Tell me, IROC, which of the following issues do you think is not important to address? Healthcare for our people, especially children. Improving education rather than paying lip service. Actually making our country more secure by increasing port inspections, cargo inspections, and funding to police, fire departments, and EMTs. Increasing employment, specifically concentrating on high paying jobs rather than the low end service jobs being added now. Reversing the damage done to the environment by the administration's rewriting and redefining of EPA policy to meet the needs of industry. Reducing the record setting deficit this supposed "conservative" has racked up. Kerry's plan includes sharing the costs in Iraq with other countries, reducing the need for our tax dollars there and funding some of the list above. If you think that any of the above list is optional, then we have very different views of fiscal and social policy, but that list is a very important one. Every one of those objectives would have been covered if our cowboy president could have gotten over his hardon for attacking Iraq. Kerry will get us out of this mess with the least pain.
Do you not listen? I am not a Democrat. It is causing a ton of cognitive dissonance for me to have to vote for a Democrat, but that is just what has happened. I can't wait until the GOP puts up someone worth voting for again.
So let me get this straight. You think that countries that won't commit troops to fight for it will commit funds to rebuild it? *rimshot* The alarm clock is unplugged at your house, but you still need to wake up. If you don't make defense your number one priority in this day and age, you may not have a country left to defend. Kerry makes no attempt at hiding his tax increases, yet at the same time will cut defense. So who's plan doesn't add up? The one that cuts defense and thinks that will automatically make terrorism back down. All the intelligence expenditure increase in the world does not equal the weapons and troops to fight them. That's akin to an increase in the white collar job market while driving down the blue collar jobs that actually do the labor that make the white collar's fat. Um "no." btw- way to keep using "TDS" (the stinkin' Daily Show - on COMEDY CENTRAL) as a solid news resource in the quotable, credibile, trustworthy status........ LOL!
What are you talking about? I pointed out what I had changed, that is not a misquote. And if this is my "usual" please enlighten me as to how I've "misquoted" people in the past. Perhaps you need to revise your definition of a misquote.
Sorry, should have said "as usual for the Kerry crowd." That better? Shhhhhh! Hear that? It's the waaaaaaaaahh-mbulance on it's way.
Says who and since when? Is America in danger of getting terminated? Please, we already are still the most dominant...it's just a matter of how we want to use that dominance. Democrats and some independents like myself beleive that acting as the aggressor globally will only lead to more problems down the road, ESPECIALLY if it involves the Middle East, where Bush is trying his hardest to let America enter the thousand year old jihad that's been going on there.
Ummm. Make that the "1400+ year old jihad that came to our soil as of 9/11/2001." There. And btw - there too is the answers to "Says who and since when?" Your power out too?
That's not true. AlQaeda's sect is a relatively new branch that is 100 years old and there weren't Islamic terrorist attacks pre-Ottoman disolving. Also, Al Qaeda decleared war a decade ago. Please don't try to use simple words to make up for lies
You are ignorant of Kerry's plans. Kerry plans to INCREASE troop strength. Hopefully there will be one defense operation that Kerry will cut and that's STAR WARS. That one doesn't defend us against anything is a waste of money. If you want to bash Kerry's plan the least you could do would be to read it, or familiarize yourself with it. Other than that will you please name me one defense cut Kerry has said he will make?
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040904133709990007&cid=946 Bush Leads in Race to 270 Electoral Votes By RON FOURNIER, AP WASHINGTON (Sept. 4) - In a seesaw campaign, President Bush has opened a lead over John Kerry in their drive to White House victory by making gains in the Midwest and solidifying his Southern base. The race is spread over 19 states, with the fiercest competition in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, according to state polls and interviews with strategists in both parties. Two months before Election Day, the president has 20 states firmly in his column and eight leaning his way, for a total of 237 electoral votes. It takes 270 to win the White House. The Democratic challenger has 11 states plus the District of Columbia in hand, with five states leaning his way. That puts Kerry at 211 electoral votes. Just two weeks ago, state polling was breaking toward Kerry on the heels of the Democratic convention in Boston. Surveys had shown him opening narrow leads in Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire and a few other hotly contested states. Campaign aides talked of an electoral cruise. Expectations were raised, which is dangerous when voters are so evenly divided. In Kerry's case, his fortunes reversed when the Republican-leaning Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aired an ad in early August accusing the Vietnam war hero of exaggerating his combat record. Kerry belatedly condemned the claims, only after the campaign stir made an issue of his credibility and led to questions about his anti-war activities 33 years ago. By the time Bush's nominating convention began in New York, Kerry had lost the advantage he had coming out of Boston a month ago. That gave Bush a huge opportunity with a convention script pitched to moderate voters and reminders at every turn of the president's leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks. Two polls released after the convention, which ended Thursday, gave Bush a double-digit lead nationwide. Some Democrats were demanding changes in the Kerry campaign, saying the incumbent was threatening to put the race away. Others urged calm, knowing it would fall on deaf ears. ''If we as a party all agree not to panic, these polls will not be enormously important,'' said Jim Jordan, who faced his share of party angst as Kerry's first campaign manager. ''In the seven or eight states where this thing is going to be decided, I can promise you there are no double-digit leads.'' He appears to be right, though it will take another week to determine whether the president got a boost in the battlegrounds from the convention - in what states, and for how long. According to the AP analysis, Bush made small but significant gains even before the convention ''bounce'' became part of the equation. While the Swift boat flap turned the debate away from the ailing economy and the Iraq war, the political landscape shifted just enough in Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Nevada to nudge those states from the ''tossup'' category to ''lean-Bush.'' Three states moved from lean-Kerry to tossup - Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Virginia and Louisiana shifted from lean-Bush to solid Bush, with Kerry virtually abandoning efforts to expand the playing field deep into the South. Arkansas and North Carolina, home of Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, remain marginally in play. The most ominous changes for Kerry are Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states with a combined 31 electoral votes that Democrat Al Gore won four years ago. They are the president's top targets for a pickup. Ohio and Florida, with a combined 47 electoral votes, were won by Bush in 2000 and are Kerry's best pickup opportunities on Nov. 2. Both are in the tossup category, narrowly so. Because of population shifts that added electoral votes to GOP states since 2000, Kerry can reclaim every state won by Gore and still fall 10 electoral votes short of 270. Judging by the up-and-down history of this race, Kerry can still recoup his lost ground. Indeed, the political map today is within a few electoral votes of where it stood in mid-July, just before Kerry's convention, when an AP analysis had Bush ahead 217-193. But Kerry focused his convention almost exclusively on his Vietnam War record. The strategy temporarily narrowed Bush's advantages on national security and who would make the best commander in chief. Then came attacks on his Vietnam record, which dominated the political debate for most of August. As he opened the fall campaign by criticizing Bush's economic record, Kerry said Friday, ''The president wants you to re-elect him? For what?'' Voters will be asking a similar question: You want us to send an incumbent president into early retirement. For what? Their answer will determine who wins this volatile race.
Great, so we've done exactly what they wanted and the battle has gone on for even longer. Unless you naively think that OBL & Co.'s goal from 9/11 was to have America put their hands up in the air and surrender. Of course he knew that we would go after him and the ME in general hard post 9/11 - we have, and, unfortunately, we may now be stuck in this jihad? No there aren't because you're statement was one of suppossed fact, which at this point in time is unprovable. Unless you can somehow point me to definitive evidence that shows that if we don't make defense our number 1 priority, America will cease to exist in the future. Now if that is your opinion, and you think there is evidence (current evidence, historical analogies where appropriate) to support that opinion, that's okay - I just disagree.
If the US is led by someone other than the person who thumbed his nose at the rest of the world in attacking Iraq in the first place, yes they will. The entire world has a vested interest in seeing that Iraq does not devolve into a mire of civil war and Islamic fundamentalism. They will help, but our leadership and the way we do business will have to change first. I am not the one ignoring the evidence and lies of this administration. WHEN THE HE!! HAS KERRY EVER SAID HE WILL CUT DEFENSE??? Rhetorical question because HE HASN'T! He has consistently stated that he will NOT cut defense for the very reasons you state. He has committed to creating a cabinet level intelligence position per the 9/11 commission report and has committed to increasing the funding for the intelligence services dramatically. It is your lies and distortions that don't add up. Kerry has committed to INCREASING the size of the military! He wants to add 40,000 troops in the Army alone. In addition, the only cuts Kerry has even considered have been to SDI, which is one of the biggest wastes of money out there when that funding could have covered some of the costs of the Iraq debacle. Um, let me type slowly so you can understand. kerry was on TDS and that is one of the places I have seen him speak. I also quoted his appearance on "Meet the Press" because that is one other place I ahve seen Kerry speak. Apparently, you prefer to get ALL of your Kerry information from third parties, but I prefer to get most of my information from the horse's mouth (insert long faced Kerry joke here). It doesn't matter WHERE I saw Kerry speak, the point is that I saw HIM, not Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Liely, or even Chris Matthew's analysis. I saw KERRY speak, regardless of the forum. Apparently, the only place YOU see Kerry speak is in the out of context quotes on Faux News.
You and people like you who believe this are the problem with this country. You are the reason that the discussion in this country has devolved and you are the reason our society is so polarized. It is nauseating to me that anyone could possibly believe that lies, distortions, fabricated "evidence," and attack tactics are the proper way to go about a political campaign.
Yes. It is all my fault. May the best man win. And by the way, I'm already on record saying if Kerry were to win that I would fully support him. If he wins I hope he is the best damn President this country has ever know because we will need him. Luckily I likely won't have to worry about that.
im not too optomistic about kerry's chances, so im bracing for the storm. However, as a DC resident, which polls have shown are somewhere from 83%-90% anti-bush, im worried about a possible riot happening during the inauguration. Bush may have to worry more about locals than terrorism. I foresee a lot of vacations to his fortress of seclusion in Texas.
Serious question... Does the Bush administration currently have a moratorium on bringing new folks into the military? As I understand Kerry's plan, he intends to increase the military by 40,000 troops of volunteers (i.e. no draft). How does he plan to induce 40,000 additional volunteers to join the military?
