If Kerry gets elected....

[lidaker]

and Annika Sorenstam and Jesper Parnavik.

And Tiger Woods' wife!

[shankbear]

her twin sister is hot too

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

Yeah, and North Korea will invade California, Moktada al-Sadr will declare himself ruler of the Islamic world, France will blow the Statue of Liberty up... and Mount St. Helens will erupt.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [...] And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe."

Rev 16:17-21

Does Kerry have a serious plan for dealing with Iran, yes or no? YES
Is Iran developing nuclear weapons, yes or no? YES
Does Iran have a hard on for Israel, yes or no? YES
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry say he'll be out in six months, yes or no? NO, HE SAID SOME OF THE TROOPS COULD BE HOME WITHIN SIX MONTHS, DEFINITELY NOT ALL OF THEM
Can we fix Iraq in six months, yes or no? PROBABLY NOT, BUSH HAS MADE A MESS
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry support weakening the Department of Homeland Security, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry oppose civil defense measures going back to the Cold War, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry claim he would get rid of or at least water down the USA PATRIOT Act, yes or no? HE SAID HE'LL REMOVE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTS OF IT
Exactly. NO

Every point I made can be backed up by the reality we face. NO All you have is sarcasm that you can't back up. NO Stop being so European. I AM EUROPEAN

Really, what is the Kerry plan?  From what he said in the debates when he said he'd give Iran nuclear fuel to test their "good will", I'd say his plan isn't all that serious.

As for the Homeland Security Department issue, Kerry supported a plan that would unionize all employees of the Department, thereby meaning that they could be on strike at any time including time of national emergency.  This would render the department essentially non-functioning.  The Army isn't unionized, and there's a reason.  Why would Kerry sell out to special interests on this question?  Because he doesn't take homeland security seriously to begin with.

As for the Civil Defense question, Kerry authored a Massachussetts law as Lt. Governor declaring that Boston would refuse to participate in civil defense measures that could protect its citizens from Soviet attack.  He claimed that even having a civil defense system was an unnecessarily threatening posture, and would anger the USSR.

Kerry has said that he wants to begin withdrawals within six months.  Never mind the lunacy of setting time tables in these situations in the first place (a fact that should make us reject the Kerry plan on its face), and never mind the obvious fact that you cannot simultaneously increase the training of Iraqi forces (Which Kerry claims he'll do) while withdrawing the very US forces that will be training them, there is a deeper problem with his plan than even these obvious contradictions.  He has already demonstrated through this claim a tremendous lack of dedication to the defense of the US, the defense of US allies, the defense of US interests, and the human rights of Iraqis who deserve a free state.  He has said he favors stability over democracy.  Can you say realpolitik?  Sounds to me like he pins his hopes on making Allawi an Iraqi Mubarak and pulling out US troops.

I am well aware that you're European, I just said you should drop the European mindset that we've somehow evolved beyond war and conflict and that soft power can solve our problems.  There is no empirical evidence to support the European worldview, which you seem to hold.

[Nym90]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

Yeah, and North Korea will invade California, Moktada al-Sadr will declare himself ruler of the Islamic world, France will blow the Statue of Liberty up... and Mount St. Helens will erupt.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [...] And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe."

Rev 16:17-21

Does Kerry have a serious plan for dealing with Iran, yes or no? YES
Is Iran developing nuclear weapons, yes or no? YES
Does Iran have a hard on for Israel, yes or no? YES
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry say he'll be out in six months, yes or no? NO, HE SAID SOME OF THE TROOPS COULD BE HOME WITHIN SIX MONTHS, DEFINITELY NOT ALL OF THEM
Can we fix Iraq in six months, yes or no? PROBABLY NOT, BUSH HAS MADE A MESS
Exactly. NO

Did Kerry support weakening the Department of Homeland Security, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry oppose civil defense measures going back to the Cold War, yes or no? DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN
Did Kerry claim he would get rid of or at least water down the USA PATRIOT Act, yes or no? HE SAID HE'LL REMOVE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTS OF IT
Exactly. NO

Every point I made can be backed up by the reality we face. NO All you have is sarcasm that you can't back up. NO Stop being so European. I AM EUROPEAN

Really, what is the Kerry plan?  From what he said in the debates when he said he'd give Iran nuclear fuel to test their "good will", I'd say his plan isn't all that serious.

As for the Homeland Security Department issue, Kerry supported a plan that would unionize all employees of the Department, thereby meaning that they could be on strike at any time including time of national emergency.  This would render the department essentially non-functioning.  The Army isn't unionized, and there's a reason.  Why would Kerry sell out to special interests on this question?  Because he doesn't take homeland security seriously to begin with.

As for the Civil Defense question, Kerry authored a Massachussetts law as Lt. Governor declaring that Boston would refuse to participate in civil defense measures that could protect its citizens from Soviet attack.  He claimed that even having a civil defense system was an unnecessarily threatening posture, and would anger the USSR.

Kerry has said that he wants to begin withdrawals within six months.  Never mind the lunacy of setting time tables in these situations in the first place (a fact that should make us reject the Kerry plan on its face), and never mind the obvious fact that you cannot simultaneously increase the training of Iraqi forces (Which Kerry claims he'll do) while withdrawing the very US forces that will be training them, there is a deeper problem with his plan than even these obvious contradictions.  He has already demonstrated through this claim a tremendous lack of dedication to the defense of the US, the defense of US allies, the defense of US interests, and the human rights of Iraqis who deserve a free state.  He has said he favors stability over democracy.  Can you say realpolitik?  Sounds to me like he pins his hopes on making Allawi an Iraqi Mubarak and pulling out US troops.

I am well aware that you're European, I just said you should drop the European mindset that we've somehow evolved beyond war and conflict and that soft power can solve our problems.  There is no empirical evidence to support the European worldview, which you seem to hold.

Why is a strike automatically the fault of the employees? I would say that if the employees of the Homeland Security Dept. find it necessary to go on strike, it is their bosses who are threatening the nation's security, not the employees for demanding a to be treated equally.

If the employees aren't unionized, their employers can simply run roughshod over them with no recourse whatsoever.  Why should the employees be the ones who feel the obligation to roll over in the name of security? Why is no blame placed on management?

[MODU]

Government employees should not have the right to unionize, since they hold public positions.  This is one my issues I have with teacher unions, since teachers are state employees.

[Nym90]

Government employees should not have the right to unionize, since they hold public positions.  This is one my issues I have with teacher unions, since teachers are state employees.

Why should we be denied the rights that other workers have? I don't see what holding a public position has to do with it.

[The Duke]

Nym,

Its not that they're publci employees, its that they're security officials.  If the Army can't unionize, why should FEMA workers?

I don't blame employees for strikes.  I also don't blame management.  I blame union leaders who would try and pull some stunt at an inopportune time.  We saw that danger when the air traffic controllers went on strike, they nearly shut down the skies before Reagan fired them all.

[Huckleberry Finn]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

Yeah, and North Korea will invade California, Moktada al-Sadr will declare himself ruler of the Islamic world, France will blow the Statue of Liberty up... and Mount St. Helens will erupt.

"And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [...] And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe."

Rev 16:17-21

Stop being so European.

Calm down Huck! Just calm down...Stop....being...so.....European. AAAAAAARGGG!

[Nym90]

Nym,

Its not that they're publci employees, its that they're security officials.  If the Army can't unionize, why should FEMA workers?

I don't blame employees for strikes.  I also don't blame management.  I blame union leaders who would try and pull some stunt at an inopportune time.  We saw that danger when the air traffic controllers went on strike, they nearly shut down the skies before Reagan fired them all.

I was responding to MODU, who said that public employees shouldn't be unionized. He clearly wasn't referring only to security officials, as he mentioned teachers.

I believe everyone should have the right organize a union if they so choose. There definitely need to be procedures in place to ensure that neither side exploits a labor dispute for their advantage at a time when it could threaten security, but that can be done without workers giving up their rights to negotiate. It's wrong to put the blame only on the unions, and fail to see that management could do the exact same thing in reverse.

Obviously if stunts are pulled at an inopportune time, then the President should step in and end it. But it goes both ways; management could try to pull a stunt at an inopportune time to screw over security employees, knowing that they can't strike because they'll get the blame for it.

It basically boils down to the question of who do you trust more, that was my point. Both sides can try to take advantage of a bad situation equally.

[MODU]

Public servants are employees of the state/federal government for which they serve.  As such, they fall under state/federal funding.  The state/federal agencies have to operate on limited budgets based upon tax revenue, from which government employees are paid.  Additionally, the state/federal agencies have to follow the employee rights acts (naturally).  So anyone that works for the government will be paid fairly for the position which they hold, and provided the standard benefits provided across the board.  Additionally, most government employees know in advance the pay raise rates which will be coming around the corner each year based off of budget forecasting and tax revenue.  Therefore, the employees are at no point being denied fair pay or benefits for their work for which they would need representation in the form of a union when their representation comes from the state and federal congress's.

[??????????]

... my taxes will go back up.

Good lord, how much money do you make?

I'm not rich but every penny counts.

[James46]

Kerrry will bring "W" back to Washington so he knows what he is for and against.  Seriously, Kerry's approval numbers will crash unless he proves to be a crisis leader as Bush turned out to be.

[Nym90]

... my taxes will go back up.

Good lord, how much money do you make?

I'm not rich but every penny counts.

But you probably don't make over $200,000/year.

[Nym90]

Public servants are employees of the state/federal government for which they serve.  As such, they fall under state/federal funding.  The state/federal agencies have to operate on limited budgets based upon tax revenue, from which government employees are paid.  Additionally, the state/federal agencies have to follow the employee rights acts (naturally).  So anyone that works for the government will be paid fairly for the position which they hold, and provided the standard benefits provided across the board.  Additionally, most government employees know in advance the pay raise rates which will be coming around the corner each year based off of budget forecasting and tax revenue.  Therefore, the employees are at no point being denied fair pay or benefits for their work for which they would need representation in the form of a union when their representation comes from the state and federal congress's.

There are other issues that unions negotiate in their contracts besides pay and the overall level of benefits.

And even those are open to reasonable interpretation about what is fair and just compensation, and having both sides negotiate a contract is still going to be more fair to all involved than having management alone come up with a "fair" amount.

Unions are also still needed to give representation to people in any legal disputes they may encounter over employee rights acts and other issues, many of which may be difficult cases for the employee themselves to argue on their own.

[Huckleberry Finn]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

John you are a smart guy (and my fellow UAC member)  You can't seriously believe your own claim. Iran is developing nukes, but they aren't so mad that they would use them. Why hell they would do it? Israel and USA would strike back ten times harder and radioactive pollution would kill a LOT of Arabs in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and neighbour countries.

The Problem is North Korea with the bomb and Al-Qaida dealing with Koreans.

You also know that Kerry will not withdraw from Iraq.

[The Duke]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

John you are a smart guy (and my fellow UAC member)  You can't seriously believe your own claim. Iran is developing nukes, but they aren't so mad that they would use them. Why hell they would do it? Israel and USA would strike back ten times harder and radioactive pollution would kill a LOT of Arabs in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and neighbour countries.

The Problem is North Korea with the bomb and Al-Qaida dealing with Koreans.

You also know that Kerry will not withdraw from Iraq.

I know that Kerry will withdraw from Iraq.  Put these two Kerry quotes together:

"Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." -2004

"How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -1971

This is who John Kerry is.


Iran doesn't have to deliver the bomb themselves.  Hizbollah can do it for them.  If Iran has no intention of using the bomb, and the bomb only brings more threats and attention to them, why even build one?  The answer of course is to gie it to Hizbollah and have them wipe out Israel.

[Bogart]

... my taxes will go back up.

Good lord, how much money do you make?

I'm not rich but every penny counts.

I agree. And, the tax reduction didn't just affect those making over $200,000/year. As Bush correctly pointed out, parents with children recieve tax relief through increasing the child tax deduction. The level of income before any taxes are paid was also raised. These alone affect more than the "wealthy." I also question whether $200,000/year constitutes "rich."

[Huckleberry Finn]

If Kerry gets elected, Iran will blow Israel off the map, Iraq will descend into chaos as Kerry pulls out troops, and the United States will suffer at least two mega-terror attacks.

John you are a smart guy (and my fellow UAC member)  You can't seriously believe your own claim. Iran is developing nukes, but they aren't so mad that they would use them. Why hell they would do it? Israel and USA would strike back ten times harder and radioactive pollution would kill a LOT of Arabs in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and neighbour countries.

The Problem is North Korea with the bomb and Al-Qaida dealing with Koreans.

You also know that Kerry will not withdraw from Iraq.

I know that Kerry will withdraw from Iraq.  Put these two Kerry quotes together:

"Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." -2004

"How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -1971

This is who John Kerry is.


Iran doesn't have to deliver the bomb themselves.  Hizbollah can do it for them.  If Iran has no intention of using the bomb, and the bomb only brings more threats and attention to them, why even build one?  The answer of course is to gie it to Hizbollah and have them wipe out Israel.

What we mean when we say "Kerry will withdraw or Kerry won't?

I suppose that you meant that Kerry will withdraw within few months or before Iraq has settled down. I consider that his purpose is withdrawing during his first (and last) four years, but I can't see him as such moron who would leave too earlier. Kerry doesn't want that Iraq would fall to anarchy. I think his policy will be very similar than president Bush's one. He will strengthen military power of the Iraq government and when they are ready to control their own country, he will pull troops out. And isn't that what you Americans want? Or do you want stay there forever?

About Iran. Isn't it that all nuclear powers have developed their weapons because they feel that they are more safe and have more power with nukes? So do Iranians. Trust me, Iranians won't give nukes to Hizbollah. It would be similar suicide than use them themselves. If Hizbollah used nukes it would be very clear where weapons came from.  Don't understand me wrong. I don't trust the Iranian government and I would like to see a revolution in Tehran, but you clearly overestimate threat of Iran.

Someone said here that Kerry will lose in 2008. I agree. He can win now, but I can't see that he will win twice. If Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Kerry is past.

[Nym90]

... my taxes will go back up.

Good lord, how much money do you make?

I'm not rich but every penny counts.

I agree. And, the tax reduction didn't just affect those making over $200,000/year. As Bush correctly pointed out, parents with children recieve tax relief through increasing the child tax deduction. The level of income before any taxes are paid was also raised. These alone affect more than the "wealthy." I also question whether $200,000/year constitutes "rich."

Yes, but spending cuts that will disproportionately hurt the middle class and poor will eventually result from the tax cuts (and already are resulting on the local level...also higher state taxes to balance budgets are helping partially or wholly offset lower federal taxes). The tax cuts went disproportionately to the rich, and the consequences will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The poorest families who pay only payroll tax and sales tax received no benefit at all, of course.

Yes, it's debateable whether or not $200,000/year is rich, but only 2% of all Americans make that amount or more. I would think that by definition anyone who is in the 98th percentile is wealthy, especially considering that our country's average income is quite a bit higher than most others in the world to begin with.

[The Duke]

This demonstrates the difference between a smart person and a rational person.  A smart person has the ability to process information and come to a solid conclusion, a rational person however, is one who chooses to use that ability.

It is clear to me that most liberals are smart, but few are rational.

2+2=4, but some liberals don't want it to equal 4, so they claim that it really equals 5 or 3 or 629.  Clinton and his claim that oral sex didn't fit the legal definition of sex is a perfect example.  He was smart enough to come up with a round about way of reaching a conclusion, and justified it effectively, and managed to convince people of this, and yet it was one of the single most irrational beliefs any human being has ever come up with.  Was CLinton stupid?  No, he was irrational.  He was smart enough to fnd a way that 2+2= something other than 4.

Same with Iran.  Let's say Iran gave Hizbollah the bomb.  A liberal would say this could never happen, because it would be traced to Iran.  Would it?  Of course not.

It could be a rogue Pakistani like AQ Kahn.  It could be cash strapped North Koreans.  Kerry talks a lot about Russian loose nukes.  Would his first inclination be to believe that his beloved Iranian mullahs are responsible or would his first inclination be to believe that his pre-existing thesis that Russian loose nukes are the real threat had proved true?

So Iran getting away with this is not only conceivable, but almost certain.  How would America prove the bomb came from Iran?  How would we show that this isn't another case of faulty intel like Iraq's WMD?  We couldn't.  And that would mean we fail Kerry's own global test.

2+2=?

[Nym90]

This demonstrates the difference between a smart person and a rational person.  A smart person has the ability to process information and come to a solid conclusion, a rational person however, is one who chooses to use that ability.

It is clear to me that most liberals are smart, but few are rational.

2+2=4, but some liberals don't want it to equal 4, so they claim that it really equals 5 or 3 or 629.  Clinton and his claim that oral sex didn't fit the legal definition of sex is a perfect example.  He was smart enough to come up with a round about way of reaching a conclusion, and justified it effectively, and managed to convince people of this, and yet it was one of the single most irrational beliefs any human being has ever come up with.  Was CLinton stupid?  No, he was irrational.  He was smart enough to fnd a way that 2+2= something other than 4.

Same with Iran.  Let's say Iran gave Hizbollah the bomb.  A liberal would say this could never happen, because it would be traced to Iran.  Would it?  Of course not.

It could be a rogue Pakistani like AQ Kahn.  It could be cash strapped North Koreans.  Kerry talks a lot about Russian loose nukes.  Would his first inclination be to believe that his beloved Iranian mullahs are responsible or would his first inclination be to believe that his pre-existing thesis that Russian loose nukes are the real threat had proved true?

So Iran getting away with this is not only conceivable, but almost certain.  How would America prove the bomb came from Iran?  How would we show that this isn't another case of faulty intel like Iraq's WMD?  We couldn't.  And that would mean we fail Kerry's own global test.

2+2=?

Regarding Clinton, I agree that his explanation was BS. He found a legal loophole and exploited it. Politicians do that all the time on both sides of the aisle.

However, I don't think that it's irrational to believe that all lying is not created equal, and that lying about something that has nothing to do with the duties of the office should not be an impeachable offense. To me, it's irrational to say that everyone who lies should be impeached, regardless of how trivial the subject matter. It's simple minded to utterly refuse to differentiate between things that are important and things that are irrelevant to the office of the Presidency. The rational, logic answer IMO is to make a distinction between the two and not look at it as black-and-white.

So the bottom line is that Clinton lied, but not about anything that has anything to do with his job, and thus it should not be treated as a big deal. It's bad, but it's far from impeachable.

[??????????]

Nym,

I make 36k a year and yes I did notice a slight difference with the tax cuts. I never expected a huge break but something is better then nothing. I don't understand how Kerry is going to start all these great new programs that are going to cost loads of money is he doesnt raise taxes. That comment at the debates is going to really hurt him if he wins. "Senator, look into the camera and tell America you will not raise their taxes." It will come back to haunt him if he wins..remember, "Read my lips...."?

[Nym90]

Nym,

I make 36k a year and yes I did notice a slight difference with the tax cuts. I never expected a huge break but something is better then nothing. I don't understand how Kerry is going to start all these great new programs that are going to cost loads of money is he doesnt raise taxes. That comment at the debates is going to really hurt him if he wins. "Senator, look into the camera and tell America you will not raise their taxes." It will come back to haunt him if he wins..remember, "Read my lips...."?

Raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%, and close corporate loopholes. Greatly reduce corporate welfare.

Go back to Clinton's policies, and restore the surpluses we had under Clinton as a result. Economic growth and more good paying jobs in this country will generate the revenue.

[??????????]

Nym,

I make 36k a year and yes I did notice a slight difference with the tax cuts. I never expected a huge break but something is better then nothing. I don't understand how Kerry is going to start all these great new programs that are going to cost loads of money is he doesnt raise taxes. That comment at the debates is going to really hurt him if he wins. "Senator, look into the camera and tell America you will not raise their taxes." It will come back to haunt him if he wins..remember, "Read my lips...."?

Raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%, and close corporate loopholes. Greatly reduce corporate welfare.

Go back to Clinton's policies, and restore the surpluses we had under Clinton as a result. Economic growth and more good paying jobs in this country will generate the revenue.

That won't be enough to cover all the money he plans on spending.

[Bogart]

... my taxes will go back up.

Good lord, how much money do you make?

I'm not rich but every penny counts.

I agree. And, the tax reduction didn't just affect those making over $200,000/year. As Bush correctly pointed out, parents with children recieve tax relief through increasing the child tax deduction. The level of income before any taxes are paid was also raised. These alone affect more than the "wealthy." I also question whether $200,000/year constitutes "rich."

Yes, but spending cuts that will disproportionately hurt the middle class and poor will eventually result from the tax cuts (and already are resulting on the local level...also higher state taxes to balance budgets are helping partially or wholly offset lower federal taxes). The tax cuts went disproportionately to the rich, and the consequences will disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

The poorest families who pay only payroll tax and sales tax received no benefit at all, of course.

Yes, it's debateable whether or not $200,000/year is rich, but only 2% of all Americans make that amount or more. I would think that by definition anyone who is in the 98th percentile is wealthy, especially considering that our country's average income is quite a bit higher than most others in the world to begin with.

First, I would agree that IF significant cuts in Federal spending result from the tax cuts (which I hope) said cuts will disproportionately hit lower income classes.  It's a given just as when you cut taxes you necessarily cut the taxes of the wealthiest the most. They pay the most. The lower incomes take the most.  Secondly, I would say if Michigan has to offset state taxes to make up shortfalls because the government in Lansing refuses to cut spending to compensate that this is your problem in Michigan, not mine in Phoenix.

I was only referring to income taxes. In terms of payroll taxes, the poorest of American workers actually get more back than they pay in on average. Through the Earned Income Credit, many pay no income tax, but recieve thousands in a refund. Combined with other credits, payroll taxes I believe to be largely offset for the poorest. As for sales tax, many states don't tax necessities such as food and clothing. Perhaps this should be expanded. The poorest in many states need only pay sales taxes to the extent they spend beyond their means.

I'm still crunching the tax numbers.