PDA

View Full Version : Kerry and record # of flip flops in one speech....



eg8r
09-21-2004, 02:00 PM
It seems Kerry was on a roll today. In his speech at NYU he flip flopped all over himself. Go here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/20/153604.shtml) if you would like to see the list that the RNC counted.

Here is my favorite... [ QUOTE ]
Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure."

Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
<hr /></blockquote> It appears Kerry does not even think he has the judgement or credibility to be President. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-21-2004, 02:35 PM
Childish banter....

Do you have anything to say about some real issues?

Ross
09-21-2004, 04:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> It seems Kerry was on a roll today. In his speech at NYU he flip flopped all over himself. Go here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/20/153604.shtml) if you would like to see the list that the RNC counted.

Here is my favorite... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure."

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Usual Newsmax lack of respect for truth. Kerry's statement was deliberately edited in a way to distort what he was saying. Bad technique. Newsmax uses 3 dots to replace 15 words, and actually changes the whole subject of the sentence. What Kerry actually said was:

<ul type="square"> Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
[/list]

Kerry was saying that the chaos in Iraq has left America less secure, not the downfall of Saddam. There is a reasonable argument to be made for that since the Iraqi PM says that terrorists are now pouring into Iraq, that they are having some success there, that they will be able to prevent fair elections in January (they just have to behead a few election officials to accomplish that), that anti-American terrorists will be emboldened by their ability to throw havoc into the plans of the infidel Americans. If the US had gone in with enough troops as counseled by Bush's generals, or if the US had taken on one war at a time and finished up in Afghanistan first, or if the US had the patience to keep pressuring the UN security members for support until we got them on board, the US might indeed be safer now.

The rest of the "contradictions" are pretty much in the same vein - partial quotes taken out of context, meanings deliberately misunderstood.

<font color="brown"> Newsmax - Al Jazeera for the right! </font color>

eg8r
09-21-2004, 06:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Childish banter....

Do you have anything to say about some real issues? <hr /></blockquote> Nope, your conspiracy theories were about all the real issues to talk about. Heard anything new?

eg8r

eg8r
09-21-2004, 06:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kerry:</font><hr> we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Kerry was saying that the chaos in Iraq has left America less secure, not the downfall of Saddam. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I read this as Kerry saying because of the fall of Saddam there is chaos in Iraq and he feels this has lead to less security in America.

Why all of a sudden does Kerry think Iraq is a threat to America?

eg8r

crawdaddio
09-21-2004, 10:00 PM
You're an idiot. Goodbye.

Qtec
09-21-2004, 10:22 PM
Give the guy a break. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif He,s just become a father and is obviously suffering from sleep deprivation.He has an excuse for not making any sense! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fair_Play
09-21-2004, 10:40 PM
Bush and Kerry are idiots. I am an idiot too. It is fun to say "idiot", for sure.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 05:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...If the US had gone in with enough troops as counseled by Bush's generals, or if the US had taken on one war at a time and finished up in Afghanistan first.....<hr /></blockquote>

Afghanistan was relatively stable in March 2003.

According to retired General Tommy Franks there were 9500 troops in Afghanistan before the Iraq war and 10,000 six months later.

FYI

eg8r
09-22-2004, 06:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You're an idiot. Goodbye. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you make a sarcastic remark to me and I took it in jest and replied back to you accordingly. What do you have left, but to start calling names.

eg8r

eg8r
09-22-2004, 06:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He,s just become a father and is obviously suffering from sleep deprivation.He has an excuse for not making any sense! <hr /></blockquote> While I make no excuse for the high quality of my replies, I will admit I had no idea about what sleep deprivation meant prior to having the baby. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Haleigh might actually be a Democrat, funny as you might think. Yesterday morning at about 3AM she woke us up with her best Howard Dean impression. LOL, fed her some food and she mumbled like Teresa Kerry. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 07:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
You're an idiot. Goodbye. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you make a sarcastic remark to me and I took it in jest and replied back to you accordingly. What do you have left, but to start calling names.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I believe crawdaddio is taking a cue from Teraaaaza Heinz-Kerry

at least he did not call you a scumbag /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

crawdaddio
09-22-2004, 09:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
You're an idiot. Goodbye. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you make a sarcastic remark to me and I took it in jest and replied back to you accordingly. What do you have left, but to start calling names.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Allow me to explain myself.
First, my question was not sarcastic, it was an honest question. Most of the threads you post here are related to bashing Kerry. I understand you don't like him, and quite frankly, neither do I. It gets a little tired though. There are many things that I could say about Bush in return, but I don't, I don't think it's relevant.
Second, I called you an idiot for chalking my viewpoints up to "conspiracy theories" when many things I have said are based on fact. You're like a little kid who covers his ears when someone says something he doesn't want to hear. I apologize for the name calling.
Third, I choose to mainly ignore you and your posts because you tend to immediately dismiss anything I have to say without even a hint of open mindedness to check it out. I have seen your arguments with Ross, and basicly you get hung up on semantics.
Don't be surprised if I don't reply to you.
Have a good day.
~DC

Ross
09-22-2004, 09:32 AM
Interestingly, Wally, she didn't call her critics scumbags either. Ironically it was the New Yorker Magazine that misqouted her, but the relentless right wing character assasination machine has run with it like crazy. I'm not being paranoid or partisan here - Drudge, Newsmax, and others do this 24/7. Do a Google search on Heinz-Kerry and scumbag and you will see her vilified as the worst human being ever.

If anyone is interested in the truth, her real quote (it's on tape) was in response to a question by interviewer Sally Wiggin for Channel 4 Action News in Pittsburg:
<ul type="square">
Heinz-Kerry: "I believe there is a nobility in public service. I believe every citizen can be a public servant. And should be," said Heinz Kerry.

Sally Wiggin asked, "Do you think some of the nobility has gone out of public service?"

Heinz Kerry said, "Oh, there is a lot of scumbags everywhere. Not just in politics. In everything. There are a lot of immoral people everywhere."
[/list]
So in reality she was praising the nobility of public service, but since people are so ready to think ill of her, they ran with the lie that was told about her.

We know how the right-wing smear machine works. Kerry is a lying evil coward who doesn't care about his country and has no real beliefs. Heinz-Kerry is an elitist rich stuck up bitch who has supported who has given fortunes to leftist causes (another false charge being disseminated). Edwards is a turncoat no-good scumbag himself. (The right hasn't gotten to his wife yet.) And don't forget the Clintons having Foster killed (and likely their other critics) when Hillary wasn't manipulating the whole Democratic party to satisfy her blind ambitions.

Funny how once a person becomes a serious Democratic challenger or takes office, they all become terrible persons. The sad thing is this anger-driven trashing of Dems works. If you spread enough shxx about someone, people start to believe it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 10:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Interestingly, Wally, she didn't call her critics scumbags either. .....<hr /></blockquote>

Geez Ross it was a joke /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I've heard her "scumbag" quote and I didn't think it was a big deal. But she needs to watch her mouth lest she give <font color="red">"the relentless right wing character assasination machine"</font color> more ammo /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I still think she's a pompous snob, just like her man-pet with his lustrous, finely-groomed hair /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 10:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> ...You're like a little kid who covers his ears when someone says something he doesn't want to hear....<hr /></blockquote>

Wrong. That's Eric. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/PHD/PHD529/200021811-001.jpg

eg8r
09-22-2004, 10:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Don't be surprised if I don't reply to you.
<hr /></blockquote> Waiting with baited breath. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Even though you will not be responding, the conspiracy theories I referred to are not about "everything" you say. I am only referring to the "timing" posts you had made in the past. Those were conspiracy theories all the way. Sorry you were offended by the label.

eg8r

eg8r
09-22-2004, 10:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We know how the right-wing smear machine works. Kerry is a lying evil coward who doesn't care about his country and has no real beliefs. Heinz-Kerry is an elitist rich stuck up bitch who has supported who has given fortunes to leftist causes (another false charge being disseminated). Edwards is a turncoat no-good scumbag himself. (The right hasn't gotten to his wife yet.) And don't forget the Clintons having Foster killed (and likely their other critics) when Hillary wasn't manipulating the whole Democratic party to satisfy her blind ambitions.
<hr /></blockquote> You are right, they are all choir boys. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how once a person becomes a serious Democratic challenger or takes office, they all become terrible persons. The sad thing is this anger-driven trashing of Dems works. If you spread enough shxx about someone, people start to believe it. <hr /></blockquote> Sort of like Dan Rather and the rest of the leftist media trying to portray Bush in this same light. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

highsea
09-22-2004, 10:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Kerry is a lying evil coward who doesn't care about his country and has no real beliefs. Heinz-Kerry is an elitist rich stuck up bitch who has given fortunes to leftist causes ...Edwards is a turncoat no-good scumbag himself. And don't forget the Clintons having Foster killed (and likely their other critics) when Hillary wasn't manipulating the whole Democratic party to satisfy her blind ambitions.<hr /></blockquote>Geez, Ross. Do you have any evidence to back up your accusations? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

J/K. I don't know, Heinz-Kerry is pretty harsh, but that's Kerry's problem, not mine. I good give a sh*t one way or the other about the guys wife.

Ed's OP does make a good point, Kerry has gone back and forth on Iraq so many times that it's impossible to know where he will be tomorrow. Leaving the $87 Million vote out of the argument, Kerry still has a long history of being hostile to the defense industry. And he was opposed to liberating Kuwait in '91. It's all but certain that Saddam would have continued on to Saudi Arabia if we had not stopped him.

The truth about Iraq is, I don't think either Kerry or Bush would've invaded had we known then what we know now. But hindsight is 20/20. There hadn't been inspections for 5 years prior to 2003, so there was no real way to know for sure what the real situation was. I don't think even Saddam knew what he did or didn't have.

I think the real focus should be where do we go from here? Bush is determined to see this thing through, and as far as I am concerned, that's all we can do. Cutting and running is not an option for Iraq or Afghanistan. That would surely lead to hard-line Islamist regimes in both countries, and new safe havens for terrorists. Do you really trust Kerry do prevent this from happening?

-CM

Ross
09-22-2004, 11:04 AM
Ok, haha. Most conservatives seem to believe she actually said it, so I just wanted to correct that lie about her.

I guess I do let it bother me. The continuous, relentless personal attacks on Dems and liberals has lowered the public discussion to ugly name calling. It distracts our country from dealing with the real issues. No one wants to have an honest discussion of what Kerry or Bush's policies would be in the next term. Instead they want to spend all of their time taking statements out of context to prove he is a flip-flopper or a liar or would sell the US down the river or whatever. Or even more irrelevantly they make personal attacks on his wife. Its just a collosal waste of time spent on spewing BS.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-22-2004, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ....they want to spend all of their time taking statements out of context to prove he is a flip-flopper or a liar or would sell the US down the river or whatever. Or even more irrelevantly they make personal attacks on his wife. Its just a collosal waste of time spent on spewing BS.



<hr /></blockquote>

and it's been this way since Andy Jackson ran against Henry Clay in 1836 /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Better get used to it

Ross
09-22-2004, 11:20 AM
Highsea, thanks for an actually thoughtful and honest reply. It is a breath of fresh air in the midst of all of the anti-Kerry mudslinging.

Can't reply now though, cause I actually have to do some work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Ross
09-22-2004, 11:26 AM
True, Wally, it probably goes back to caveman times. And it has been a lot stupider (good word?) and worse in the past. But that doesn't mean I like it and I'm not going to complain about it, especially when it is coming from my fellow CCB'ers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ross
09-22-2004, 09:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> You're an idiot. Goodbye. <hr /></blockquote>

Crawdaddio, I almost wrote the same reply but I caught myself. When I saw that eg8r's "favorite flip-flop" of Kerry turned out to be something he never said, I wanted to call him an idiot. And then when this fact was pointed out to him, he stooped to totally misinterpreting Kerry's actual quote (Eg8r interpreted it as - ready for this - "Kerry all of a sudden thinks Iraq is a threat to the US") I was again tempted to call him an idiot.

But I reminded myself that he's not. He just suffers from an overwhelming need to spew pro-conservative rhetoric no matter what the evidence. The reason it is so frustrating is that arguing with Eg8r is like arguing with a clever retarded person. Know what I mean?

He is smart enough to make sense for a while, but then he jumps off into "lala land" if necessary to prove the consevative point of view as being right. And of course he likes the reaction he get when he argues that way. If he misquotes you and insults you and you react, he turns it on you and asks "what's your problem?" Classic crazy-making behavior and he is good at it.

My advice it to just see him as a person who for some unknown psychological or neurological reason is limited in his ability or willingness to actually have an honest fair discussion of political matters. If you think of it as neurological damage it won't bother you so much. Instead have your political debates with the conservatives on this board who actually have some regard for the truth like Highsea, Pooltchr, Wally, and so on.

And of course retain your right to correct Eg8r's frequent mistatements and gross distortions on this board - just don't expect him to do anything but spew more nonsense in response or you will continue to be disappointed and frustrated.

Good luck with it. I am resigned to riding out his voluminous spewing about me after this post. (reverse psychology works with him)

eg8r
09-23-2004, 07:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(reverse psychology works with him)
<hr /></blockquote> You got me all figured out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
09-23-2004, 07:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The continuous, relentless personal attacks on Dems and liberals has lowered the public discussion to ugly name calling. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, now that you bring it up, it appears you and crawdaddio are leading the way.

eg8r

pooltchr
09-23-2004, 08:10 AM
Ross,
I have listened to the candidates speeches, and quite honestly, I have heard Kerry/Edwards tell us how bad W is, how he's made a mess of the war, how the economy is falling apart because of him, etc. They tell us they have a plan, but I have yet to hear any specifics as to what they would do to improve things. Saying you will have the troops home in 6 months doesn't qualify as a plan. What happens in Iraq if we just bring the troops home?
Like Bush or not, we know what he is going to do, and you have to admit that although you might think he is a hard liner, he sticks to what he says. I think our enemy's know this and it scares them.

Can you share any specific plans Kerry has offered to improve things? I have been listening for them, but haven't heard them. They seem more interested in telling us how bad W is rather than WHY they are better.
Steve

Ross
09-23-2004, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The continuous, relentless personal attacks on Dems and liberals has lowered the public discussion to ugly name calling. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, now that you bring it up, it appears you and crawdaddio are leading the way.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

This is the kind of nonsense I was talking about. After 650 posts I make one comment and now I am "leading the way." You really want to compare your record to mine on this score? This is why discussions with you Eg8r are so worthless. You just throw crap out there - it doesn't have to be true or make sense.

nAz
09-23-2004, 09:33 AM
eg8r has been Hannitized! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

highsea
09-23-2004, 11:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Can you share any specific plans Kerry has offered to improve things?<hr /></blockquote>Steve, I share your confusion on Kerry's stance to Iraq. In a December 2003 speech before the council on Foreign Relations, Kerry's position was basically to hand over the authority in Iraq to the UN.[ QUOTE ]
"Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes," he added. "I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador [L. Paul] Bremer [III] and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a U.N. special representative for Iraq." <hr /></blockquote> In this speech, he also took the opportunity to hammer Saudi Arabia and make some threats to other unnamed countries and institutions. (They just love it in the ME when the US starts talking about sanctions.)
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry devoted considerable attention to Saudi Arabia for having allowed financing of terrorist groups and said that in his first 100 days in office, he would launch a "name and shame" campaign against individuals, banks, and foreign governments that are financing terror. He indicated he was not satisfied with the Saudi assertions that they have cracked down on funding and support of terrorist activities.

"Those who fail to respond will be shut out of American financial markets," he said.<hr /></blockquote> He also took a moment to explain his vote on the war. [ QUOTE ]
"I believed a year ago and I believe now that we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and that the United States needed to lead in that effort," he said in explaining his vote. "But this administration did it in the worst possible way--without the United Nations, without our allies, without a legitimate plan to win the peace."

Soon after taking office, he said, he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."<hr /></blockquote> The article (http://www.cfr.org/pub6577/bernard_gwertzman/kerry_calls_for_un_control_of_iraq.php)

Let's fast forward to March. This is when he started talking about adding the 40,000 more troops. Also, he continued his vocalizations about "Internationalizing" the conflict, and implied (as he still does) that he could bring in the UN and the SC members who opposed the war.

However, he failed to explain why more US troops were going to be needed if he was going to get all this support from the International community, or how he was going to get them to join a cause they didn't support in the first place.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0403/21/a19-97848.htm

By late April, he had added training of security forces to his strategy. His plan:

1. Utilize our assets: give more troops when asked for. (the 40,000)
2. Go to the UN
3. Create a NATO out-of-area operation to improve training of security forces [ QUOTE ]
First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

(The third Element) We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people.<hr /></blockquote> Kerry Speech (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html)
also:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040430-035011-3479r.htm

Now point #1 is pure fantasy, imo, if he thinks that France, Russia, and China are going to commit troops to Iraq. Point #2 was already in place, and had been for 6 months (UNSC resolution 1511). Point #3 was also in place, the main police training center in Jordan took it's first group of Cadets back in the previous November. Training operations in the UAE and in Iraq were also well underway.

By August, he had apparently backed off of his plan to add troops, and we started hearing about his plan to withdraw the troops in 6 months. This was soon revised to 1/2 the troops by "Christmas", and today his plan seems to be a complete withdrawal by the end of his first term.

Moving ahead. on Sept. 9, the Kerry campaign made a statement defending his lack of clarity on the issue: [ QUOTE ]
It's fair to assert that something is coming, but we don't feel the time is right to stress our precise strategy for Iraq," a senior Kerry adviser said. "We're shaping proposals, we're thinking about them . . . But we don't want to tie the senator's hands by staking a plan right now. Iraq is so complex, we have to tread carefully."

Campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, when asked if Kerry would explain how he would withdraw troops in four years, said: "I think you'll see John Kerry's plans for Iraq unfolding as the race continues this fall."<hr /></blockquote>The article (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/09/kerry_calls_iraq_war_catastrophic_choice/)

Finally, a few days ago, he unveiled his long awaited "official strategy":[ QUOTE ]
1. Convene a summit of major powers and Iraq's neighbors to get them to honor financial and other commitments made in a U.N. resolution last spring. Let them bid on reconstruction contracts and help develop oil resources.

2. Expand and speed up training for Iraqi security forces and stop misleading the U.S. public "with phony, inflated numbers."

3. Shift post-war focus to "quick-impact" projects that employ more Iraqis and fewer corporations like Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney used to run. Fire people who mismanaged reconstruction.

4. Take immediate steps to make sure elections can be held next year. The United Nations has only 25% of the staff it needs for the election, Kerry said.<hr /></blockquote> Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-kerry-iraq-plan_x.htm)

All in all, I can't see anything substantial in Kerry's "strategy" that is not already being done, except the intention to give reconstruction and development contracts to countries that did not support the war, and his "name and shame" plan.

But hey, listen, if Kerry can get France, Russia, and China to publicly state that they will commit troops to Iraq if Kerry is elected, then I will vote for him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So the question we have to ask ourselves is, can Kerry execute Bush's Iraq strategy better than Bush?

-CM

Fair_Play
09-23-2004, 11:33 AM
Highsea,
While you make a few points, you are missing the Grand Strategy:

# 1. The world leaders who met with, and support Kerry (names not divulged to protect them) for President, will be also assisting him to decide the proper courses of action.

# 2. The Clinton experts are now allowing JFKH to tell them how badly he wants to be president, and they will assist him mightily by making all of their polling data availabe prior to any speeches he makes so he gets it "just right" each time...

It is interesting for me to realize how incredibly biased I am, and at the same time to understand that bias is always working on both (or more) sides. My opinions have been validated from a lifetime of experience, but then, so have the opinions of others. I guess it just comes down to core beliefs. I simply cannot stomach a man who shows every sign of being, in the end, simply self-serving.

Being somewhat to the right of Atilla the Hun, every once in awhile it occurs to me that perhaps while my view is not shared by everyone, how it is that similar life experiences result in such divergent ideas about how to accomplish the same thing: Peace and Freedom.

Best Regards,

Fair Play

eg8r
09-23-2004, 11:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of nonsense I was talking about. After 650 posts I make one comment and now I am "leading the way." <hr /></blockquote> You sure are, just go back through this thread and take a look at your posts and see if you were not hypocritically doing exactly what you blame the Cons were doing. You can do you best at climbing your way up, but your post above in which you agreed with Crawdaddio is nothing more than the crap you are blaming the Cons for doing.

[ QUOTE ]
You really want to compare your record to mine on this score? This is why discussions with you Eg8r are so worthless. You just throw crap out there - it doesn't have to be true or make sense. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you feel if you are not as bad as the person you perceive to be so bad, then you are alright. Sorry, you are the one that lowered yourself to that level and I refuse to lower myself to join you.

eg8r

Ross
09-23-2004, 12:31 PM
Highsea and Steve as I've said before, I agree completely that Kerry hasn't been clear on what he would do in Iraq. Highsea's summary is as good as any I've seen.

My take is that Kerry is mainly saying that as CEO's Bush and Rummy have made a lot of very poor decisions. These decisions have gotten us into a mess that is much worse than it needed to be and has cost us in terms of the lives of American soldiers and in terms of lost respect around the world, and in increased hatred for the US that will likely fuel more terrorism. And Kerry points out numerous places that he thinks Bush took a wrong turn. But he is having difficulty saying much more than he would be a better CEO and that he would be better at working with our historical allies.

Part of the issue is that the actions that this administration has taken so far (getting us involved in rebuilding two unstable Islamic nations at once, alienating the leaders of both our allied countries and the UN, sending insufficient troops to keep the Iraq insurgency/terrorism from taking root, etc.) have put us in a situation that leaves few degrees of freedom for a new leader to come in and fix. Or troops are spread thin, no one wants to help us, and radical Islamic terrorists have been emboldened by their "successes" in Iraq (getting countries and companies to pull out of the rebuilding effort). Whoever wins is going to continue to have major problems with Iraq for years to come.

pooltchr
09-23-2004, 02:12 PM
Ross,
If we have alienated the UN, it is because they don't have the backbone to stand behind their words. How many times did the UN tell Sadam to get his act together or face the consequences? How many times did he flip them off?

Bush took the UN at their word...comply with the resolutions or face serious consequences. He didn't comply, and when Bush called his bluff, the UN chickened out. The UN has no credibility left. It seems like half the membership is made up of dictators and the like. (Which country heads up the human rights committee for the UN??????)

As for our allies, well France and Germany were raking in money hand over fist with the oil for food program they controlled through the UN in Iraq. Not hard to see how they were going to feel about upsetting the apple cart.

I admit we have made some judgement errors in this mess...but I still stand behind the ultimate decision to get rid of Sadam. War is never pretty, but it's one that needed fighting, and it's one that we need to win. For that, I choose the Cowboy over the Windsurfer anytime!
Steve

Ross
09-24-2004, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Ross,
If we have alienated the UN, it is because they don't have the backbone to stand behind their words. How many times did the UN tell Sadam to get his act together or face the consequences? How many times did he flip them off?

Bush took the UN at their word...comply with the resolutions or face serious consequences. He didn't comply, and when Bush called his bluff, the UN chickened out. The UN has no credibility left. It seems like half the membership is made up of dictators and the like. (Which country heads up the human rights committee for the UN??????)

As for our allies, well France and Germany were raking in money hand over fist with the oil for food program they controlled through the UN in Iraq. Not hard to see how they were going to feel about upsetting the apple cart.

I admit we have made some judgement errors in this mess...but I still stand behind the ultimate decision to get rid of Sadam. War is never pretty, but it's one that needed fighting, and it's one that we need to win. For that, I choose the Cowboy over the Windsurfer anytime!
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve, have you every tried to get 10 people to agree to anything? Well, the UN is this many times over. It has a lot of inertia and it's diversity is literally as broad as the entire world. Like any gigantic bureaucracy, it is a difficult -- but not impossible -- place to get things done. And even then, when it does something, like any bureaucracy it will make some boneheaded moves as well. And of course it does some things better than others (for example it runs elections better than it invades countries).

That being said, it is the only organization that has any hope of getting the world's civilized countries all working somewhat together instead of against each other. And there is a big payoff on those occasions you can get that happening. And it has done successful operations in the past, despite what you hear from the conservative media.

Now to Iraq. The UN had indeed been dragging it's feet on the Iraq inspections. Bush was on the right track in upping the pressure on the UN to do a better job and it was working - an often overlooked fact. (Nothing like a crazy sounding self-righteous yahoo with power to get the world's attention. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) Inspectors were back in. Sure Saddam was playing cat and mouse, but the cat usually eventually gets the mouse. And when senators like Kerry gave Bush the authority to go to war as a last resort the pressure on the UN Security Council increased significantly. Even chicken France, as a last ditch effort to avoid war, put fort a plan to require Saddam to accept triple the number of inspectors in Iraq, plus a bunch of other tougher inspection requirements.

If the US had not been so bullheaded at this point we would have accepted the tougher inspections plan and stayed on the UN's butt as much as necessary. Would that have given us 100% assurance that we had found every last weapons lab in Iraq? No. Would getting the Security council to keep moving forward feel like pushing toothpaste back into the tube? Yes. But Iraq was no more than a pimple on the terrorist butt. We knew Iran was close to the nuclear bomb. We knew that Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were still ACTIVE hotbed breeding grounds of Islamic terrorists. So a highly inspected Iraq led by a selfish thug like Saddam should have been the least of our worries. Saddam didn't share the religious fanaticism of the Arab terrorists. As long as he was getting his thuggish jollies he was pretty content. Now his neighbors - they had some reasons to be worried. But Saddam knew that another invasion of another country would be his own death knell, so even they were safer than before the '91 war.

By sticking to the pressure, but tempering it with the patience that accompanies wisdom, over time Bush could have pushed Saddam into doing something that would force even the slow-moving UN Council to agree to take action. That is, he could have if he knew how to do what has worked politically throughout history: intelligently combining diplomacy with behind the scenes arm-twisting, deal-making, and ego-massaging. Read the biographies of the great leaders who got their nations through tough times - they knew how and when to let their adversaries save face in public even while pressuring them in private, they knew when to push and when to lay off. And they knew how to tailor their tactics differently to be effective with different leaders, they understood human nature and took that important element into account when trying to get cooperation or capitulation. And they were effective in the long run. The neo-con "Fxxx You" approach to foreign affairs that Cheney/Rumsfeld implement through Bush sounds good at first glance but it is naive about human nature. It suffers from a fatal flaw -Relying on force and threats of force alone work .... until you turn your back. In terrorist times, this is an important lesson.

hondo
09-27-2004, 10:58 AM
Bush is running the slickest campaign since Nixon
and his dirty tricks dept. Two dollar gas, 1100
dead Americans, Halliburton making billions,liberal
spending and all we can harp on is Kerry's a
liberal flip-flopper. There's a sucker born every
minute.

Ross
09-27-2004, 07:43 PM
You got it Hondo. Deficits increasing, stock market falling, US soldiers dying, terrorist recruiting florishing, middle class stagnant, and the rich getting richer. Ahhh...it's the best of times. At least George W. Bush didn't exaggerate his purple hearts to get out of that noble war in Vietnam!

Fair_Play
09-27-2004, 07:55 PM
Kerry got out of Viet Nam because he is smarter (or some other word) than the average cat. Me? Doing better finacially than ever before in my life, and it isn't because of Bush, that is for sure. Woulda been nice if the Iraqui's had thrown our troops a barbecue - they learned all too well from their culture, and from Saddam that cruelty is a great motivator, and the cruelest rule. It is going to be interesting to see how this rides out. We coulda stayed under our beds, or gone into Afganistan ir Iran.. that is if we are simply going to stay in Fortress Amerika. Sorta like WWI and like WWII, when the nation at first felt none of our business. We coulda mebbe cut a deal with Hitler, given him Canada or perhaps Mexico.. I dunno, Iraq seems a lot like Mexico in the 1950's, corrupt officials, different factions, revolutions every fifteen minutes. The only difference? Instead of plaster bulls for souvenirs, we got camel saddles.. course, if we do go into Iran, would be good thing to have a "stable" Iraq to launch from, Kofi Annan ain't goin to do a thing, boyo, that is fer sure!

All the Best,

Fair Play

eg8r
09-28-2004, 07:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You got it Hondo. Deficits increasing, stock market falling, US soldiers dying, terrorist recruiting florishing, middle class stagnant, and the rich getting richer. Ahhh...it's the best of times. At least George W. Bush didn't exaggerate his purple hearts to get out of that noble war in Vietnam! <hr /></blockquote> Doom and gloom, that is all you have left. Since your man offers nothing promising, you are banking on the hope that people will just vote against Bush. Your post is exactly the type of stuff the liberal media pumps out to the world. One might be a bit ignorant to believe nothing good has happened, yet this is all you are willing to offer. Doom and gloom.


eg8r

pooltchr
09-28-2004, 07:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> stock market falling, <hr /></blockquote>

Ross,
The stock market is about 30% haigher than it was following 9/11

hondo
09-28-2004, 07:35 AM
Eg8r, sadly, you're about half right. I'm voting
against Bush. Where's a good democrat like Bill
Clinton when you need him?

Ross
09-28-2004, 10:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> stock market falling, <hr /></blockquote>

Ross,
The stock market is about 30% haigher than it was following 9/11 <hr /></blockquote>

Steve that is certainly not true of the Dow Jones nor the Nasdaq. For both charts, note performance since Bush Jr. took office in '01:

Dow Jones since inception:
http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/dowjones.gif

Nasdaq since '00:
http://www.duke.edu/~rulmer/nasdaq.gif

nAz
09-28-2004, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> Doom and gloom, that is all you have left. Since your man offers nothing promising, you are banking on the hope that people will just vote against Bush. Your post is exactly the type of stuff the liberal media pumps out to the world. One might be a bit ignorant to believe nothing good has happened, yet this is all you are willing to offer. Doom and gloom.


eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Funny all i hear from the "liberal media" is how much of a flip flopper Kerry is. Boy Bush's team sure is good at deflecting attention from whats really going on, i gotta give that to them.

eg8r
09-28-2004, 01:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Funny all i hear from the "liberal media" is how much of a flip flopper Kerry is. <hr /></blockquote> Are you saying you don't hear the doom and gloom from the liberal media? What good news have you heard from Afghanistan and Iraq? Any? Could ALL the news possibly be ONLY bad?

eg8r

Ross
09-28-2004, 03:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Quote:
One might be a bit ignorant ...
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Must you alway be an ass?

highsea
09-28-2004, 03:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Steve that is certainly not true of the Dow Jones nor the Nasdaq. For both charts, note performance since Bush Jr. took office in '01:<hr /></blockquote>Well Ross, I hate to disagree with you, but your charts seems to back up pooltchr. Looking at the 3rd quarter of 01, the Dow looks about 8200 and the Nasdaq looks like it dipped under 1500. So both now are higher than they were on 9/11.

I agree they are both lower than when Bush took office, which was in the beginning of a significant recession, which 9/11 magnified. However, both also experienced stready growth in 03, and are not doing all that bad right now, considering where oil prices are at.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2004, 05:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...when Bush took office, which was in the beginning of a significant recession, which 9/11 magnified. .... <hr /></blockquote>

Throw in some corporate scandal and the dot-com bust and it's no wonder we're running a deficit right now.

Of course the deficit would be smaller if the pols didn't spend like drunken sailors on shore leave.

eg8r
09-29-2004, 07:11 AM
My post was correct, I just did not fluff it enough for you. I am hopeful you did not take the ignorant statement personally as it was not directed at you. It also is the correct adjective for someone who would not be paying attention to all the facts, and only relying on doom and gloom posts like yours for information.

eg8r

Qtec
09-29-2004, 08:40 AM
NY Times,
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread
By JAMES GLANZ and THOM SHANKER

AGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 28 - Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.

<hr /></blockquote>

Doesnt look good for the elections.

Q

hondo
09-29-2004, 10:19 AM
No, it's correct for anyone who doesn't think like
you,right. It would be so much easier for Big Brother
if we all thought like you.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> My post was correct, I just did not fluff it enough for you. I am hopeful you did not take the ignorant statement personally as it was not directed at you. It also is the correct adjective for someone who would not be paying attention to all the facts, and only relying on doom and gloom posts like yours for information.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Ross
09-29-2004, 10:59 AM
Hondo, it's the old Limbaugh trick - if you criticize a conservative administration you are "all doom and gloom." If conservatives criticize Dems or liberals it is "fair and balanced." Remember it is always better to ridicule and criticize the person who disagrees with you than to have an intelligent discussion of the issues. The latter requires thinking - the former doesn't.

eg8r
09-29-2004, 11:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's correct for anyone who doesn't think like
you,right. <hr /></blockquote> This does not even make any sense. I make a comment and your rebuttal begins with the word No, then you begin to switch it around and end with the word "right". No, I think your summation was incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be so much easier for Big Brother
if we all thought like you.
<hr /></blockquote> This has nothing to do with big brother, it has everything to do with Ross' gloomy look on everything. I am not asking for anything to be easier for "big brother" but rather to just recognize that his existence in political threads has been nearly doom and gloom on all the issues. I really don't remember the last time Ross mentioned something positive that was happening in Iraq let alone any of the other issues.

eg8r

eg8r
09-29-2004, 11:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hondo, it's the old Limbaugh trick - if you criticize a conservative administration you are "all doom and gloom." If conservatives criticize Dems or liberals it is "fair and balanced." <hr /></blockquote> This is not about conservative or liberal administrations. Why is this soooo tough for you to understand. Please, by all means, show me a post in which you had something positive to say about what has happened in Iraq. Just to clarify this for you, I am not asking you to disagree with anything I have said, I am just asking for you to show some examples of you mentioning the good things that have happened. Surely you could do that right? Is it possible that absolutely everything has gone wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember it is always better to ridicule and criticize the person who disagrees with you than to have an intelligent discussion of the issues. The latter requires thinking - the former doesn't. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, in your backhanded ridiculing nature I would like to clarify the fact that I am not ridiculing you, I am pointing out a fact. You have not offered anything positive. By all means, if you have and I missed it I will post accordingly.

I don't really expect you to go through all your posts but if you think you have mentioned positive things then please let me know.

eg8r &lt;~~~wondering if I should have just said all this in a post to hondo? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross
09-29-2004, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Must you alway be an ass?

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> My post was correct, I just did not fluff it enough for you.

I am hopeful you did not take the ignorant statement personally as it was not directed at you. It also is the correct adjective for someone who would not be paying attention to all the facts, and only relying on doom and gloom posts like yours for information.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Apparently the answer is yes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

eg8r
09-29-2004, 11:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq <hr /></blockquote> Why not call them terrorists, muslim extremists? If they really wanted us out of Iraq, why are they killing innocent civilians and not just focusing on the military?

eg8r

eg8r
09-29-2004, 11:34 AM
OK, I get it, you are not interested in addressing the post, your are more interested in name calling. I mention the content of your posts and the best you have is resorting to name calling.

eg8r

hondo
09-29-2004, 12:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> OK, I get it, you are not interested in addressing the post, your are more interested in name calling. I mention the content of your posts and the best you have is resorting to name calling.

I just want you all to know I love each and every one
of you just the way you are. Cheers, Hondo

eg8r
09-29-2004, 12:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I just want you all to know I love each and every one
of you just the way you are. Cheers, Hondo <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
09-29-2004, 06:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Remember it is always better to ridicule and criticize the person who disagrees with you than to have an intelligent discussion of the issues. The latter requires thinking - the former doesn't. <hr /></blockquote>

Ross, I agree 100%. Now, it sure would be nice to hear what positive, specific ideas Kerry has for the future, rather than just hearing his campaign tell us what a terrible president W has been.

Ross
09-29-2004, 11:45 PM
Steve, I honestly don't know why you (and others) keep claiming this. You are a bright guy and you must know that Kerry talks almost daily in his stump speeches about his plans if he wins for education, health care, Iraq, the economy, tax policy, etc. So it is not true that all he does is criticize Bush.

Are you going by the sound bites we read and hear in the print and TV media? If so, then apply the same critical ear to both sides. If you do you will find that all you will hear is Kerry blasting Bush and Bush blasting Kerry. That is because controversy -- not policy statements -- draws readers and viewers.

And if you are serious about wanting to know Kerry's vs. Bush's platform but don't want to listen (or read on the internet) one of their daily stump speeches you can read the "specific" plans of each at their respective websites ( www.georgebush.com (http://www.georgebush.com) and www.johnkerry.com (http://www.johnkerry.com)). You will find that both are equally vague but, to their credit, at least they both do convey their differing philosophies.

Now if your point is that Kerry spends too much time criticizing Bush then I agree completely. He comes across as petulant. And Bush spends too much time mocking Kerry. He comes across like a jerk. But the Republicans have mastered the art of effectively tearing down the character of their opponents, and Kerry and the rest of the Dems are sad amateurs when they try to fight back in the same vein. And to make matters worse for the Dems, Kerry is a terrible speech writer and speaker and unlike Bush, apparently he unwisely writes his own. Mistake Kerry.

And don't worry Steve - you will get 4 more years of Bush. I hope your choice pans out for all of us. I'm not being sarcastic - I really hope all goes well in Iraq and for the US. Even if it is under another Bush term. But I still think the guy is a moron. Sorry, buddy. If it helps I think Kerry is fairly moronic himself - I just happen to agree with the Dems principles more (keeping the government out of my morality, not imposing a religion on me or on our nations science, not thinking that macho is the way to solve everything, not favoring the rich over you and me, not sacrificing our environment for short term commercial gain, not glorifying consumption over conservation, not thumbing our nose at the rest of the world, etc.) Just call me crazy, I guess. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

pooltchr
09-30-2004, 05:19 AM
Ross,
The following is taken directly from the Kerry web site.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
<font color="blue">Kerry and Edwards have a plan. What is it? New weapons? different training? How are they going to make sure we have enough troops? The Draft?????? (speaking of which, the Dems are trying to say Bush will start the draft again...but when the idea came up in congress, it was the Dems who presented the idea) Oh yes, How do they plan to pay for their plan? Kerry has not shown any desire to increase military funding in the past. </font color>


Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
<font color="blue"> The appeal of our values and ideas??? If our values and ideas were appealing to the rest of the world, I don't think there would be such strong anti-American sentiment in the middle east. </font color>


Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

<font color="blue"> What alternatives is he suggesting? Our oil has to come from somewhere. If not the middle east, then where? Are we going to expand off shore drilling? Force auto makers to build more hybrids? They are more expensive. What would that do to the economy? The poor folks like us will have a harder time making ends meet. </font color>

I'm not trying to be difficult. These are the kind of questions I really wish BOTH candidates would address. Ideally, I would like to hear how they plan to get government out of my pocket, but I know better than to expect that. So at least tell me how you are going to spend the money you take out of my check each week.

Am I better off than I was 4 years ago? Probably not any better, probably not any worse. What will my answer to that question be in 2008? Right now they are both leaving me guessing.

I'm very frustrated with the both of them. It's hard to believe that in this whole country, these are the two best choices we have for the office. As I have stated before, I have to lean toward the lesser of two evils.

Ross
09-30-2004, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> It's hard to believe that in this whole country, these are the two best choices we have for the office.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ain't that the truth!

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2004, 10:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> It's hard to believe that in this whole country, these are the two best choices we have for the office.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ain't that the truth! <hr /></blockquote>

Actually people have been saying this since James K. Polk ran for office /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It might be a while before we see another Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan

or maybe not

<font color="red">[i][b]Rudy</font color> <font color="blue">in 2008 </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
09-30-2004, 11:51 AM
Kerry does not bother with the "how" of anything. Kerry often talks about new things he would like to do, however he has yet to talk about anything that he would CUT (the real way to reduce deficit is to reduce spending, not spend more and tax, which is the moronic democratic way in which W has halfway bought into). If he was absolutely serious about reducing the deficit he would quit mentioning all the things he is going to spend money on (health care at an increase of 1 trillion dollars).

The true way to reduce debt is TO QUIT SPENDING and definitely reduce increased spending. W does not understand this and no democrat has either. The only plan in which Kerry has given the "how" is on paying for debt. He is going to increase taxes unfairly on one specific demographic (while not reducing any loopholes that allows himself out of paying the additional taxes), reduce taxes on another and continue spending. There has been ZERO mention of reduction in spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes, How do they plan to pay for their plan? <hr /></blockquote> Increase taxes on the wealthy, reduce taxes on the middle, and pilfer from Social Security (a Clinton favorite).

eg8r

hondo
09-30-2004, 12:32 PM
AMEN!!!