Real Quotes From John Kerry

[Snow]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 13 2004, 04:22 PM

The System Sucks

Why do people say "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry is immoral"? Maybe both are true...maybe neither are true. We are hardly in a position to judge them, basing our opinions off "liberal media" or the conservatively biased Fox News.

Nonsense.

If Kerry is pro-choice and you believe that abortion is "murder" and that supporting the right "to murder" is amoral, then you have some sort of ethical obligation to judge. Likewise a reasonably informed citizen can make decisions about whether Bush is honest or not. In fact you have to if you are going to engage in the process instead of running from it.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[helgaboy]

Your comments are nothing that baseless assertions. Care to provide any proof of Bush's lies or do you just expect us to take your word for it? Put up or lose your credibility (if you have any).

Really Kevin??? I suppose this means you know where the WMD's are if my asseertions are baseless. what about his education plan? he seems to be telling america his plan is fully funded when it is not, I know as my senator who happens to be Republican has written Bush condemning him for signing into law the No chaild left behind act and it is not nor has it ever been fully funded. the only one who lacks credibility is you who seems yto want people belive Bush is an honest man.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 13 2004, 06:50 PM

I don't know what Kerry's personal feelings are about abortion. But I know he is Pro-Choice as far as legalizing it. Legalizing it is different from endorsing it though. I am against abortion, but sometimes feel it may be best to let it be legal, to avoid dangerous illegal abortions, or unwanted children being raised by parents who might abuse or neglect them. From that point of view, legalizing abortion is the lesser of two evils (at least that would be the intention behind it)...not immorality.

That's a minor distinction to one who views abortion as "murder" ie... I personally do not endorse murder but I wholeheartedly support the rights of others to murder.

I, on the other hand, am not sure if abortion equates with killing the innocent but rather than advocating it as a means of preventing unwanted children suggest personal responsibility before the fact.

[Snow]

Originally posted by helgaboy@Oct 13 2004, 07:50 PM

Your comments are nothing that baseless assertions. Care to provide any proof of Bush's lies or do you just expect us to take your word for it? Put up or lose your credibility (if you have any).

Really Kevin??? I suppose this means you know where the WMD's are if my asseertions are baseless. what about his education plan? he seems to be telling america his plan is fully funded when it is not, I know as my senator who happens to be Republican has written Bush condemning him for signing into law the No chaild left behind act and it is not nor has it ever been fully funded. the only one who lacks credibility is you who seems yto want people belive Bush is an honest man.

Well there you go Kevin... proof positive.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Helga's bought into the distorted talking point that the fact that more money has been authorized pursuant to No Child Left Behind than has been released means that it's somehow "underfunded."

The upper level on NCLB funding is a cap, not a target. Most budget items have more money allocated to them than is actually spent. The last big increase in education funding (a Democrat-sponsored bill in 1994) didn't spend as much as allocated, either.

The bottom line is that schools got billions of dollars in additional funding under NCLB -- the biggest increase in a decade. The Democratic machine (Tammany Hall never really went away) is trying to spin this huge increase as some kind of underfunding, which is horsefeathers. The United States spends more money per capita on education than virtually any developed country. The schools have no reason to be hurting, unless they're filled with featherebedded public-sector union administrators. (New York City's public school district has 25,000 administrators and a million students, or one administrator for every 40 students. The local Catholic schools have 100,000 students and 22 administrators. Think there's some fat in the public sector?)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 13 2004, 04:22 PM

The System Sucks

Why do people say "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry is immoral"? Maybe both are true...maybe neither are true. We are hardly in a position to judge them, basing our opinions off "liberal media" or the conservatively biased Fox News.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Maybe neither candidate will make a difference in the war on terror for better or worse?

Maybe we just don't know who has the better healthcare or economic plan?

Even if my vote counted (I live in Utah so it doesn't)...I wouldn't vote. I just hope for the best from the winner, and prepare for the worst.

This is not a true democracy. This is a country where a huge portion of the population does not vote, a huge portion of the voters don't understand the issues anyway, and where we really only have the choice of 2 parties, and nothing better.

The system sucks and serves only to divide the country 50/50 into what effectively amounts to two separate nations within the same borders. If things get any more polarized, or if the democrats and republicans managed to get together geographically, this nation would be in civil war.

Sad isn't it?

Sad indeed. What's even more sad is that there are those who will complain about the system yet they are unwilling to get involved in the process and expend any effort to help change things. You know, efforts that would include things like voting.

[Kevin]

Really Kevin??? I suppose this means you know where the WMD's are if my asseertions are baseless. what about his education plan? he seems to be telling america his plan is fully funded when it is not, I know as my senator who happens to be Republican has written Bush condemning him for signing into law the No chaild left behind act and it is not nor has it ever been fully funded. the only one who lacks credibility is you who seems yto want people belive Bush is an honest man.

Is that really your response? I ask for evidence of your claim and you somehow transition into a strawman concerning WMDs? Ahh, I get it. What you really mean to say is that Bush actually knew that the intelligence reports that he and congress relied upon to make the decision to go to war were actually wrong when he took us to war. You have a lot to learn about logic my friend. You see, the person who makes the assertion is the one who has to provide evidence that that assertion is correct. Turning your claim back to me in the form of a question is hardly evidence.

Fully funded? Ok Helgaboy, please tell me how many dollars would constitute a fully funded "leave no child behind" and then tell me how many dollars have flowed into that plan. Go ahead, its your claim so support it. The opinion of your Republican senator is irrelevant unless it actually addresses a comparison of fully funded to actually funded.

Yes, I believe Bush is an honest man. However, it is your credibility which diminishes when you choose to ignore requests to provide evidence of your claims.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Setheus]

because its the eternal "good vs evil".

Rep. = good

Dem.= evil

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Un -- The two-party system acts as a restraint on radicalism. The two major parties act as coalitions for broad ranges of interests, which come together and synthesize. In countries with multiparty systems, since it's virtually impossible for even the largest parties to obtain outright majorities, they have to look to minor parties to support them in coalitions.

That's essentially what happens within the two major American parties, with a twist: Because the minor parties are themselves intrinsically organized (much more than the interest groups within American parties), they can be more explicit in demanding concessions and exerting leverage. (In contrast, even if a Republican interest group -- say, people against abortion -- is generally dissatisfied with the Republican platform on the issue, there's no central leadership that can confront party leaders face to face and demand concessions as a price of support.)

The historical result of this disproportionate leverge wielded by minor parties is that radicals, even if they're in the minority, can exert far more power than they would if they were forced to work within the framework of large parties. The 1930s in Germany are the classic example.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Un,

You seem to be saying that a system "doesn't work" if a voter can't find a candidate who votes for who shares his opinion on every issue.

I doubt any two people EVER think exactly alike on every issue. For example, generally speaking, I oppose abortion, and think it ought to be restricted more than it is. There are whole ranges of opinion, with almost infinite variation, both to my right and on my left. To my right, there are people who want fewer exceptions to the rule than I do, or want abortion banned from the beginning, or want no restrictions at all, or who would punish violations of the law more severely than I would. To my left, there are people who want more exceptions, or a longer period where it would be legal without any question, or who want it legal and government-subsidized for any reason and at any stage whatsoever. There are even some people who think that the right to "abort" should be extended to allow the killing of newborns (Peter Singer, the far-left chair of bioethics at Princeton.)

See the problem? Even if the "right" or "left" side gets to make the rules, within those groups, there can never be unanimity on what the rules ought to be. Someone will always have to be satisfied with rules other than those they'd prefer.

Since we can never get perfect agreement between ourselves and a candidate, we have to decide which issues are more important to each of us. According to the Catholic catechism, if a candidate supports legal abortion, he is the wrong choice even if he's more consistent with Catholic teaching on other matters like capital punishment and social issues that are considered to carry less weight. I might disagree with a Republican candidate's stance on, say, fisheries policy (not really a huge issue for me, frankly), but agree with him enough on tax policy that it makes sense for me to vote for him.

If the American two-party constitutional system "doesn't work," what does? What does a government system have to do to "work?" I think that a system that maximizes consensual government (perfect consent being impossible by definition), and is stable, is as good as you're going to get.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

We have a horrible form or government that does not work

Again, I'd like you to describe what it would take for you to say a government "worked."

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 13 2004, 09:01 AM

I like how Kerry can look at a group of people and determine who makes more than $200K a year..lol

Heck, I can listen to you and be sure YOU don't. So why can't Kerry do it?

Ok, that was low, I admit it---I owe you one.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Kevin+Oct 13 2004, 11:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Oct 13 2004, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -shanstress70@Oct 13 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Oct 13 2004, 10:56 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--shanstress70@Oct 13 2004, 08:13 AM

Well, he is (was) SuperMan!

John Kerry wasn't Superman, and it was his promise.

I know. For the record, I can't stand either Bush or Kerry (nor their running mates). I'm still not sure who I'm voting for, if you can believe that! I'm still trying to sort out who is the lesser of the evils!

Shan,

In my mind the difference between the two presidential candidates is clear. Bush is clearly the more conservative of the two. He is against abortion, gun control, government run health care and he is for small government, less taxes and capitalism. As one who believes in capitalism, Bush is interested in stimulating the economy by letting people determine how they spend their money and making sure that they have more of it to spend by taxing them less.

Kerry is for abortion, gun control, government run health care. He is very socialist in that he believes the government should do more for the American people and that the American people should be taxed to pay for these things. He favors and promotes inequality among classes in that he believes the rich should have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. Kerry, according to his congressional voting record, is the most liberal senator in America. He is trying to appear to be more of a centrist or conservative democrat but his record exposes his attempts for what they are - political opportunism / flip-floping.

I surely hope you will support Bush. We do not need an amoral, liberal socialist as our President.

Gee Shan---you made a perfect case for NOT voting for Bush!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Kevin+Oct 13 2004, 03:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Oct 13 2004, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--helgaboy@Oct 13 2004, 01:34 PM

I don't belive things will be worse when Kerry is President. For the mere fact that Bush has been the worst president this country has ever seen. For too Long poloticians have kept office simply for being the lesser of two evils it is time americans voted out those who do not fulfill their promises. Bush also Lies to the American people so if you want a liar in office he is who you vote for. whereas you are a fencesitter maybe you should go to this website and get some more info for yourself.

kerryrightformormons.com

Your comments are nothing that baseless assertions. Care to provide any proof of Bush's lies or do you just expect us to take your word for it? Put up or lose your credibility (if you have any).

Bush went before the american people and gave the clear impression that he was much more certain that there were WMD's in Iraq than he had ANY reason to be. It was his duty to level with the american people, instead he overstated the threat in order to further his own agenda against Iraq. I consider that as a lie to the american people. If you don't, tough luck. Many of the rest of us do.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 13 2004, 04:22 PM

The System Sucks

Why do people say "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry is immoral"? Maybe both are true...maybe neither are true. We are hardly in a position to judge them, basing our opinions off "liberal media" or the conservatively biased Fox News.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Maybe neither candidate will make a difference in the war on terror for better or worse?

Maybe we just don't know who has the better healthcare or economic plan?

Even if my vote counted (I live in Utah so it doesn't)...I wouldn't vote. I just hope for the best from the winner, and prepare for the worst.

This is not a true democracy. This is a country where a huge portion of the population does not vote, a huge portion of the voters don't understand the issues anyway, and where we really only have the choice of 2 parties, and nothing better.

The system sucks and serves only to divide the country 50/50 into what effectively amounts to two separate nations within the same borders. If things get any more polarized, or if the democrats and republicans managed to get together geographically, this nation would be in civil war.

Sad isn't it?

Yeah, except the Democrats would win because we control the media (according to the Repubs) and we are so influencial that we can turn all the young kids watching MTV into Democrats.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 13 2004, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 13 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 13 2004, 07:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--helgaboy@Oct 13 2004, 01:34 PM

I don't belive things will be worse when Kerry is President. For the mere fact that Bush has been the worst president this country has ever seen.

kerryrightformormons.com

Well there ya go then. It is simply a MERE FACT.

To me it sounded strangely similar to a matter of opinion but now I stand corrected.

I'll have to let History judge George W. Bush. As for Kerry, I don't think he would be any worse.

I can't wait for November so all the Republicans and Democrats will shut their freakin' mouths and just do their jobs.

Don't count on that, if the Clinton election was any indication---the Repubs did nothing but whine like rusty sirens about everything Clinton did---which Demos have done about Bush. (Of course the Demos were right! )