealing with the environment and global warming in particular, he has pushed to raise cafe standards.

[Minstrel Boy]

62. ABB = Smirk Be Gone

Wipe the smirk off the face of Imperial America and you still have an empire to contend with. Or perhaps embrace, because it isn't followed by an (R). Iraq, Afghanistan and all the rest become Democratic wars. Haiti, Venezuela and all the rest become Democratic coups. Oh, happy day.

[Andy_Stephenson]

64. "Wipe the smirk off the face of Imperial America...."

That is about how I am feeling about it.

progressive internationalism...PNAC with a kinder gentler face.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020

"Saddam posed a grave danger to America" Really???

"We therefore support the bold exercise of American power" Ok wars and more wars.

"Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong."

[zulchzulu]

66. You need to get informed about Kerry's issues...don't naderize

NAFTA and the WTO are not off the table. Kerry wants to amend NAFTA and work more with WTO. He also wants to work toward trade agreements that use more elements of environmental and labor standards that would reflect more suitable ends.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0217c.html

Snip:
"Mr. Kerry replied that the problem was not Nafta per se, but rather the Bush administration's failure to press compliance with nonbinding treaties that would raise labor and environmental standards overseas, making American companies more competitive. He pledged a 120-day review of every trade agreement, Nafta included, if elected.

"We're going to identify every single imbalance or place in which there is an unfairness that has not been addressed, and we're going to address it," Mr. Kerry said, adding, "I'm not going to throw out Nafta completely. I'm going to fix it."

Kerry wants to work with both sides in the Israeli conflict.

Snip:
"Forging a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state.  It is also an essential part of winning the war on terror.  Ignoring or downplaying the conflict, as the Bush Administration did for far too long, is a dangerous game."

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Kerry's opinion on Iraq and the IWR can be boiled down to this:

This is Kerry talking about the issue with Paula Zahn on CNN last September. It explains his position pretty concisely:

ZAHN: Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war...

KERRY: No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan. We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us.

As for the "federal Marriage Amendment", Kerry is certainly not for that.

[Andy_Stephenson]

67. "bring the world to the table to help us. "

That does not sound like an exit strategy.

"Kerry wants to amend NAFTA and work more with WTO." Oh...I see...help foreign workers who have our jopbs have a secure environment to work in...while we at home continue in a clean environment with no jobs. Perfect! I see how that can work .

[zulchzulu]

74. I see where you're going here...

First you say that Kerry wants NAFTA and WTO off the table. I respond that he does not. He wants to work on revising parts of the NAFTA agreement and work with some issues regarding the WTO.

You were wrong in your assertion that Kerry 'wants NAFTA off the table".

Now you're deflecting (like a Bush fan) the issue that you brought up.

What's next? Make a point about Kerry that's a lie and then when the real position is made, deflect the issue by adding some comment that further embellishes your tact for inaccuracy?

[WillyBrandt]

69. Vote as you will. Spare us the bullshit.

[OKNancy]

70. Amen brother

These hotheads post and post, yet they have no RATIONAL alternative.
It's like people who sit and moan and groan about the weather.

[WillyBrandt]

72. And what the hell is Kerry going to do about all this snow?

It's freaking March, and snowing in CT?

Kerry hasn't taken a solid position on this yet!

[Minstrel Boy]

83. "It's like people who sit and moan and groan about the weather"

Perhaps that's because, these days, people feel they have just as little influence upon their political destinies.

[WillyBrandt]

89. Point taken, but that's a bunch of crap

There's an enormous amount of change individuals are making; in fact, within liberal and Democratic politics, there's more opportunity for individuals making a difference than in a long time. I can't see how anyone can deny this.

But as the song goes, you don't always get what you want. It's politics in a nation of almost 300 million; everything won't go your way (it hasn't gone mine). But grown-up liberals appreciate their victories, learn from their defeats, and keep fighting for progressive change.

And they don't deny patent reality--what's the difference between Bush and Kerry, huh?--in paroxysms of self-pity.

[OKNancy]

95. These days?

Name a time when the populace had much influence? Actually I think with the internet and some of the grassroots campaigns this year, that we have more influence than ever before.

One can complain about the weather, or one can build a shelter.

Kerry is so vastly superior to Bush that I can't imagine nit-picking at this point. Let's get Kerry elected, then.....who knows? He might surprise you.

[kiahzero]

71. You're incorrect on a few points:

He has taken NAFTA and WTO off the table.

Not true - he wants to modify the agreements, which is far easier in a international sense than to pull out entirely.

Any discussion of Israel is off the table.

Only in the same sense that it was under Clinton.

He has talked about increasing troop strength...a'la draft?

Um... we need more troops. Reservists and National Guard are not regulars, nor should they be treated that way. With current deployment, we've got to have more active duty soldiers. As for the draft, I doubt it - it may be an efficient way of getting more active duty, but even if Kerry was in favor of the draft (not bloody likely), the Republicans would love it as an issue ("Kerry wants the government to be so big that it can eat your children!").

He voted for the war...said he was lied to...how convenient for him to now stay in Iraq.

There is good reason to stay in Iraq. Look at what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviets left and we ditched them. Hell, look at Afghanistan now.

He has said he would support a Federal Marriage Amendment...depending on the wording.

Mischaracterization - he said he didn't support gay marriage, but enthusiastically supports civil unions or a similar program under which same sex couples can recieve the same benefits as opposite sex couples (both federal and state). It's not my preferred opinion, but it's a hell of a lot better than Bush's.

Prosecuting the War Criminals in the present admin?

Not going to happen, so you might as well get over it. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction, and they haven't broken any United States law. Not only that, but it is VERY questionable as to whether any of their actions actually would make them guilty of war crimes.

If NAFTA and WTO are off the table...what is he going to do about outsourcing?

Besides modifing NAFTA, Kerry would like to provide incentives for companies to keep jobs here, as well as punish companies that move overseas. He also wants to close tax loopholes for corporations.

I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. Cause it would still be evil.

<sophistry>The lesser of two evils is the greater of two goods, also. Just depends on your perspective.</sophistry>

[Andy_Stephenson]

76. Did Kerry vote for NAFTA?

just wondering. Oh wait...he did...sheez. It gets worse all the time.

"There is good reason to stay in Iraq. "

But there was no good reason to go and therein lies the rub.

[kiahzero]

79. Voting for something precludes wanting to change it?

Let me try and understand your logic: If I don't support a bill the first time, I'm allowed to say it's broken and needs to be fixed. But if I support it, I'm not allowed to say that.

It seems to me that the first person, the one that never liked it in the first place, would be less likely to be listened to. After all, if you've hated something all along, why would anyone be convinced it needed changing because you hate it now? On the other hand, if you thought something was a good idea, but have since changed your mind, that may be more influential to change the minds of others - you can explain what factors changed your mind, and if they think similarly to you, they too will change their minds, leading to the changes both people wanted all along.

Then again, this assumes that people are rational actors... the focus on beach footwear seems to indicate that they are not.

[Andy_Stephenson]

80. There were many that said NAFTA was bad before it was voted on

there were many saying the wargasms in Iraq were bad.

John Kerry seems to always be on the wrong side...always having to come back and do a meaclupa. Leades lead...they don't waffle. That is all I am ssaying. I don't see a bold decisive, stake a position type leader in Kerry. I'm sorry that is the way I feel. Can't help it...I am trying to understand...but I don't.

[kiahzero]

May I help?

Leade<r>s lead...they don't waffle. ... I don't see a bold decisive, stake a position type leader in Kerry.

Nor do I, but I see it as a good thing. At least part of it is my nature - I'm generally a very inquisitive kind of person, and its very difficult for me to just find one solution. Kerry strikes me as the kind of guy that carefully thinks through the problem at hand, and tries to find the best solution at the time. To me, this is superior to the Bush style of leadership - be decisive, find a response and stick with it, no matter if the situation changes ("tax cuts to get rid of the surplus" -> "tax cuts to fix the recession").

Kerry seems to take the position that seems to be the best at the time, and will change that position whenever it no longer seems to be the best. That, to me, is a rational leader, and the kind I'd like in the White House.

[Doomsayer13]

82. topics like this aren't interested in answers

they're intrested in shooting Kerry down. The "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" argument isn't going to work this time becuase the "lesser of two evils" is so much better than Bush. Bill Maher, who voted for Nader in 2000, is voting for Kerry this year because as he said, "we didn't know how much greater the greater of two evils was going to be." John Kerry got a 27 out of 29 from the Public Citizen on Key Votes in the senate, a group with Ralph Nader founded and he has one of the highest ADA ratings in the senate. I think the record speaks for itself.

[Andy_Stephenson]

86. Did I say I was voting for Nader?

I dont recall sayingt that...what I said was...

"I would really like to feel good about supporting him for the right reasons...but I am finding it hard. Where did his honor go?"

[Doomsayer13]

90. I didn't say you were

I said that by Nader's own standard, he's much better than bush.

[Andy_Stephenson]

91. Ummmm...Nader means nothing to me...

so why would I trust Naders standards in regards to Kerry?

[ScreamingMeemie]

87. Would that I could...

:(

[DuctapeFatwa]

93. The status quo is popular - Kerry's support of it is actually

a selling point - The best of both worlds - bush's policies without bush.

[Hav]

96. .

What kind of world do you imagine? What kind of policies do you propose? And which politician you think can realise that imagination?

[DuctapeFatwa]

100. That's the spirit! No other policies are even possible!

Anyone who suggests that the US could NOT be occupying so many countries or CEASE murdering so many people, or that medical treatment could be anything but a commercial product, etc., is no different from wackos who believe they were abducted by alien BatBoys.

Only compassionate thing to do is lock em up.

[WillyBrandt]

103. Don't deflect the question

What are the particulars you propose? How do you propose that they be realized? What is the path to be taken? One large step; a few middling ones; many small ones?

[DuctapeFatwa]

107. here's one. stop killing other peoples' kids and take care of your own

it's even cheaper.

[WillyBrandt]

109. OK--how exactly do you propose this come about?

Kerry should propose exactly what? He should frame it how, so that both the ideal is articulated and realized here on earth?

And if Kerry is, as you so constantly argue, a terrible vehicle for this, what exactly should have been done earlier?

Or, as I suspect, do you have nothing to offer but fossilized cynicism? And are the dead abroad and poor at home something more than merely props for supercilious posts?

[DuctapeFatwa]

111. To remove the crusaders and their weapons, I would suggest C-130s

Every other developed country on earth except the US has a health care system that can be used as a model. Even some not so developed ones.

[Andy_Stephenson]

112. Cuba

as an example.

[Hav]

114. How's that for a start?

"John Kerry’s health care plan will start by expanding health care coverage to 96 percent of Americans – including nearly all children. "

[DuctapeFatwa]

117. Kerry will empower the poor to make wise decisions with their wealth

By using their cash on hand to purchase medical treatment, they can qualify for an extra tax break at year's end!

I bet he can even finagle a way for renters to get in on the windfall (renters are less likely to itemize)

[Hav]

126. .

So how would you propose to get that problem under control?
Just snipping with the fingers and everything is solved?
Which policies do you favor? What are your realistic solutions?
Or do you only throw around with phrases without having anything else to offer?

[DuctapeFatwa]

134. Many people, myself included, have answered that over and over again

Simply defending the current policies, which you and your candidate support would be a better strategy than repeating the same question endlessly and ignoring the answers that have been showered on you from all directions for months, nay, years.

Imperialism is imperialism, feudalism is feudalism, murder is murder, and greed is greed.

Globally, the number of people fooled by dressing any of them up in attractive verbiage ensembles is extremely small, and is confined largely to a subset of the minority of people in the US who participate in the political process.

Hnece, your cause would be better served by simply presenting arguments in their favor rather than feigned oblivion to the myriad of alternatives that surround you.

[Hav]

136. You have never shown real answers

You are the one who is repeating for months the same old bs phrases.
You are on a democratic forum but all you do is tearing down Democrats with your old arguments.
Whenever someone asks you to be more specific you avoid that because attacking is so much easier than offering own ideas and solutions for problems. It's not that easy.

In no way do I support the current policies, not in the slightest.
I was against the war but I understand that it might help the people there more if they don't get abondened after they got bombed back into the stone age. Of course, no foreign force of whatever kind will be safe there as long as they are seen as conquerors but I think it's just wrong to leave them there without any help after they got fucked like that.

[blm]

139. David Horowitz was a faux lefty, too. Talked the lingo of the left

while achieving the goals of the right.

The "no difference" crowd are SUSPECT.

[DuctapeFatwa]

163. LOL Listen, that "no difference" is Kerry's ticket to the White House

I wouldn't worry about any suspect folks who oppose wholesome American values like slaughtering Muslim children. Plenty of time after the election to let the Patriot Act take care of them.

[blm]

182. Only an idiot would think that.

And it is YOUR job to influence those idiots.

David Horowitz redux.

[Andy_Stephenson]

145. "I think it's just wrong to leave

them there without any help after they got fucked like that."

I agree...but John Kerry helped to "fuck" them with his support of the IWR...wouldn't you say?

[Hav]

158. not really

I wouldn't say that Kerry helped to "fuck" Iraq.
To my knowledge, he wanted to get UN inspectors in. That was the primary goal. And of course not ruling out the use of force if everything else fails to "disarm" Saddam.
The difference between you and me is that I believe him, partly because that is what he said before and immediately after he did cast that vote and not after months of not finding any WMDs. And because I have trust in him as a human being.
You however are free to believe him or not. After all, the politician has to do his part to gain your trust.

[DuctapeFatwa]

162. So if a gang breaks into your house, kills your wife, beats up the kids

steals your stuff, trashes the place, and then ties up what's left of the family in a mud pit, you will be pleased at their announcement that they have decided to stay to "help" you and see to it that you run your home the way they see fit?

Lay the burden down. Now.

[Hav]

168. That is complete nonsense

Your use of that (old) analogy yet again shows how simplification is often used by those who run out of arguments.
Keep complex matters simple and transform it to a situation you need to make your point and voilà, there is a piss poor argument.
I could use the means of simplifiction to tell you that the world is flat.

Of course, there is resentment towards the Americans. Who could argue that after one has lost his relatives,home or got personally injured.
That doesn't change the fact that they should get humanitarian help and help to build up the infrastructure again.
It would be wrong, without any doubt, to just leave them there after they got attacked like that. Americans might not be as welcomed as they would have imagined but that doesn't change the obligation the US has now.
Just running away and let them cope with it is nothing more than a simple slogan that offers absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
In fact, that simple approach to the problem is shortsighted and irresponsible.

[DuctapeFatwa]

170. Just write a blank check to the Red Cross/Crescent. Get out

Some questions are simple. Iraq does not belong to the US. Iraq's oil does not belong to the US. The US does not have the right to kill Iraqis and steal their oil. Get out.

[Hav]

175. wow

(First, the point I try to make is not about oil or whether Iraq belongs to the US or about the "right to kill".)

So that are the policies you propose that should solve all the problems there? I think you need to learn the difference between simple questions and simple answers. What you present is the most simplified approach to a serious problem one can imagine. It may sound good as a slogan but has no place in reality. It offers absolutely nothing to improve the situation of the people there.
Even the most simple-minded people should be able to understand that.

Donate, US out and everything is ok there. That should work out great.
Like I said, that approach is shortsighted and irresponsible and nothing else.
The people there can be happy that you are not in charge. They would be fucked yet again.

[DuctapeFatwa]

176. "Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape"

Arundhati Roy

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm

[diamondsoul]

178. GMTA. Just posted that it's identical

to telling a rape victim to allow the rapist to help tend to the results of the rape.

[diamondsoul]

177. Rape.

Absolute, utter, appalling RAPE.

What you've said is Iraq should allow its rapist to help care for the result of the rape. Keep feeding the hate.

[Hav]

180. Maybe in Simple World

That's not what I'm saying.
I acknowledged that as long as Americans are seen as imperialists and conquerors, they won't be welcome and there will be attacks.
I don't deny that this is a difficult situation or that many are understandably angry about what happened to them.
It is still my believe though, that they should get any help they need.

You can disagree with that perception but don't you use that cheap ass analogies to make your point.
Do you believe that everything will be suddenly ok when US troops leave them without any further help? What do you propose and how will your proposal work out?
The current situation is far from perfect and I was against that war as much as you. But now that the US wrecked havoc there, they can't just say "Oops sorry, no WMDs here. Well tough luck." and run away.
I want them to stay in whatever kind is best not because I like imperialism or that war but because I believe that it is better to offer help now.

[foo_bar]

148. moral abdication is moral abdication

ignoring the answers that have been showered on you from all directions for months, nay, years

As people have been explaining for months and years, you have to provide some kind of alternative to be taken seriously. Merely dressing up other people's arguments with hyperbolic verbiage is attractive only to those who can't fathom an alternative to the status quo.

rather than feigned oblivion to the myriad of alternatives that surround you

And yet, you still haven't opened the lid on your Schroedinger's candidate. As you actively opposed each and every Democratic candidate throughout the primary, it's left up to the imagination how this break from "feudalism" and "greed" will be effected. The Caliphate? Ralph Nader? If incremental progress is so oppressive as to require hourly complaints to the unfeeling internet, perhaps politics isn't the most efficient expenditure of energy.

[DuctapeFatwa]

164. I think the window for a political solution has closed

I would have preferred otherwise, but it was not my decision.

[Andy_Stephenson]

118. "including nearly all children. "

Why not all of them? Why not all adults as well?

[Hav]

124. .

I said "How's that for a start?" meaning that this will be the "start" you know.
Your topic was asking for differences.
I believe that it is a good "start" and way better than what Bush has to offer. I also believe that what Kerry intends is:
"On that day, I vowed to fight for the day when affordable health care is a right, not a privilege, for every American. I vowed to fight for the 40 million uninsured Americans who have no coverage... "

[LWolf]

174. Except that

there is a better plan on the table. It's just not Kerry's.

How about health care for 100% of Americans, not just children? How about equal care?

I'm not talking insurance here. I'm talking care. There is a difference. Getting people "covered" means they are convered by a corporation whose profit margin increases by decreasing the amount of care they allow. Coverage does not mean care. I know this first hand.

I want universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care. For every single American. Period.

And yes, it's possible. It can be paid for without anything extra. There is a detailed plan, with timeline, on the table.

Why would I tout Kerry's plan for health care, when there is a better alternative staring me in the face?

[Hav]

193. That's all fine dude

and I really like Kucinich.
But the topic of that thread isn't about differences between Kerry and Kucinich.
It was asked about differences between Kerry and Bush.
What Kerry outlines seems far better than the current situation.
The poster asked about differences, that is an important one for me.
Like I said, it's a good start.

[LWolf]

197. That's "dudette."

And I understand the topic of the post.

Do you understand that those of us who have longed for, and seen in front of us, a more profound difference, are still focused on the difference we want?

Kind of like being offered the choice, after 4 years of starvation and deprivation, of a home-cooked feast or a trip to McDonalds. McDonalds is sure different than starving, and we probably even fantasized about McDonalds the last four years. But when someone invited us to a feast, and the majority decided McDonalds was good enough, of course we are focused on the difference. We want the feast. You're telling us to be happy with McDonalds because it's not starvation, and we ought to be grateful for the chance to spend our time and money there.

[WillyBrandt]

115. Just to confirm: You're just joking around here?

The superior seriousness of the posts above are just a farce? Nevermind, then. Here in the real world I'm working for change; let those who live in the clouds of cynicism mock.

[DuctapeFatwa]

132. No, I believe that C-130's in large enough numbers are fully capable

of removing all crusaders from the lands in which they are currently committing their various war crimes and atrocities and bring them back to the land that spawned and sent them, to be put to plowsharing, of which there is plenty to do in the US.

Quite a few countries seem to have been doing a rather serious job of providing health care for their people for some time now.

[Hav]

108. .

For someone who is throwing around "big" talking points, you surely don't know how to answer questions when it's about getting specific.
Silly old phrases are so easy.

[OKNancy]

99. B.S.

Kerry is not a born again right wing radical who would like to make this country a theocracy. Kerry's position on choice alone is enough to comfort me. Some people don't care very much either way, but it is really scary for many of us.

Those without healthcare insurance will NEVER see it under Bush.
Public education will continue to be eroded under Bush.

and on and on.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

98. Enough of this:

1. No more Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/Powell propaganda and war mongering machine (Yes vote on IWR is NOT EQUIVALENT to this!)

2. No more Rove/Fleischer "watch what you say, watch what you do!" intimidation of the press!

3. No more one note tax breaks for the rich economic policy.

4. An actual decision making apparatus staffed with people who debate issues and come to a consensus rather than basing everything on what will make people with 20 million bucks happy. (Paul O'Neill/tax policy, EPA/global warming/Kyoto, etc.)

5. Some possibility, with appropriate pressure from the people and Congress, of breaking up the media monopolies such as Clear Channel and Fox. (No possibility of that now.)

6. An administration that doesn't continually lie to the people and the press on every single issue big and small. (Projected job creation, WMD, "Is that Air Force One?", you name it!)

7. A return to respect for our traditional allies and respect for international consensus in matters of peace and war.

8. No more Mikey Powell/FCC threatening to impose censorship via fines (apparently $500K PER INCIDENT, to the PERFORMER, is the latest) for political opposition, masquerading as "indecency". (See current Howard Stern situation.)


That's just me, sitting here for a few minutes, getting started. Is that good enough for you? Now virtually all of these would be true with any of this year's candidates. Hence the "ABB" because shrubco is SO BAD for this country, that none of the Dem candidates including Kerry would do almost any of these things, and certainly not all of them.

Feel free to add to this list!

[katieforeman]

101. courts, environment, healthcare, tax fairness, diplomacy, competence

courts- This is about more than just the Supreme Court. It's about all the federal courts. It's about more than just abortion rights. I'ts about envirnonmental laws, civil rights laws, worker protections, and civil liberties. It's not just about the next 4 years it's about the next 30 years. Have you listened to any of the hearings on judicial appoitments? Bush's appointees are right-wing judicial activists intent on sending us back to the days before the Great Depression.

environment- Kerry has a plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil without drilling in ANWAR or raping the environment. He has one of the best voting recordsin Congress on environmental issues. He and Teresa met at a conference on global warming- this is an issue Kerry really cares about

healthcare- How many people do you think will lose healthcare coverage in the next 4 years and mayby die as a result if Bush is elected. Kerry has a plan to extend health care coverage to millions more Americans. Tell the people without coverage right now that this election isn't important. It's a life and death issue to some of them.

tax fairness- under Bush the tax burden is being increasingly shifted to the working poor and middle class. Income inequality will only increase if Bush is elected and the gulf between the two Americas will widen.

diplomacy- Kerry will repair relations with the rest of the world and make us all safer in the process. Do you really want to have Bush in office 4 more years to find out which country is next on their list for regime change?

competence-Kerry is smart. He thinks the government is a valuable tool to protect the public interest and will work to make it more effective. Bush is not smart and thinks government is for the benefit of his oil buddies.

[Andy_Stephenson]

104. All that is nice and all...but why would he say this?

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest,"

Sounds like a PNAC answer to me. Sorry thats my opinion.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

or this

" For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent." again sounding like bush.

"I will strengthen the capacity intelligence and law enforcement at home" By strengthening the patriot act he voted for?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

105. See my post 98 above. EOM

[blm]

120. You don't understand the meaning of "enlightened"... eh, Gbnc?

It means you bother to LEARN about the people and cultures of other nations and you don't just SHIT on them in the name of your own country's self-interest..

[katieforeman]

121. courts, healthcare, envirnment, tax fairness, diplomacy, competence

a
re all more important to most people's lives than a couple of quotes about foreign policy.

Furthermore, if this is the best you can do against Kerry you have a pretty weak case.

"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest,"

Frankly, I don't see the problem. Are you saying we whould have unprincipled diplomacy backed by no military might based on uninformed self-destructive policies?

" For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent."
Tell the people in Spain, Morocco, Turkey, Malaysia, Bali, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, the African countries where the embassy bombings occurred that there is not a problem with international terrorism. The problem with Bush is not that he recognizes the existence of terrorism. The problem is that Bush uses terrorism as a justification for anything he wants to do and that he exacerbates the problems of terrorism by inflaming public opinion against the US.

"I will strengthen the capacity intelligence and law enforcement at home"
You have a problem with more police officers on the streets, better security at our airports, bridges, sea ports, train stations etc.? You have a problem with more resources for the FBI and national security agents to do their jobs instead of just locking people up at Guantanomo. It takes more resources to successfully locate and prosecute terrorists without gross violations of civil liberties. You don't need much intelligence or law enforcement capacity to lock people up without ever bringing them to trial because they are Arabs.

[Andy_Stephenson]

123. "You have a problem with more police officers on the streets"

No...but would we need all that if we were not involved in wars of aggression? Would those police act asa they id in Florida recently? If so...I don't want more of them on the street.

"Are you saying we whould have unprincipled diplomacy backed by no military might based on uninformed self-destructive policies?"

No...but I would love to see Kerry calling for a cut in the pentagons budget. Has he said that? Was it something I missed?

[katieforeman]

129. courts, environment, tax fairness, competence, health care

These things make a real diffence in the lives of people. Much more than these unoffensive quotes you insist on iterpreting in the worst way possible.

Would we need all of that security if we were not involved in a war of agression? Yes. Sept 11th happened before our war of agression in Iraq started. I don't think the countries in Africa where the embassy bombings occurred were involved in a war of aggression.

True, Iraq made the problem worse. But terrorism is a reality and we have to deal with it.

Sure, you might prefer Kerry cut the pentagon's budget. But you aren't the only person living in this country. There are over 270 million of us and none of us get exactly what we want.

If the Pentagon budget means more to you than the environment, healthcare, the courts, tax fairness, diplomacy and competence that's fine. But you should realize the Pentagon budget would be much larger under Bush than Kerry, and that Bush's actions on the courts, environment, healthcare, the tax system, etc will damage the lives of millions of people in this country and the world for decades to come.

[Andy_Stephenson]

131. But you should realize the Pentagon budget would be much larger under Bush

Where has he said he would cut the pentagon budget? Please show me...I really would like to know.

[katieforeman]

133. Of couse Bush would spend more on the military

and of couse Kerry isn't going to run on cuts in the military budget. In fact, the Republicans are planning on attacking Kerry for all of the weapons stystms he didn't vote for, the intelligence cuts he proposed, and the defense cuts he voted for. If you live in a swing state, pay attention to the commercials. The Republicans will make it quite clear to you that Bush wants to spend more on the military than Kerry.

Your original post asked for reasons to vote for Kerry. I gave you some: courts, environment, health care, tax fairness, diplomacy, competence. These are issues that make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans and in the lives of millions of people throughout the world.

Your original post also said you don't want to be supporting the lesser of two evils. Well your definition of "evil" seems to be someone in less than perfect agreement with yourself.

[lastliberalintexas]

141. Dems can't exactly hide behind the courts

In case you hadn't noticed, about 98% of Shrub's nominees have been appointed to the federal courts over the last 3 years- even though during some of that time we still controlled the freaking Senate! And we still have enough votes to filibuster, but we're too busy playing nice.

Yes, the courts are a very important issue. But the Dems haven't proven to be the great protectors of the courts either.

I'm just so very tired of this mantra being thrown out every time someone dares to question Kerry or even hints that s/he might vote 3d party. Many of us have longer memories than this primary season, and we remember how little we've been represented by the Dems in Congress over the last several years. And that includes the Dems' weak-kneed "opposition" to the nut jobs on the courts.

[katieforeman]

152. health care, environment, tax fairness mean anything?

I wasn't hiding behind the courts. I gave other examples that affect the lives of millions of people.

With respect to the courts, are you saying that Kerry would appoint right wing judicial activists? He won't. If Kerry is President 0 right-wing judges will get through. If you put Bush in the White House you give Republicans more power over the bench. It's just that simple.

If it weren't for the Nader voters, 0 conservative judges would have been appointed in the last four years.

Don't put a Republican in the White House and then blame the Democrats for not being able to block everything he does.

[lastliberalintexas]

153. I did not say that

My post only spoke to the issue of appointments to the courts, as that issue has been beaten to a bloody pulp around here lately anytime someone posts a criticism of Kerry or intimates that s/he may vote 3d party.


"If it weren't for the Nader voters, 0 conservative judges would have been appointed in the last four years."

If it weren't for the votes of *Democratic* Senators, Scalia and Thomas would never have been confirmed and would not have been on the Court for the Bush v. Gore decision. I guess the Nader voters aren't the only ones who share in that blame. :shrug:

[katieforeman]

154. If there weren't a Republican in the White House at the time

Thomas and Scalia would never have been appointed.

If it weren't for Nader voters, Scalia and Thomas would not have been involved in the 2000 election.

Bottom line: When you put a Republican in the White House you give them the power to make appointments, and limit the power of Democrats to merely blocking the worst ones.

When you put a Democrat in the White House, you give Democrats the power to appoint good judges, and limit the power of Republicans to blocking the most liberal ones.

[lastliberalintexas]

155. Not to debate semantics,

but Scalia and Thomas were not APPOINTED because there was a repub in the White House, they were merely nominated. They each still had to be CONFIRMED by the Senate (as dictated by the Constitution), which was handily controlled by our own party at the times of those votes. We darn well could (and should) have refused to confirm them, but instead we caved. At one time, our party leaders had the nerve to fight nut case nominees to the Court (remember Bork?). The repubs certainly understood how important it was to block nominations to the courts when Clinton was in office, and they served their constituencies very well by doing just that. You can say anything else you want to about them, but at least the repubs have backbone and understand not to bite the hand that feeds them.

And I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't think that any Dem would nominate a RW nut case to the Court- but we don't necessarily block them either.

And throwing Nader into the mix is a red herring. I am talking about the Dems and repubs and the actions of those in power- and that doesn't inlcude Nader.

[katieforeman]

156. My point is that if we put Kerry in the White House there will be no new

right wing judges appointed or nominated. The original post asked for reasons to vote for Kerry. That's one of them. My original point still stands.

Bottom line: When you put a Republican in the White House you give them the power to make NOMINATIONS, and limit the power of Democrats to merely blocking the worst ones. End result some right-wigers will end up on the bench.

When you put a Democrat in the White House, you give Democrats the power to NOMINATE good judges, and limit the power of Republicans to blocking the most liberal ones. End result no new right-wingers on the bench.

That is one of many very powerful reasons to vote for Kerry. The fact that Democrats have not blocked the judges you think they should have is irrelevant to this point and is not a good excuse to vote for Nader.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

102. Also,

Don't you just feel how POISONOUS the political and social environment in our GREAT, GREAT, country has become under this administration? (Not to mention internationally) Don't you just want to do ANYTHING you can to put a stop to this? At the BARE MINIMUM, vote the bums out?

These kind of threads make me really angry but I make every effort to not shout (don't always succeed) or use profanity, etc. because I think these tactics are likely to make the non Kerry voter retreat into their shell and be defensive of their position.

There's a passage in the Stephen King novel 'Salem's Lot, (a vampire story) where a young boy (Mark) and a young woman (Susan) have run into each other at the vampire's lair, where they have both come to hunt and kill the vampire. Mark has actually seen the vampires and knows them for what they are. Susan has not seen them directly but is aware of the strange happenings in their town. Susan is embarrassed and tries to play it off like she's there for some other reason, but Mark knows better, and says:

"Don't you FEEL how bad he is?"

[RichM]

106. A kinder, gentler imperialism. Kerry will be nicer about looting Iraq, &

all the other lucrative properties so tragically lacking in the guidance of white men.

Bush is very mean and bad because he doesn't know how to play nicely with others and share. Kerry, by contrast, will share the lucre with other white men in France and Germany. This is called "being a true internationalist."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

110. Do you really feel, (leaving foreign policy for now), that

all of the items in my post 98 above will be just the same and no better under Kerry? Will you really not vote for JK because of these beliefs? Do you really not feel that this administration has grieviously damaged our country in so many ways, and that a JK administration cannot help but be substantially better even if you don't agree with many of his positions?

[RichM]

116. Oh no, don't misunderstand me. I recognize that JK is the lesser evil, &

that the gap between him & Bush is significant in at least several ways. What I wrote above is basically the same as your point #7 in post 98, though the phraseology is different.

I disagree, though, with your point #5:

5. Some possibility, with appropriate pressure from the people and Congress, of breaking up the media monopolies such as Clear Channel and Fox.

- The Democrats will never dare touch this. They lack the guts and integrity, & were just as responsible as Republicans for clearing the way for Clear Channel with the '96 Telecom Act.

[LWolf]

127. Here's the difference:

He'll make everyone feel better, because he has a D next to his name. He will poor time and attention into the surface of some issues, while allowing the underlying power structure to remain the same.

But as long as it looks different or feels different on the surface, shallow America will buy into it.

[blm]

137. Kerry supporters are NOT shallow.

In fact, some of even argued against our friends who loathed Dennis K back when he was prolife. They didn't understand how he could be supported at all based on some of his more conservative stands.

I would stand my ground back then and point out that Kucinich was being misinterpreted by many on the left and that he truly had a liberal heart that could be trusted to take the right stand.

I feel the exact same way about Kerry.

[LWolf]

160. blm,

you have been a strong, positive voice for both Kucinich and Kerry from the very beginning, and I have appreciated it.

I did not, and will not, say that Kerry supporters are shallow. I said Americans are shallow, and I stand by that.
By "Americans," I do not mean every single American, and I am not singling out any one group, such as "Kerry supporters." I mean that our nation as a whole does not value people before consumer goods, people before status, people before ego. I mean that the proportion of people who care more about their movies, video games, television, suvs, malls, fast food restaurants, and sporting events than they do about the health of the planet, the health and prosperity of all of the living things on the planet, and humanity in general has been growing steadily, until it drowns out true compassion and integrity. Until people are comfortable with friendly sounding programs that let them feel good about going on their consumer-happy way, whether or not people are truly helped.

I do not dislike Kerry. He has my vote in November, if it comes to that. But he doesn't fill me with hope for people like myself; people out of the mainstream culture loop, who have obviously different values than the norm.

[ACK]

181. Those shallow evil American robots who by majority for Gore

Yep, those who were smart enough to reject the new Dem mantra of repuke-lite in the interim elections.

Those stupid shallow sheeple.

Do you mean those Americans the ones we insult while we stand around whacking off thinking how superior we are? Ever wonder why we find ourselves standing by wondering why so many Americans have at the very least rejected liberalism?

This might be why.

[LWolf]

190. This is incoherent.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I can surely tell you that none of it is "what I mean."

[ACK]

192. Really? I hope so... Let me make myself more clear

It is the "shallow" Americans thing that set me off.

As long as we walk around arrogant, in our way of thinking, and pointing the finger at the shallow Americans, then we risk keeping ourselves in the minority and on the fringe of American thought.

You called the American people shallow and as we keep in that frame of mind we will have a long way to go to convince people that voting for a progressive candidate is in their best interests and it is in their best interests.

Michael Moore made this point in a chapter of his book, "Dude? Where is my Country?" when he talked about how to have a conversation with your Republican friends. It is in the self-interest of the individual, the states and the country at large to stand behind fundamental progressive values.

However, it is very difficult to convince someone you are right when at the same time calling them shallow.

It took the Republicans years of media manipulation and broadcast experience to twist the American mindset in such a way to pull of the Repuke revolution.

It will take the progressive movement awhile to use grassroots efforts and new media experience to the same effect.

However, we need to find our populist voice. We need to remember Clinton not for his policies (some of them dreadfully un-progressive) but for the way he could turn a phrase and talk straight to the heart of the matter in such a way that most people could not only understand but found hard to ignore. We need to remember Wellstone and his grassroots campaigning style. We need to keep in mind Dean and the use of new media and campaign fund raising to put the small donor to the forefront and free our politics from their corporate shackles.

However most of all we need to learn to not look down on and insult the common man.

We need to embrace the "shallow" American populace that voted for Gore in the majority but at the same time would not put up with Repuke-lite in the interim elections. They might surprise you, maybe not a lot but just a little.

[LWolf]

194. Ahh...good job clarifying.

I have to say that I agree with most of your post.

It looks like I pushed a button for you with "shallow." I agree that I am not going to convince anyone of anything while calling them shallow. I wouldn't call anyone shallow engaged in that conversation.

Believe it or not, I engage in courteous, compassionate, fair, and open conversations with fellow Americans I don't agree with on a daily basis.

While the "shallow" judgement is my opinion, and one based on my experience, perhaps there is a better way to phrase it. It's probably what I use when someone has pushed one of my buttons.

How about unaware? Lack of awareness does not carry quite the same connotation. It could be used appropriately in many cases.

In my profession, I've found an interesting conflict. I have infinite patience with a student who doesn't "get" something; a great deal of patience and understanding with the parents when they don't "get" it. But I have little patience with or tolerance for my colleagues in that situation; I always figure they ought to know better.

It's much the same here at DU; I might have plenty of patience in dealing with the outside, whether I consider them shallow or not, but I expect better from Democrats. I expect them to "get" it, and it upsets me when they don't.

[blm]

183. My greater point was that many on the left weren't crazy for Kucinich

because they thought he was too conservative. My friends were feminists who couldn't see past Kucinich's prolife stand and when he came out against flag burning and for an inquiry for Clinton, they had my back to the wall.

I argued with them that DK's heart was that of a liberal and he could be trusted to do the right thing, eventually and as the years passed he proved me right.

Kerry is the same way.

[LWolf]

189. I take your point.

At this point, Kerry confuses me. I don't know if he means what he says, if it is just rhetoric to convince the right that they can vote for him, or if his actions will support his words. When he is president, I'll hope for the best, not the worst, from him. I've heard him say things that make me perk up and feel hopeful, and then I read a quote that sends me back into distrust and doubt again.

There's the point you've nailed; trust. I don't trust him yet. If he convinces me that he isn't on the same page I am, I may never trust him to represent the issues I hold dear. If I see him moving closer with his words and actions as president, that trust may grow.

You're point about DK has been one of bemusement for me; people either assume he is way too liberal and therefore "unelectable," or too conservative, and the same! The life/choice issue was never an issue for me; the trust was there, because he obviously says what he means and backs it up with his votes, with legislation, and with action. You can trust him to be consistent, and his shift was a thoughtful process, not a "flip." He was quite public with the process, never hesitating to discuss it with anyone. And I understand the conflict, probably more than most. I've always seen both sides of that issue.

I am really uncomfortable with what seems to me to be a theme in Kerry's campaign; the "George did it wrong" theme/meme. The idea that the law or policy was fine, it was GWB's abuse of it or incompetent implementation that went wrong. Many of these policies and laws weren't just done wrongly; they were wrong to begin with. That's where the underlying distrust emerges. I want bad legislation and policy to be dumped and replaced with good; I don't want it touted as "good but can be made better," or "good but needs fixing."

Here's a metaphor: America as a cancer patient. I'd go for cutting out the tumor. Make a clean cut, get rid of it, and then heal. Engage in whatever therapy needed to return to productive, healthy life. Others would endure a long period of chemotherapy, poisoning and weakening the whole system in hopes that they can "fix" it instead of excising it.

[Hav]

138. I'm sorry.

Those who can't see the fundamental differences between what we have seen for 3 years and a Kerry presidency is just beyond help.

[Andy_Stephenson]

142. I see the differences...

but I also see the similarities.

[LWolf]

161. No need to be sorry.

The difference between us, Hav, is that I never think the people who "don't get it," are beyond help. And I know that you don't "get it." I don't think you are "beyond help," so I'll "help" you to understand my perspective. You don't have to agree with it; but it would be nice to acknowledge that it, while different, is just as valid a perspective as your own.

The fundamental differences we've seen for 3 years are not the differences between Kerry and Bush. They are the culmination of decades of erosion; instead of going forward with social and economic justice, we've given ground. The differences are because we lost the house for the first time in 40 years under Clinton. We went from a solid majority in the senate to a 50 year low. Not only did we lose the WH if not the election in 2000, but we didn't have the numbers in congress to stand against the agenda.

You don't get the long term damage done starting with Reagan and Bush I, which led up to this debacle. You don't get what some of us have watched in dismay; the democrats caving, again and again, to the republican majority. Moving, slowly but inexorably, to the right until a "centrist" or a "moderate" has become what used to be a conservative democrat. You don't get that we want someone who will not give ground. Someone who will stand our ground, and then move forward to take back all we've lost. And then move beyond that to take new ground.

You can look at the small picture, or you can look at the big picture. A Kerry presidency is the small picture, IMO. Sure, he's miles better than Bush. We see that a Kerry presidency will not be as bad as Bush. That's why most of us will vote for him. But I don't believe Kerry intends to take on the bigger picture. I don't think it is a priority for him. I don't think my priorities are Kerry's. I'm sure you can get that part, at least.

[jus_the_facts]

165. Thank you for sayin' exactly what I believe.....

.....and I seriously doubt we'll have a fair election to anyway...the computer voting will compound the problem we had in 2000. I'll vote for Kerry eventhough I don't see us winning regardless and I'm convinced he'll continue to be another DINO...he can SAY all he want's to placate us into winning the nomination but his voting record says otherwise...there was an article posted in another post in this thread that stated that after Kerry wins he'd like to got to a baseball game with bush...instead of putting him and his entire administation under a jail where they belong...that sure speaks VOLUMES to me....and someone else above said something to the effect of seeing thru a cynical cloud...heh one of my favorite quotes is...."Accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have NOT got it." George Bernard Shaw :hi:

[LWolf]

171. Great quote!

Here's another, by Steve Bhaerman, a favorite of mine:

Are you beginning to sense that the body politic is rising from a deep slumber and awakening from the cattlepsy brought on by Mad Cowboy Disease? I am. While I definitely feel a sense of urgency between now and November, clearly those of us who want to awaken consciousness in the body politic are in it for the long haul, not just the short overhaul. Make no mistake. John Kerry is no George Bush. But he ain’t no Dennis Kucinich either.

[jus_the_facts]

187. Whoa...now that IS the TRUTH....

...indeed!! :hi:

[LWolf]

191. That it is.

:hi:

I should have just used that to begin with; concise and to the point, no need to argue about it. ;-)

[w4rma]

135. There are huge differences between the two men. Good grief. (n/t)

[redsoxliberal]

151. What's Kerrys position on Israel-Palestine?

In-depth... the wall... a palestinian state... being Sharon's bitch... etc., etc.

Anyone have it?

[Hippo_Tron]

157. He will do things to a lesser extreme, it's how politics work...

Or that's what he would do if he could. What will end up happening is that he will accomplish almost none of what he has campaigned for until we get a democratic congress. At least for now we'll get no more pre-emptive wars, no more civil liberties violations, no more right wing judicial nominees, and no more of me having to vomit while trying to watch the lighting of the National Christmas Tree when I see shrub's face.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

159. I can tell you the difference you will make...Bush in 04

was that your intent in posting this thread?

[Andy_Stephenson]

166. No it wasn't!

I am trying to get excited over Kerry. But he comes up lacking in many ways. I am forced to vote for him. I will fill the oval for him even if I have to hold my nose. Just trying to find the positive. But being attacked her for asking questions makes the choice more unpalatable. I am sorry I am not just falling in line...I can't just "get over it." I will vote for Kerry simply because there is no other alternative. But I have no delusions...there will be no real change. Only surface change. The real change this country needs, Kerry does not have the guts to make.

We will not see Bush* answer for his crimes, he will never testify to the 9/11 commission...the occupation of Iraq will continue although we will now include France and Germany.
Haliburton will continue to loot the Iraqi people and the oil will flow. NAFTA and WTO will be "fine tuned", I wonder how much worse they can be made? The defecit will not be cut and the looting of America will continue. The Carlyle Group will still be building weapons for the US Governament and Bushco will merely fade back until 2008.

But hey...we have black box voting now...Bush may not loose...Diebold we vote so you don't have to. I wonder why Kerry has not said more on the subject? Sure sure he made a cursory comment about litigation...but no action. I doubt you will see any either.

[diamondsoul]

179. Oh jeez, you had to bring up BBV, didn't ya?

*wry grin* That's the one that just corks it for me. I don't KNOW who I'm voting for in November yet. I expect it will be Kerry but that's not cemented yet. It depends on what happens at the Convention, what Dennis Kucinich decides to do with the movement he's created and what I see and sense about the direction the other voters are going.

Hell, my State is so strongly Republican I likely don't even count but if I think even for a second I can influence the outcome I'll vote for the Dem nominee.

This BBV stuff....Kerry's comments absolutely sicken me. How much of the vote has he missed for the damned Primaries? His answer to BBV is he'll do something AFTER he gets the nomination. I asked at the time, "Why not NOW when you're in the Senate and can do something to cement it in legislation?". Nobody had an answer. Now he wants me to be suckered into thinking he'll spend more time in the Senate after he gets the nomination??? Thanks John for insuating I'm that g-damned stupid.:eyes:

[CoupdEtat2000]

169. Sounds like you already have your mind made up the way you

propagandized the phraseology of your questions.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

172. Is this a rhetorical question or have you already determined

the answer?

[John_H]

185. Well, anyone who thinks Kerry is indistinguishable from bush

probably, like Ralph Nader, doesn't mind a little union busting. But
Chimp's first act in office was signing four executive orders severely curtailing the power of labor unions. Would kerry have done that? Would he put mining and oil executives in senior positions at Interior, Energy, and EPA? John Ashcroft as AG? that's not a good enough Reason? How about Charles Pickering? Pryor? And the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

IMO any candidatewho can't tell the difference between Kerry and Bush certainly doesn't deserve a single vote from anyone other than Greens.

[Andy_Stephenson]

195. I see the differences.

but I also see the similarities as well.

[Cocoa]

186. go ahead, vote for Bush

In general, I think every vote counts, but there are some exceptions, such as yours. I think Kerry will win without your vote.

[Nicholas_J]

188. Keeeping NAFTA and WTO off the table

Is a far better solution than bi-lateral agreements, because rigtht now, even the U.S. is subject to sanctions for violating the rules established world wide for fair trade. Which is why Bush is attempting to start bi-lateral agreements with Australia and Morocco and a few other countries right now. Bi-Lateral agrreements are the ones most subject to being changed to favor big- business, especially if ,as eventually is inevitable, a new overnment that is more business friendly were to take over again after a period of democratic majority. With individual agreements, divide and conquer becomes the name of the game. These new attempts by Bush to formulate bi-lateral free trade agreements are Bush's attempt to avoid having to engage in fair taxation rules that the other industrialized nations have established.

He has already said what he will do about outsourcing, first eliminating the tax incentives that favor it, as well as providing disincentives for those companies who try to avoid taxation by setting up corporations outside of the U.S. to avoid taxes, and then to tax corporations that outsource by considering their products to be products that are not produced by American corporations.The WTO and the E.U. have already beatin him to the punch by santioning American products produced by those corporations. Which could not have occured wthout the existance of the WTO or NAFTA.

Kerry did not vote for the war. In fact, read the legislation. In no play is the word wear mentioned. It was an act allowing the use of force under specific conditions. It is extrmely obvious that the vast majority of the American electorate do not beleive that it was a vote for war, but an act that did not exclude the use of force if and only if all other options failed. Kerry and the bill itself, has been consistant in this basis for the use of force. Only if the international community came to the concensus that force was necessary, or only if Iraq posed an direct threat to U.S. security.
Spin it as you will, Kerry has made his point very clearly to the vast majority of voters, and oddly enough, those who claimed to be anti-war did not make their point well enough to convince the American public that if there was a threat to the U.S. force to protect Americans would not be removed from the table. Kerry did not want this war, He wanted diplomatic solutions, but he did not want to rule out the use of force to defend the U.S. from imminent threat. That is exactly what the American electorate wants.

Kerry nas and does oppose the draft. Strongly and succintly, he has repeated that a draftee army would not have the skills or training necessary for modern conflict,and that only a well trainee volunteer force does. He has talked about increasing troop strength, He hasnot nentioned the draft, But he has mentioned brining other nations and the United Nations into Iraq.

He said he was lied to. He said that the president agreed to the terms set in the resolution. That was to not go to war without the U.N. or unless he could prove direct threat to the United States or that Iraq was involved adiding and abeting Al-Qaeda.He said that the president did an end run around the terms of the act. Which he did.

Kerry has been consistant in opposing gay marriage, but supports civil unions. He will onlt support a constitutional amendment that completely allows civil unions to be passed by the states. He has also staed that if legislation thatallowed gay marriage were to pass his desk, he would sign it, but he feels that there is no poitical will or public support for this.