What are Kerry's real plans??

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fern, you didn't answer the question...have you ever been given a job by a poor man?  NFW

Which question? I'm responding to like 10 posts at the same time.

[shankbear]

Kerry's a loser because he chose to vote against the 87B to protest GWB tax policy.  What a politically stupid thing to do.  He gave GWB an issue that WILL be broken off in Kerry's butt.  We haven't heard the end of it.

[bushforever]

.

Tax benefits for the middle class are socialist?
Kerry's military plans are clear, go after Al Qaeda, and anything else that is an immediate threat to the US. No random wars for no reason.

Yeah, he's also said on several occassions that he wants to increase the number of troops in the armed forces and that we will stay in Iraq for 6 months and only if the job gets done.  And what about Iran and North Korea.  Knowing John Kerry, he'll double talk these countries like he does everyone else, they'll get pissed off, and we'll have no option but war.  And he just pissed off the Pakistanis for criticizing their effort against the No. 2 al-qaeda guy.  And al-qaida is even more motivated to kill us now that John Kerry just used the words "hunt and kill the terrorists", rather than "put to justice".  The whole world's pissed at John Kerry and he hasn't even reached office yet.  He'll have to draft us over to die when we are in full-fledged jihad mode

Kerry never promised we'd leave Iraq in 6 months. Under Bush's leadership North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons, and  Europe is the ones making progress with the Iran situation, not us.  I wouldn't be blindly attacking Kerry on those, when Bush has such a sh**tty record there.

Uh, yeah he did.  Did you not see the debate.  He said we'd leave Iraq as early as 6 months if we got the job done. 

As far as attacking Kerry while Bush has a bad record...Bush has at least made progress towards defeating the axis of evil.  Iraq is step 1.  We'll see what will happen with Iran and North Korea.  But I just have a feeling that Kerry's diplomatic talks will fail and all that will result is Kim Il laughing in Kerry's face and then leaving to go tell his troops to start making more nukes.  Then John Kerry goes home and tells the American troops to start destroying our nukes. 

I said "PROMISED". Kerry isn't going to promise what would be an absolute best case scenario.
As for Iraq, Gallup says 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back. Hey, maybe their likely voter model is screwed up again.

OK, so 58% of Iraqis don't want Saddam back.  When I hear a candidate say something, I expect actions to accompany those words so that those words hold truth.  He promised 6 months if all goes well.  If all goes well, we better be out in 6 months.

Yeah, and Kerry's also promising to increase the size of our military without sending generation Y over to die....yeah ok.  And based on his track record, we'll be fighting the terrorists with sticks and stones and tattered rags.

[A18]

So your answer is: ...I don't know, and neither does Kerry.

Thank you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Reputable economists like, say, Krugman?

How is the economy being measured.  Does a bus program increase GDP $8 for every $1 spent?  Again, the vagueness is a problem as is the unwillingness to name the "reputable" economists.  Usually when people source something the use the name of a publication or author.

I don't know much about the bus number, but unemployment benefits help the economy by a lot ($1.71 per dollar) because these people will spend the money immediately on necessary items like food and shelter, since they were planning on being employed. A lot of this money will get respent again, and so will help the economy by more than it costs.  The UC spending helps even more (over $4 per dollar) because it leads to a lot of techonology advances, startup companies, and a highly trained workforce.

[The Duke]

I have to assume you mean GDP when you say the economy.

By these numbers, one would be led to believe that only 9% of the average tax cut gets spent?  Does anyone actually believe that?  This is what I mean when I say I doubt the numbers.

And again, waht economists?

[bushforever]

So your answer is: ...I don't know, and neither does Kerry.

Thank you.

Right.  That's exactly what I want people to realize.  Kerry does not have a plan or he has a hidden agenda.  Secrets secrets are no fun, secrets secrets hurt someone.  Well, Kerry's secret agenda is going to royally screw America and the safety of the world and the actual possibility of peace.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

.

Tax benefits for the middle class are socialist?
Kerry's military plans are clear, go after Al Qaeda, and anything else that is an immediate threat to the US. No random wars for no reason.

Yeah, he's also said on several occassions that he wants to increase the number of troops in the armed forces and that we will stay in Iraq for 6 months and only if the job gets done.  And what about Iran and North Korea.  Knowing John Kerry, he'll double talk these countries like he does everyone else, they'll get pissed off, and we'll have no option but war.  And he just pissed off the Pakistanis for criticizing their effort against the No. 2 al-qaeda guy.  And al-qaida is even more motivated to kill us now that John Kerry just used the words "hunt and kill the terrorists", rather than "put to justice".  The whole world's pissed at John Kerry and he hasn't even reached office yet.  He'll have to draft us over to die when we are in full-fledged jihad mode

Kerry never promised we'd leave Iraq in 6 months. Under Bush's leadership North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons, and  Europe is the ones making progress with the Iran situation, not us.  I wouldn't be blindly attacking Kerry on those, when Bush has such a sh**tty record there.

Uh, yeah he did.  Did you not see the debate.  He said we'd leave Iraq as early as 6 months if we got the job done. 

As far as attacking Kerry while Bush has a bad record...Bush has at least made progress towards defeating the axis of evil.  Iraq is step 1.  We'll see what will happen with Iran and North Korea.  But I just have a feeling that Kerry's diplomatic talks will fail and all that will result is Kim Il laughing in Kerry's face and then leaving to go tell his troops to start making more nukes.  Then John Kerry goes home and tells the American troops to start destroying our nukes. 

I said "PROMISED". Kerry isn't going to promise what would be an absolute best case scenario.
As for Iraq, Gallup says 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back. Hey, maybe their likely voter model is screwed up again.

OK, so 58% of Iraqis don't want Saddam back.  When I hear a candidate say something, I expect actions to accompany those words so that those words hold truth.  He promised 6 months if all goes well.  If all goes well, we better be out in 6 months.

Yeah, and Kerry's also promising to increase the size of our military without sending generation Y over to die....yeah ok.  And based on his track record, we'll be fighting the terrorists with sticks and stones and tattered rags.

Kerry said 6 months in a best case scenario. That was no promise.  In a best case scenario, Kerry gets over 400 electoral votes, but I don't think you think that's going to happen, either.

Why would Kerry's statements about killing terrorists encourage Al Qaeda?  The Bust administration has completely failed on North Korea. Kerry is in favor of those 6-nation talks, and the other countries want the US to also negotiate directly with North Korea. It's those 4 other countries and Kerry vs. Bush on that issue.

The fact that it's so high (42%) is kind of a failure. I mean, how hard is it to convince these people that they're better off without a 3rd rate genocidal dictator?

Why are you so negative on Kerry? He has more of a proven record than Bush.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So your answer is: ...I don't know, and neither does Kerry.

Thank you.

I don't know but Kerry and his website know.

[A18]

Come on. You and I both know he can't pay companies $11 per hour for each employee to keep jobs in this country.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have to assume you mean GDP when you say the economy.

By these numbers, one would be led to believe that only 9% of the average tax cut gets spent?  Does anyone actually believe that?  This is what I mean when I say I doubt the numbers.

And again, waht economists?

I don't know which economists came up with those figures, but on a somewhat related tangent, 10 Nobel Prize winning economists have endorsed Kerry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Come on. You and I both know he can't pay companies $11 per hour for each employee to keep jobs in this country.

You and I know that that's not his plan.

[bushforever]

.

Tax benefits for the middle class are socialist?
Kerry's military plans are clear, go after Al Qaeda, and anything else that is an immediate threat to the US. No random wars for no reason.

Yeah, he's also said on several occassions that he wants to increase the number of troops in the armed forces and that we will stay in Iraq for 6 months and only if the job gets done.  And what about Iran and North Korea.  Knowing John Kerry, he'll double talk these countries like he does everyone else, they'll get pissed off, and we'll have no option but war.  And he just pissed off the Pakistanis for criticizing their effort against the No. 2 al-qaeda guy.  And al-qaida is even more motivated to kill us now that John Kerry just used the words "hunt and kill the terrorists", rather than "put to justice".  The whole world's pissed at John Kerry and he hasn't even reached office yet.  He'll have to draft us over to die when we are in full-fledged jihad mode

Kerry never promised we'd leave Iraq in 6 months. Under Bush's leadership North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons, and  Europe is the ones making progress with the Iran situation, not us.  I wouldn't be blindly attacking Kerry on those, when Bush has such a sh**tty record there.

Uh, yeah he did.  Did you not see the debate.  He said we'd leave Iraq as early as 6 months if we got the job done. 

As far as attacking Kerry while Bush has a bad record...Bush has at least made progress towards defeating the axis of evil.  Iraq is step 1.  We'll see what will happen with Iran and North Korea.  But I just have a feeling that Kerry's diplomatic talks will fail and all that will result is Kim Il laughing in Kerry's face and then leaving to go tell his troops to start making more nukes.  Then John Kerry goes home and tells the American troops to start destroying our nukes. 

I said "PROMISED". Kerry isn't going to promise what would be an absolute best case scenario.
As for Iraq, Gallup says 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back. Hey, maybe their likely voter model is screwed up again.

OK, so 58% of Iraqis don't want Saddam back.  When I hear a candidate say something, I expect actions to accompany those words so that those words hold truth.  He promised 6 months if all goes well.  If all goes well, we better be out in 6 months.

Yeah, and Kerry's also promising to increase the size of our military without sending generation Y over to die....yeah ok.  And based on his track record, we'll be fighting the terrorists with sticks and stones and tattered rags.

Kerry said 6 months in a best case scenario. That was no promise.  In a best case scenario, Kerry gets over 400 electoral votes, but I don't think you think that's going to happen, either.

Why would Kerry's statements about killing terrorists encourage Al Qaeda?  The Bust administration has completely failed on North Korea. Kerry is in favor of those 6-nation talks, and the other countries want the US to also negotiate directly with North Korea. It's those 4 other countries and Kerry vs. Bush on that issue.

The fact that it's so high (42%) is kind of a failure. I mean, how hard is it to convince these people that they're better off without a 3rd rate genocidal dictator?

Why are you so negative on Kerry? He has more of a proven record than Bush.

Why am I so negative on Kerry?  Because Kerry is going to  America up the a$$ when he gets in office, just like he betrayed our troops by voting against high-tech weapons systems and body armor, just like he betrayed the Iraqi people by voting against $87B to rebuild their country, just like he betrayed the old people by skipping the Medicare bills, just like he betrayed the people of Massachussets by skipping 2/3 or all votes, just like he betrayed his fellow veterans by saying they committed war crimes, just like he betrayed honesty when his people forged documents and sent them to CBS...need I go on.  And is that a proven record???  I don't think so.

A proven record is a man who sticks to his guns and doesn't let anything stand in the way of his vision for a safer and more prosperous nation.  A proven record is giving American tax payers their own money back, providing our troops with everything they need in battle, liberating countries from tyranny and working to rebuild them until the job is done, taking swift action to defeat the terrorists follwing Sept. 11, initiating a Medicare bill where doctors and patients choose the plan that's best for them, making historic reforms in education, encouraging religion, taking actions to prevent partial-murder abortions, establsihing the Homeland Security Department, supporting small business.  Now that's a proven record.

You cannot negotiate with madmen.  John Kerry is out of his gord if he thinks he can make legitimate deals with Kim Jong Il or whatever.  Bill Clinton tried that and look what happened.

[Smash255]

.

Tax benefits for the middle class are socialist?
Kerry's military plans are clear, go after Al Qaeda, and anything else that is an immediate threat to the US. No random wars for no reason.

Yeah, he's also said on several occassions that he wants to increase the number of troops in the armed forces and that we will stay in Iraq for 6 months and only if the job gets done.  And what about Iran and North Korea.  Knowing John Kerry, he'll double talk these countries like he does everyone else, they'll get pissed off, and we'll have no option but war.  And he just pissed off the Pakistanis for criticizing their effort against the No. 2 al-qaeda guy.  And al-qaida is even more motivated to kill us now that John Kerry just used the words "hunt and kill the terrorists", rather than "put to justice".  The whole world's pissed at John Kerry and he hasn't even reached office yet.  He'll have to draft us over to die when we are in full-fledged jihad mode

Kerry never promised we'd leave Iraq in 6 months. Under Bush's leadership North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons, and  Europe is the ones making progress with the Iran situation, not us.  I wouldn't be blindly attacking Kerry on those, when Bush has such a sh**tty record there.

Uh, yeah he did.  Did you not see the debate.  He said we'd leave Iraq as early as 6 months if we got the job done. 

As far as attacking Kerry while Bush has a bad record...Bush has at least made progress towards defeating the axis of evil.  Iraq is step 1.  We'll see what will happen with Iran and North Korea.  But I just have a feeling that Kerry's diplomatic talks will fail and all that will result is Kim Il laughing in Kerry's face and then leaving to go tell his troops to start making more nukes.  Then John Kerry goes home and tells the American troops to start destroying our nukes. 

I said "PROMISED". Kerry isn't going to promise what would be an absolute best case scenario.
As for Iraq, Gallup says 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back. Hey, maybe their likely voter model is screwed up again.

OK, so 58% of Iraqis don't want Saddam back.  When I hear a candidate say something, I expect actions to accompany those words so that those words hold truth.  He promised 6 months if all goes well.  If all goes well, we better be out in 6 months.

Yeah, and Kerry's also promising to increase the size of our military without sending generation Y over to die....yeah ok.  And based on his track record, we'll be fighting the terrorists with sticks and stones and tattered rags.

Kerry said 6 months in a best case scenario. That was no promise.  In a best case scenario, Kerry gets over 400 electoral votes, but I don't think you think that's going to happen, either.

Why would Kerry's statements about killing terrorists encourage Al Qaeda?  The Bust administration has completely failed on North Korea. Kerry is in favor of those 6-nation talks, and the other countries want the US to also negotiate directly with North Korea. It's those 4 other countries and Kerry vs. Bush on that issue.

The fact that it's so high (42%) is kind of a failure. I mean, how hard is it to convince these people that they're better off without a 3rd rate genocidal dictator?

Why are you so negative on Kerry? He has more of a proven record than Bush.

Why am I so negative on Kerry?  Because Kerry is going to  America up the a$$ when he gets in office, just like he betrayed our troops by voting against high-tech weapons systems and body armor, just like he betrayed the Iraqi people by voting against $87B to rebuild their country, just like he betrayed the old people by skipping the Medicare bills, just like he betrayed the people of Massachussets by skipping 2/3 or all votes, just like he betrayed his fellow veterans by saying they committed war crimes, just like he betrayed honesty when his people forged documents and sent them to CBS...need I go on.  And is that a proven record???  I don't think so.

A proven record is a man who sticks to his guns and doesn't let anything stand in the way of his vision for a safer and more prosperous nation.  A proven record is giving American tax payers their own money back, providing our troops with everything they need in battle, liberating countries from tyranny and working to rebuild them until the job is done, taking swift action to defeat the terrorists follwing Sept. 11, initiating a Medicare bill where doctors and patients choose the plan that's best for them, making historic reforms in education, encouraging religion, taking actions to prevent partial-murder abortions, establsihing the Homeland Security Department, supporting small business.  Now that's a proven record.

You cannot negotiate with madmen.  John Kerry is out of his gord if he thinks he can make legitimate deals with Kim Jong Il or whatever.  Bill Clinton tried that and look what happened.

You mean the same weapons systems Cheney also was against when he was Sec of Defense under Bush 41.  The same $87 bill that Congressioanal Republicns refused to bring up for a vote because it would have repelaed the taxcuts on those making over 400k in ordder to pay for it.  The Medicare Bill that was a complete & utter joke that did absolutley nothing to bring down the prices (& prices have actually risen since it passed).  He didn't betray the vetrans he criticized the govt for sending the troops in such a horrid situation.  The CBS documents have no ties to Kerry.

As for Bush.  The guy that suddenly says the person who attacked us isn't important.  The guy that originally sent our troops into war without the body armor they needed.  The guy that disregarded any advice from generals that we needed more troops in iraq.  The guy with a tax policy that put us into deficit.  You credit Bush for the Homeland Security Department thats something he was AGAINST when it was first suggested.  He passed education reform but didn't fund what he promised to gund in the reform.  He pushed through a bill which lets women die if their complications with their pregnancy

[jimrtex]

The Democrats were the king of gerrymandered districts prior to 1994. Anyway, "gerrymandering" is when state legislatures make their representation reflect the state unproportionally, which I support. A 70% Democrat state should have 90% Democratic Representatives.

The Democrats always got more votes for Congress when they ruled the House. The percentage of people planning to vote Dem for Congress is higher than GOP, and so more people are probably going to vote D, but we won't win back the House thanks to some serious gerrymandering in Texas, PA, Michigan and so on...

Like in 1994, when the Democrats won 19 of 30 seats in Texas with 40% of the vote?  Even in 2002, with 55% of the vote, Republicans only won 15 of 32.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats were the king of gerrymandered districts prior to 1994. Anyway, "gerrymandering" is when state legislatures make their representation reflect the state unproportionally, which I support. A 70% Democrat state should have 90% Democratic Representatives.

The Democrats always got more votes for Congress when they ruled the House. The percentage of people planning to vote Dem for Congress is higher than GOP, and so more people are probably going to vote D, but we won't win back the House thanks to some serious gerrymandering in Texas, PA, Michigan and so on...

Like in 1994, when the Democrats won 19 of 30 seats in Texas with 40% of the vote?  Even in 2002, with 55% of the vote, Republicans only won 15 of 32.

The courts and not the Democrats drew the 2002 districts. The 2004 districts will be hyper-partisan Republican.

[jimrtex]

Like in 1994, when the Democrats won 19 of 30 seats in Texas with 40% of the vote?  Even in 2002, with 55% of the vote, Republicans only won 15 of 32.

The courts and not the Democrats drew the 2002 districts. The 2004 districts will be hyper-partisan Republican.

The Democrats drew the 1992 districts that resulted in 63% of the seats on 40% of the vote in 1994.  When these districts were first used, they were so convoluted that precincts were left out, and others included in.  This was not discovered until after the Democrat primary had already been in court (it was a very close race), and voters were being ordered to reveal who they voted for.   1992 was when then Governor Ann Richards likened federal judges to infants in high chairs for their ruling in the Texas Senate redistricting case.  When the 1992 Democrat districts were ruiled unconstitutional by the USSC they were characterized as committing geographical atrocities.  The courts ordered changes for the districts that were found to be unlawfully based on race, and ordered them to go in place immediately, resulting in the results of the primaries being thrown out.  The legislature was told to finish up the other areas, which they never did.

The 2001 federal court called these uncorrected remnants, "patently ridiculous".  They did get rid of some of the boundaries where you couldn't tell which district was which and turned inside out.  But they left fragments of the old boundaries.  The federal court noted that there were many things that a legislature properly could consider, that a court could not (the court was limited mainly to adding the 2 new districts and equalizing population).  Their decision was appealed on the basis that they should have imposed their own will on the boundaries, but this was rejected by the Supreme Court.  In Houston, the court's boundaries left one city council district split among 6 different congressional districts.

[A18]

Come on. You and I both know he can't pay companies $11 per hour for each employee to keep jobs in this country.

You and I know that that's not his plan.

He has no plan