anybody watch the choose or lose on MTV with kerry?

[Tock]

Kerry Sucks!
1) Vietnam protestor after he got back from fighting in Vietnam,

2) has voted countless times to raise taxes (including 50+ cents tax on gasoline), won't answer any questions directly...all he does is bad mouth Bush....I'm not impressed.

peace,

ttgb

1) Vietnam was as big a mistake as the US government has ever made. Even the guys responsible for running the war (McNamara) have confessed that it was a big-time mistake, and wished they'd gotten out earlier so fewer US guys would have died for nothing. The smart guys were the ones clamoring for the US to get out of that quagmire, like John Kerry.
George Bush, on the other hand, was an idiot with no political opinion other than for his next drinking party and how he was gonna get out of the draft.

2) I voted for the 3rd Party guy (John something-or other) in '76 because he had a plan to reduce dependance on foreign oil, the other two didn't. The best plan anyone could come up with then was a 50 cent a gallon gas tax, which would have encouraged people to buy gas-efficient vehicles, reduced tax burdens elsewhere, and made the US more energy independant. It was a good idea at the time, and as far as I'm concerned, it still makes a lot of sense, except that it should be up to $1.00 a gallon by now.

-Tock

[Mullhar]

Americans DID try to elect Gore last time...but this BRILLIANT electoral college we have (along with the GREAT state of Florida and the supreme court) decided that they would appoint George Bush president...oh what a great system we have.

And by the way, Bush standing at ground zero saying let's roll is going to make us vote for him? When I see that, it just reminds me about the biggest security lapse our country has ever seen under any administration. That impresses me about as much as Bush showing up in a fighter jet, although I was surprised he remembered how to even ride in one of those things after his impressive stay in the air national guard (you know, the small part that he wasn't AWOL for).

Ever since names like John Kerry and Howard Dean popped up sometime back I've been wondering when the "real" candidate would pop in and rally the democrats. All along I thought they were just trying to see who the best "vice" presedential candidate would be. I'm truly surprised that Kerry is the actual candidate.
Figured they would run Al gore thinking that because the last election was so close that Americans would now give Al his chance because somehow that would be fair.
Never happen though. A bush re-election is inevitable. The polls indicate that if the election was today it would be a tie which isn't even close and I don't know why they are even pretending. All voters will remember is Bush in a windbreaker standing at ground zero saying "lets roll!". It is over for Kerry and always was.

[STUCKUP]

You get paid more so therefore you should be taxed more..If your unhappy with the taxes that you have to pay, become self employed and doctor up your books, or better yet move the hell outta the country. so you don't have to pay any..
What's this **** i hear about terroists and all that. IF kerry were in who knows what would happen..You all fail to realize that, The president really has no say in what course of action should be taken, He just weighs the pro's and con's then makes a final decision. Bush is a MORON you know it and i know it..That is all there is to say, Who gives a rats ass what he did at 9/11 after the fact...If he was so **** good he should of prevented it. Anyone can look like the good samaritan.
What about the 2.4 Million jobs that were lost due to Bush, What about all the manufactureing companies that have went outta business after 75 yrs, because bush sent the jobs overseas? Last year they proposed to get back 400k jobs, You know what they managed..1000 jobs...Whoohooo, **** that only covers Idaho...Wake up and smell the coffee, Boo ****ing hoooo that you have to pay more..i pay 1.81 in gas per gallon, it takes me 35 to fill up my car... You don't hear me bitching about it.. WE NEED REFORM!!!!!! At whatever cost..And when your 65 and have no insurance cause you can't afford it...or have no medicare, or social security...Then you can blame yourself and all those who think bush was doing something good...Clinton was the President of the century, He did more in his first 100 days then Bush or anyone else has done in there entire 4 yrs.. Suck it up, Take it like a Man..oh wait you just turned 30, i guess you know it all.. I guess that just goes to show you that you only act as young as you feel....You must still be 15 !!!!

I thought you just said the president has no say in anything but your blaming him for everything. You and kerry are very similar; flip floppers. Why don't you head on up to canada and check out some socialism or are you waiting for kerry to get elected so you can get your welfare checks again?

[Maroon]

What about the 2.4 Million jobs that were lost due to Bush, What about all the manufactureing companies that have went outta business after 75 yrs, because bush sent the jobs overseas? Last year they proposed to get back 400k jobs, You know what they managed..1000 jobs...Whoohooo, **** that only covers Idaho...!!!!

First of all, the primary purpose of a business is to make a profit.....not to provide jobs. Without a profit, there is no business. George W. Bush didn't lose 2.4 million jobs, nor did he send any jobs overseas. The U.S. operates under a free market economy or capitalism and it's inevitable that jobs will be lost due to changes in the market and supply and demand...not on who occupied the White House. When consumers stop purchasing certain goods, then the manufacturer has to make modifications that can include either cutting jobs or lowering the price. Why are jobs going overseas? For one thing, foreign workers are willing to work for less than American workers. Remember profits determine the existence of a business. Given a choice b/w a Mexican who will work for $12,000 a year and an American who is demanding $36,000 a year, guess who the business is going to pick? How can basic economics be the fault of Pres. Bush?

Another thing, a job doesn't belong to you; it belongs to the business. The business is simply paying you rent for your expertise and skills. If you demand the business to pay you some ungodly salary, then the business has every right to reject you unless you're willing to lower your demand. The problem is that many college graduates expect a starting salary above $50,000, and when things don't go as plan, they begin whining and blaming society (result of liberal indoctrination in college). You have to be willing to take less and work your way up the ladder. Or you can do like John Kerry and just a marry a rich woman, then divorce her when you find another woman that's richer.

[Symian]

All I can say is the Bush war strategy is BS. We are either at war on which case we must be ruthless or not. Bush called himself a "War President". He sure as hell doesn't act like one. We are fighting our enemy with minimal force. History has proved that an enemy was be beaten and demoralized. This includes all of the enemy's support and infrastructure. We know Bin Laden is in Eastern Pakistan but this administration doesn't have the political courage to say the rest of the world be ****ed we are going to find and kill our enemies no matter where they may be hiding. While a few hundred thousand troops are now quagmired in Iraq our true enemies are holed up in Pakistan. History will judge the wisdom of the Bush "strategy". Oh and by the way FDR was probably the most socially liberal president ever and he led the country to kick *ss in WWII. Truman also a Dem nuked the Japs. Eisenhower a great general couldn't even whip the North Koreans as Republican president of the USA. North Korea is now one of our greatest threats. He also presided while the Soviets built up their nuclear aresenal.

Some very good points, bro. The only one I can really question is North Korea being a viable threat. I was stationed there for 2 years, and have done some extensive research on the Korean countries. North Korea might have been a formidible foe 20 years ago, but today I highly doubt it. If major war did break out, I can tell you that probably 1/3 of South Korean population would be wiped out, and our in country forces near the DMZ would be decimated, but they would never pose a serious threat to our homeland. All the hooplah about them having missles capable of reaching the US, while possible, is just scare tactic. The entire country is starving and the entire nuclear project is scare tactic just to get food and money. THEY'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS! Trust me. It'll be an endless cycle until the regime is changed.

But the threat they do pose is shipping those missles abroud, but you can usually track them and intercept them like the one we intercepted in the Persian Gulf a couple years back. Not that any of you really care about all this.

Sym

[Eddyflash]

And jobs? Give me a break...al the democrats want is toi take form the rich and gove to the poor....do they not know that the rich feed the poor...should we feel bad cause we work hard for our money instead of smokin crack and spitting babies out in order to collect more welfare for drugs....come on now....if you take away from the rich then they are going to take away from this country....i.e. shipping jobs off to other countries....

[/QUOTE]

I have news for you on the job thing buddy, They are already shipping our jobs off to other countries.. I am in IT and we are feeling this the worst as all our callcenter jobs are getting shipped off to India and other countries. Some of you people just get so swept up in the forgein affairs (like they want you to ) that you forget what is going on on your home soil.

[STUCKUP]

First of all, the primary purpose of a business is to make a profit.....not to provide jobs. Without a profit, there is no business. George W. Bush didn't lose 2.4 million jobs, nor did he send any jobs overseas. The U.S. operates under a free market economy or capitalism and it's inevitable that jobs will be lost due to changes in the market and supply and demand...not on who occupied the White House. When consumers stop purchasing certain goods, then the manufacturer has to make modifications that can include either cutting jobs or lowering the price. Why are jobs going overseas? For one thing, foreign workers are willing to work for less than American workers. Remember profits determine the existence of a business. Given a choice b/w a Mexican who will work for $12,000 a year and an American who is demanding $36,000 a year, guess who the business is going to pick? How can basic economics be the fault of Pres. Bush?

Another thing, a job doesn't belong to you; it belongs to the business. The business is simply paying you rent for your expertise and skills. If you demand the business to pay you some ungodly salary, then the business has every right to reject you unless you're willing to lower your demand. The problem is that many college graduates expect a starting salary above $50,000, and when things don't go as plan, they begin whining and blaming society (result of liberal indoctrination in college). You have to be willing to take less and work your way up the ladder. Or you can do like John Kerry and just a marry a rich woman, then divorce her when you find another woman that's richer.

Very well put!

[Tock]

First of all, the primary purpose of a business is to make a profit.....not to provide jobs. Without a profit, there is no business. George W. Bush didn't lose 2.4 million jobs, nor did he send any jobs overseas. The U.S. operates under a free market economy or capitalism and it's inevitable that jobs will be lost due to changes in the market and supply and demand...not on who occupied the White House. When consumers stop purchasing certain goods, then the manufacturer has to make modifications that can include either cutting jobs or lowering the price. Why are jobs going overseas? For one thing, foreign workers are willing to work for less than American workers. Remember profits determine the existence of a business. Given a choice b/w a Mexican who will work for $12,000 a year and an American who is demanding $36,000 a year, guess who the business is going to pick? How can basic economics be the fault of Pres. Bush?

Another thing, a job doesn't belong to you; it belongs to the business. The business is simply paying you rent for your expertise and skills. If you demand the business to pay you some ungodly salary, then the business has every right to reject you unless you're willing to lower your demand. The problem is that many college graduates expect a starting salary above $50,000, and when things don't go as plan, they begin whining and blaming society (result of liberal indoctrination in college). You have to be willing to take less and work your way up the ladder. Or you can do like John Kerry and just a marry a rich woman, then divorce her when you find another woman that's richer.

So . . . just how does taxpayer $$$ (hundreds of billions) that the government gives to corporations to pay the bills for their research and development (and tax abatements, special awards, etc) fit in to your universe? Seems to me that if a company takes gov't $$$ they are obligated to return at least that much in value to the community it came from. What do you think about all this corporate welfare that's going on nowadays?
-Tock

[STUCKUP]

What do you think about all this corporate welfare that's going on nowadays?
-Tock[/QUOTE]
Give me a specific example and i'll tell you what i think.

[Tock]

What do you think about all this corporate welfare that's going on nowadays?
-Tock

Give me a specific example and i'll tell you what i think. [/QUOTE]


Here's a quick URL . . .
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html#D

for starters . . . I'll dig up some more after I get my taxes done . . .
-Tock

[Maroon]

So . . . just how does taxpayer $$$ (hundreds of billions) that the government gives to corporations to pay the bills for their research and development (and tax abatements, special awards, etc) fit in to your universe? Seems to me that if a company takes gov't $$$ they are obligated to return at least that much in value to the community it came from. What do you think about all this corporate welfare that's going on nowadays?
-Tock

First and foremost, I know there is an anti-capitalism fervor in our nation thanks to the pathetic way economics is taught in high school and the liberal orientation of nearly all universities in the U.S.

I'm not a big proponent of corporate or personal welfare. It's not the government's duty to bail out every failing business that the free market is not willing to support, nor is it Uncle Sam's duty to ensure universal health care coverage or that everybody has a retirement plan. The number one duty of the federal government is national defense, but we can't do that effectively because we are spending so much on these social programs. Now of course, no politician is going to say this, because it's unpopular and comes across as insensitive.

However, it is important to note that corporations DO NOT pay taxes. The government can tax the hell out of a business. But guess who is going to pay the tax? It will be passed on to the consumer, meaning higher prices on goods and services. Think about that the next time you hear a politician talking about corporations not paying their fair share .....are you ready to pay higher prices? Another thing, suppose corporations are given tax breaks; this means that they will invest it back into the economy by either expanding their operations or coming up with new innovations.

Remember the best way to kill an economy is to tax it to death.

[Phillyboy1]

im a pure capitalist so you know where that puts me lol.

[STUCKUP]

Give me a specific example and i'll tell you what i think.

Here's a quick URL . . .
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html#D

for starters . . . I'll dig up some more after I get my taxes done . . .
-Tock[/QUOTE]
You know what i think is funny and shows you must have a good imagination is the fact that you think that if the corporations paid in more on taxes that would lighten our tax burden. Keep dreaming, the Republicans would still be lowering taxes and democrats would still be trying to raise taxes to fund every social program they could think of.
That must be what your driving at, you really think that would lower your taxes if they collected that fabled corp welfare...Now what i want you to do is click your heels together three times and say............

[Tock]

[/QUOTE]
You know what i think is funny and shows you must have a good imagination is the fact that you think that . . .[/QUOTE]


What's funny is that you think that you know what I'm thinking.
-Tock

[saboudian]

Dr Rice's interview should be good. We'll finally get to hear the truth...afterall, she doesn't have a book to sell, so why would she lie? Dick Clarke has already been caught in SEVERAL lies people...wake up.

Oh yeah, they (Bush administration) were all in office for a grand total of 7.5 months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks....it took 2 months just to repair the White House after the Clintons left....they tore the place up. What the hell were they suppose to do in 7.5 months in order to prevent the attacks? Geez...you guys listen to too much media BS. I'm not targeting you Saboudian, I just got on a soapbox after I replied to your post....

peace,

ttgb

Dick Clarke caught in several lies? Not a single one yet. Remember last week when every bush official went on every freakin talk show and called him a liar? They didn't even revoke a single statement or accusation he has ever made.

BTW did you see any of Dick Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 committee? I'll let u in on a secret, every member of that committe thanked him for his service and told him is his integrity wasn't in question at all.

About that thing about bush only having 7.5 months, pulease. The bush administration was concentrating nearly all their effort on missile defense. And don't gimme that crap about Clinton, he gave orders to the CIA to kill bin laden, attempted to do so at least twice, unfortunately the CIA failed, and when Bush took over, and the former natl security advisor even told condy rice about terrorism being the most important issue. Now look, I am in no way implying 9/11 could have been prevented, but there's something wrong with this administration not admitting any faults and viciously attacking those who come out against it like clarke and o'neil, instead of actually responding to what they're saying.

ugh, i'm tired, will respond later when i am not tired and sick

[Symian]

And don't gimme that crap about Clinton, he gave orders to the CIA to kill bin laden, attempted to do so at least twice, unfortunately the CIA failed, and when Bush took over, and the former natl security advisor even told condy rice about terrorism being the most important issue.

You've got that a little wrong. After the bombings in Africa clinton tried in a futile attempt at killing bin Laden with the cruise missles. Clinton never gave the CIA authorization to "assassinate" bin Laden, but told the CIA to attempt to capture him. BUT if the mission looked like it would fail then they could kill him. So they were all confused, and the real question is why didn't the CIA ask to clear things up.

Well the CIA had 6 chances to capture him. 4 were aborted because of too many civilians, and 2 were because he changed his route of travel.

Sym

[STUCKUP]

You know what i think is funny and shows you must have a good imagination is the fact that you think that . . .[/QUOTE]


What's funny is that you think that you know what I'm thinking.
-Tock[/QUOTE]
Let me try to guess what your thinking again;
RICH PEOPLE OWE ME-REFORM-REFORM-REFORM-THEIR MAKING TO MUCH MONEY I SHOULD GET SOME OF THAT-REFORM-REFORM-REFORM-NADER IS GOD-REFORM-REFORM-REFORM-THOSE GREEDY CORPS-REFORM-REFORM-REFORM.
Pretty close huh?

[markas214]

The only one I can really question is North Korea being a viable threat. I was stationed there for 2 years, and have done some extensive research on the Korean countries. North Korea might have been a formidible foe 20 years ago, but today I highly doubt it. If major war did break out, I can tell you that probably 1/3 of South Korean population would be wiped out, and our in country forces near the DMZ would be decimated, but they would never pose a serious threat to our homeland. Sym

That' is my point about North Korea. Our troops are sitting ducks and any nuke on the DMZ would kill thousands of our guys. That is a big enough threat to me regardless of attacks on US soil. Those lives are valued by me as highly as those lives of us here in The States. They could kill 10 times as many Americans as were killed on 9/11. Our Korea strategy is ridiculous. We basically are saying "I dare you to nuke our troops and see how we will wipe you out. Saddaam has proved that maniacal dictators don't behave predictably.

[Symian]

That' is my point about North Korea. Our troops are sitting ducks and any nuke on the DMZ would kill thousands of our guys. That is a big enough threat to me regardless of attacks on US soil. Those lives are valued by me as highly as those lives of us here in The States. They could kill 10 times as many Americans as were killed on 9/11. Our Korea strategy is ridiculous. We basically are saying "I dare you to nuke our troops and see how we will wipe you out. Saddaam has proved that maniacal dictators don't behave predictably.

Well, when I said that our troops would be decimated I meant by artillary. Just so you know N.Korea doesn't have any nukes, and the whole fiasco that we've been dancing with them is over the building of a power plant on the Yalu River (which if you remember is why we fostered the plan to provide them with water turbine power plants instead of nuclear) and the facilities to refine the uranium. So if left alone, and they really wanted to do it, it would be a very long time before they could ever possess a nuke.

But on the other hand, like I said, they've had 50 years to pinpoint our posts from the DMZ to Seoul. Not to mention scuds, but our patriots would protect Osan and Seoul mostly from that threat.

I could go into great detail if you wanted me too, but I don't want to bore your.

Sym

[CarbonCopy]

Say what you want....the liberals are only in it for the people's vote....Bush knows he stands a chance of losing the re-election...however at least he is trying to make a difference in terrorism...I mena if Clinton or Kerry were in office he would offer the terrorist a blowjob and hope that would solve the probelm.

And jobs? Give me a break...al the democrats want is toi take form the rich and gove to the poor....do they not know that the rich feed the poor...should we feel bad cause we work hard for our money instead of smokin crack and spitting babies out in order to collect more welfare for drugs....come on now....if you take away from the rich then they are going to take away from this country....i.e. shipping jobs off to other countries....

And yes....I do have a had time spelling...but of course I guess the liberals would say it is a Republican thing....

If Kerry gets nominated....who the f*ck knows what could happen....I do have a feeling that the terrorist will have open season for four years of f*cking us up....becasue Kerry is such a pussy.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......

HERE HERE! And why is it that Bush would NEVER get on MTV like Kerry? Oh yeah because the media is soooo liberal!! MTV doesn't even act like you have another choice in the election. It is just more liberal media brainwashing. And I refuse to watch that crap on MTV! I do hate how Kerry acts like he is for the common man. PLEASE! He had private schooling and went to the best colleges because members of his family had money. He is NOT common and he isn't even Irish for that matter. Which he claimed he was. haha

CC

[50%Natural]

So . . . just how does taxpayer $$$ (hundreds of billions) that the government gives to corporations to pay the bills for their research and development (and tax abatements, special awards, etc) fit in to your universe? Seems to me that if a company takes gov't $$$ they are obligated to return at least that much in value to the community it came from. What do you think about all this corporate welfare that's going on nowadays?
-Tock

actually tock, this post in which you quoted had nothing to do with personal opionions. It was soley fact and it might be hard to swallow but that is the way our government, regardless of which party is in control, works.

Finally, i have a counterpart who understands fundamental economics and finance in regard to political debates. (moroon)

[Shortyrock13]

Bush for 4 more years....THANK GOODNESS!!

Kerry Sucks! Vietnam protestor after he got back from fighting in Vietnam, has voted countless times to raise taxes (including 50+ cents tax on gasoline), won't answer any questions directly...all he does is bad mouth Bush....I'm not impressed.

peace,

ttgb

he was actually there... he didn't duck nam like the current president did. After actually having seen what was going on, it's his right as an american to protest something he doesn't agree with. Thats more sack than anything else, and down at the heart of it.... a basic american core value... the founders of the country protested against their government when they didn't agree with it; and in doing so gave us this great country.

[bermich]

i like how he snowboards lol, at least that means he was open minded, cause people that age are usually all skiers or hate snowboarders. and only a few just decide to give it a try and realize its much better a feeling on snow with a board under you feet then two planks

Well thats usually how I decide my vote: Whether the guy is a skier or snowboarder....