A Conservatives View

[Chisoxfn]

This is kind of spun out of the Sinclair thread and some off my stuff refers to it, but then I decided to get on a larger tangent in a sense.

 

Lets talk Hannity. I watch the show a few times a week, more now then usual, but whenever something is going on I pay a lot more attention to politics and will pretty much flip back and forth every day now and catch segments of all the Fox News programs.

 

Today I decided to check out some of CNN after the debate. I typically try to flip channels and see what the consensus was, but what I saw after the debate tonight was sheer garbage coming from CBS and CNN.

 

I was absolutely disgusted and I'm not one to cray afoul...these few posts by me today and yesterday were about the first I've made on stuff like this. I try to stay out of this type of nonsense but its becoming clear to me that the democratcs are screaming bloody murder and right fully so over this sinclair thing, but they have never seemed to have a problem by the consistent hack job bulls*** coming from CBS (Viacom) and CNN (especially has of late). It amazes me how much CNN has gone downhill.

 

They used to actually be a credible news source, now its like they are trying to play into the liberal since Fox has cornered the conservative viewership and does a far better job covering politics, imo. People told me to listen to NPR and I caught it for a full weekend when I was in Iowa. My god was I amazed at the bull coming off those airwaves, it was horribly slanted. It was almost like listening to Rush, who by the way I can't stand. But Rush doesn't act like he's impartial, NPR is supposed to be impartial, CNN is supposed to be impartial. The talking heads aren't impartial, they are typically on to argue one side or the other.

 

However, as far as Hannidy and Colmes go, I don't know how much you watch of it, but as of late it appears to be both guys get equal time with each person to ask their questions. You must be flipping during the time where Hannidy is getting in his licks or comments because they usually go one for a few minutes and then the other gets their statements and ocassionally each will but in during the others segments. Its pretty equal, especially of late. A year ago I'd of told you it was much more Hannity but that doesn't seem to be the fact anymore.

 

I also have never figured out how Kerry can do no wrong. People act like he's completey perfect, well at least his supporters seem to. Their is no denying the fact that this guy is a self serving asshole. Just look at how over the place he is on issues. Now I'm not going to talk about issues where he says one thing and does another, but the 87 billion was absolute garbage.

 

To publicly state he was going to do one thing and essentially claiming to not vote for it would be stupid and then not doing it is pure assinine. I get you want to make a protest, but he said he was for it and wanted to and voted against it soley in protest of the war, not in protest of the financing. Well great, protest by putting troops on the line without the proper protection...really freaking brilliant.

 

Or how about not attending an intelligence meeting for essentially a year after the first World Trade center attack. And then having the balls to go in and propose a 6 billion dollar intelligence cut back. Now he has the gusto to say that we have to spend more on intelligence and strengthen. Well ya, I agree with that, the problem is your 20 year record doesn't support you have the ability to do it or will do it.

 

How about the tax cuts. He keeps talking about rolling back the cuts for people paying 200,000. While I'm not in that tax bracket, its wrong to punish those that make a lot of money. That same group, or essentially the top 20% pay 80% of our income taxes so htey are pulling their fare share and when you give a tax break of course they are goign to see a heavier savings considering they put in a whole lot more.

 

And lets get a rid of the dividend tax break and all those things which help spur investing and help improve the economy. Any economist will tell you, put the money in the hands of the public, not the hands of the government. When the government sector has to come in, it means you've had a major failure in the private sector. Their is no reason to have failures in our private sector. Were the most sucessful country in the wordl and while the government may ocassionally have to step in and protect sectors and on rare ocassions break up ocassional monopolies. However, I will stand with him on the tax shelters with companies that move out of the US, I do think you shouldn't give them deffered tax or whatever it is they get.

 

But don't tell me, that taking money from the people making 200,000 or more to finance the government health care program is worth it. Bulls*** the government isn't involved John Kerry. I don't know how anyone could believe that considering the government will be footing the estimated 1.3 trillion bill (was estimated to be as high as 2.3 trillion dollars but those estimates have dropped a bit, but like any government program, the estimates will be too low).

 

Plus its not right to tell only those rich to finance government health care for everyone else, when we all know those upper class people are going to still use their same health care. Its an absolute garbage policy. I'm not syaing that health care is right, its not, but a government sustained health policy is not in the best interest of this country.

 

Now lets talk about the war in Iraq. While Kerry may have some sensible arguments, his comments are absolutely ludicrious. He keeps saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Well after Saddam was taken out and initially he didn'dt seem to be too down on it. Now until Howard Dean and his anti-war ticket caught fire in the democratic campaign for presidency did Kerry and Edwards start leaning anti war. Both of these people have numerous quotes supporting it.

 

Whats the say when the candidates completely change their position essentially right after Dean picks up his momentum. Thats not why you make decisions and go out and do things. And he seems to think this diplomacy will work. Well put it this way France never wanted a war in Iraq. Their oil for food program with Iraq was helping France out just fine and in no way did they want to risk losing oil. Now Kerry says he will get other countries involved. How do you plan on doing that, when you yourself are now calling this war a failure. Why would any country want to get involved in something thats doomed. I got news for you, no country would want to do that.

 

Think about it, would you go to the UN and go hey guys, I know I said this a month ago trying to get re-elected, but I need your help now, will you guys help me down in Iraq so we can get our troops the hell out of there. I know this is a failure, but I really need your help. YA right. Plus France and Germany, the two allies the democrats complain about not being involved, have already stated that they will not join the coalition if Kerry is elected.

 

And before we call the war in Iraq a failure. Lets remember that Saddam was a ruthless killer that gassed the Kurds and his own people. The guy may of been put in power by us, but that does'nt mean we should look the other way. Well, I guess he didn't have WOMD, but their is strong evidence to indicate he was doing everything he could to get the sanctions remove and then restart his programs...to do what you ask...build weapons of mass destruction.

 

Should I mention the people in Iraq? These were people that had absolutely no freedom. The average wage in Iraq was roughly 5 bucks a month. Now its sky-rocketing since the regime change and the tech sector in Iraq is starting to show up. Prior to this, Iraq had no tech sector. They also should have 125,000 trained soldiers by the end of the year and free elections to follow.

 

Look at Afhghanistan, where they just held elections and had women, who were so oppressed by this regime, get their vote heard. Heck, even Iran is starting to come along and is starting to encourage both women and men to register to vote.

 

Well, that gets a good amount off my chest, but trust me their will be more.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting that you mentioned the UN, France, and company. I wonder why they were against the war?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...91280_1,00.html

[Heads22]

Um....wow......

 

You never wrote like that before.

 

Glad to see I could get the campaign avs goin...

[Heads22]

I think it's a disgrace that the United States has fallen in the eyes of the world as much as it has under Bush. And yes, we do need to worry what the rest of the world thinks, because there's a lot more of them than us.

 

As far as the wars, Afghanistan was by far the right thing to do. Unfortunately, it's been forgotten because of the war in Iraq. There was justification for the war in Afghanistan. The justification for the war in Iraq was not true.

 

But of course, multilateralism and diplomacy are for girlie-men.

 

[/ramble]

[KipWellsFan]

Whats the say when the candidates completely change their position essentially right after Dean picks up his momentum. Thats not why you make decisions and go out and do things. And he seems to think this diplomacy will work. Well put it this way France never wanted a war in Iraq. Their oil for food program with Iraq was helping France out just fine and in no way did they want to risk losing oil. Now Kerry says he will get other countries involved. How do you plan on doing that, when you yourself are now calling this war a failure. Why would any country want to get involved in something thats doomed. I got news for you, no country would want to do that.

 

Think about it, would you go to the UN and go hey guys, I know I said this a month ago trying to get re-elected, but I need your help now, will you guys help me down in Iraq so we can get our troops the hell out of there. I know this is a failure, but I really need your help. YA right. Plus France and Germany, the two allies the democrats complain about not being involved, have already stated that they will not join the coalition if Kerry is elected.

 

I do agree with your statement that many of the uninvolved countries will never join, but I believe the idea that it is because John Kerry says the war in Iraq is a failure, is a flawed idea. Simply, because politicians who are leading their countries know what it takes to become a leader and John Kerry is trying to do what it takes to become that leader. Whether it ends up being the right way to become that leader we'll see. Personally, I believe what is keeping Germany and France out of the war is purely public opinion, for them to get into anything pre-rebuilding process would be political suicide.

 

Good post Jas. But dead WRONG!

Edited October 14, 2004 by KipWellsFan

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This is kind of spun out of the Sinclair thread and some off my stuff refers to it, but then I decided to get on a larger tangent in a sense. 

 

Lets talk Hannity.  I watch the show a few times a week, more now then usual, but whenever something is going on I pay a lot more attention to politics and will pretty much flip back and forth every day now and catch segments of all the Fox News programs.

 

Today I decided to check out some of CNN after the debate.  I typically try to flip channels and see what the consensus was, but what I saw after the debate tonight was sheer garbage coming from CBS and CNN. 

 

I was absolutely disgusted and I'm not one to cray afoul...these few posts by me today and yesterday were about the first I've made on stuff like this.  I try to stay out of this type of nonsense but its becoming clear to me that the democratcs are screaming bloody murder and right fully so over this sinclair thing, but they have never seemed to have a problem by the consistent hack job bulls*** coming from CBS (Viacom) and CNN (especially has of late).  It amazes me how much CNN has gone downhill.

 

They used to actually be a credible news source, now its like they are trying to play into the liberal since Fox has cornered the conservative viewership and does a far better job covering politics, imo.  People told me to listen to NPR and I caught it for a full weekend when I was in Iowa.  My god was I amazed at the bull coming off those airwaves, it was horribly slanted.  It was almost like listening to Rush, who by the way I can't stand.  But Rush doesn't act like he's impartial, NPR is supposed to be impartial, CNN is supposed to be impartial.  The talking heads aren't impartial, they are typically on to argue one side or the other. 

 

However, as far as Hannidy and Colmes go, I don't know how much you watch of it, but as of late it appears to be both guys get equal time with each person to ask their questions.  You must be flipping during the time where Hannidy is getting in his licks or comments because they usually go one for a few minutes and then the other gets their statements and ocassionally each will but in during the others segments.  Its pretty equal, especially of late.  A year ago I'd of told you it was much more Hannity but that doesn't seem to be the fact anymore. 

 

I also have never figured out how Kerry can do no wrong.  People act like he's completey perfect, well at least his supporters seem to.  Their is no denying the fact that this guy is a self serving asshole.  Just look at how over the place he is on issues.  Now I'm not going to talk about issues where he says one thing and does another, but the 87 billion was absolute garbage.

 

To publicly state he was going to do one thing and essentially claiming to not vote for it would be stupid and then not doing it is pure assinine. I get you want to make a protest, but he said he was for it and wanted to and voted against it soley in protest of the war, not in protest of the financing.  Well great, protest by putting troops on the line without the proper protection...really freaking brilliant. 

 

Or how about not attending an intelligence meeting for essentially a year after the first World Trade center attack.  And then having the balls to go in and propose a 6 billion dollar intelligence cut back.  Now he has the gusto to say that we have to spend more on intelligence and strengthen.  Well ya, I agree with that, the problem is your 20 year record doesn't support you have the ability to do it or will do it.

 

How about the tax cuts.  He keeps talking about rolling back the cuts for people paying 200,000.  While I'm not in that tax bracket, its wrong to punish those that make a lot of money.  That same group, or essentially the top 20% pay 80% of our income taxes so htey are pulling their fare share and when you give a tax break of course they are goign to see a heavier savings considering they put in a whole lot more. 

 

And lets get a rid of the dividend tax break and all those things which help spur investing and help improve the economy.  Any economist will tell you, put the money in the hands of the public, not the hands of the government.  When the government sector has to come in, it means you've had a major failure in the private sector.  Their is no reason to have failures in our private sector.  Were the most sucessful country in the wordl and while the government may ocassionally have to step in and protect sectors and on rare ocassions break up ocassional monopolies.  However, I will stand with him on the tax shelters with companies that move out of the US, I do think you shouldn't give them deffered tax or whatever it is they get.

 

But don't tell me, that taking money from the people making 200,000 or more to finance the government health care program is worth it.  Bulls*** the government isn't involved John Kerry.  I don't know how anyone could believe that considering the government will be footing the estimated 1.3 trillion bill (was estimated to be as high as 2.3 trillion dollars but those estimates have dropped a bit, but like any government program, the estimates will be too low). 

 

Plus its not right to tell only those rich to finance government health care for everyone else, when we all know those upper class people are going to still use their same health care.  Its an absolute garbage policy.  I'm not syaing that health care is right, its not, but a government sustained health policy is not in the best interest of this country. 

 

Now lets talk about the war in Iraq.  While Kerry may have some sensible arguments, his comments are absolutely ludicrious.  He keeps saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.  Well after Saddam was taken out and initially he didn'dt seem to be too down on it.  Now until Howard Dean and his anti-war ticket caught fire in the democratic campaign for presidency did Kerry and Edwards start leaning anti war.  Both of these people have numerous quotes supporting it.

 

Whats the say when the candidates completely change their position essentially right after Dean picks up his momentum.  Thats not why you make decisions and go out and do things.  And he seems to think this diplomacy will work.  Well put it this way France never wanted a war in Iraq. Their oil for food program with Iraq was helping France out just fine and in no way did they want to risk losing oil.  Now Kerry says he will get other countries involved.  How do you plan on doing that, when you yourself are now calling this war a failure.  Why would any country want to get involved in something thats doomed.  I got news for you, no country would want to do that. 

 

Think about it, would you go to the UN and go hey guys, I know I said this a month ago trying to get re-elected, but I need your help now, will you guys help me down in Iraq so we can get our troops the hell out of there.  I know this is a failure, but I really need your help.  YA right.  Plus France and Germany, the two allies the democrats complain about not being involved, have already stated that they will not join the coalition if Kerry is elected. 

 

And before we call the war in Iraq a failure.  Lets remember that Saddam was a ruthless killer that gassed the Kurds and his own people.  The guy may of been put in power by us, but that does'nt mean we should look the other way.  Well, I guess he didn't have WOMD, but their is strong evidence to indicate he was doing everything he could to get the sanctions remove and then restart his programs...to do what you ask...build weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Should I mention the people in Iraq?  These were people that had absolutely no freedom.  The average wage in Iraq was roughly 5 bucks a month.  Now its sky-rocketing since the regime change and the tech sector in Iraq is starting to show up.  Prior to this, Iraq had no tech sector.  They also should have 125,000 trained soldiers by the end of the year and free elections to follow. 

 

Look at Afhghanistan, where they just held elections and had women, who were so oppressed by this regime, get their vote heard.  Heck, even Iran is starting to come along and is starting to encourage both women and men to register to vote. 

 

Well, that gets a good amount off my chest, but trust me their will be more.

Jas, the original intent of the media is supposed to be a watchdog and a check against government, not a puppy "Look how great Bush looks with that sock stuffed in his crotch playing Flight Suit Boy!" press fellating his every movement.

 

The myth of the liberal media is absolutely hilarious. At least CNN etc. have reputitable sources running the show, the one for FOX is a former Bush campaign advisor (Fox President Roger Ailes) Fair and balanced my ass.

 

And Jas, studies have been done that show Hannity gets many more words in against Colmes and gets more airtime to speak.

 

Jas, remember when Bush said that Iraqi oil would foot the bill for the invasion? I do...and it's not. Plus most of the $87 billion was going to security measures and not for armor etc. for the troops. Kerry authorized the use of force because most people *gasp* use force as a last means and don't go in guns blazing only to find ZERO WMD after it's all over. (Just 1 year and 190 days in...we knew where they were, so where are they?) Just because Kerry gave Bush the car keys does not mean that he endorsed Bush running the car into a tree at 90 mph.

 

And the tax cuts -- the estate tax hit 2% of the population and will remove $294 billion from the US coffers over the 10 years since it has been repealed (or so say the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) At around 5% servicing costs per year, that means that after 10 years of borrowing money to offset the estate tax cut, those Americans who still pay taxes will see a permanent $14.7 billion annual increase in their tax bill. They may be pulling in "their fair share" but don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining saying the majority of the tax cuts went to the middle class when they didn't. (that's to Bush, not you Jas.) With the legality of the Bermuda tax loopholes endorsed by Bunnypants, the tax burden on everybody else goes up to pick up the slack.

 

And Jas with the removal of double taxation, it's not a simple amount but percentage of taxes paid. Warren Buffett said that when he gets back his money and not having to pay capital gains tax, the percentage of tax that he pays compared to his workers is disproportionately low. Why make middle/lower class people pay a higher percentage of their wages while keeping money in the pockets of the ultra rich?

 

Jas:

Whats the say when the candidates completely change their position essentially right after Dean picks up his momentum. Thats not why you make decisions and go out and do things. And he seems to think this diplomacy will work. Well put it this way France never wanted a war in Iraq. Their oil for food program with Iraq was helping France out just fine and in no way did they want to risk losing oil. Now Kerry says he will get other countries involved. How do you plan on doing that, when you yourself are now calling this war a failure. Why would any country want to get involved in something thats doomed. I got news for you, no country would want to do that./

 

I just saw on the newswires today that said that if Kerry was elected and things started to change policy wise by the US allowing other companies in, etc., Germany would possibly send troops into Iraq and assist. Their spokesman said that Kerry would be a better person to deal with than Bush.

 

And Jas, we got told Saddam had WMD, we knew where they were and everything. Now it's become "Well he had plans to possibly get something going somewhere down the line in the future." -- So essentially 1000+ troops are dead because Saddam MIGHT have gotten WMD sometime in the future...possibly. And if he was such a brutal madman, then why not use the military to invade countries where there are comparable madmen (Kim Jong Il, Uribe in Colombia, etc. etc. etc.) That's like the idea of a potential criminal: "Well he might do something to us sometime so let's lock him up and throw away the key."

 

Fact remains, Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11, he did not hit us with a terrorist attack and did not directly provoke the United States. And if you're really that damn concerned about the Kurds, let's advocate the invasion of Turkey. After all, they just burned down 3000 Kurdish villages and slaughtered them with Apache helicopters etc. in an act of genocide. But oh yeah, those Kurds aren't important to the US because we deem that an "internal matter" for the nation of Turkey.

 

Jas, the people still have no freedom. The prison camps to keep order, the lockdown of newspapers etc. (free speech at its finest!) and lets not forget the torture at Abu Ghraib with the Taguba report says is widespread throughout US forces in Iraq. Estimates from experts there have stated that 30-80% of the people arrested there and thrown in prison have...NO CONNECTION TO TERRORISM. Yet they're still held there without charge...sounds like some freedom to me.

 

As for the Afghan vote, there were tons of claims that women were being harassed and hit with death threats if they did try to vote. And I love our $0 of funding in the fiscal budget for Afghanistan.

[KipWellsFan]

I do agree with your statement that many of the uninvolved countries will never join, but I believe the idea that it is because John Kerry says the war in Iraq is a failure, is a flawed idea.  Simply, because politicians who are leading their countries know what it takes to become a leader and John Kerry is trying to do what it takes to become that leader.  Whether it ends up being the right way to become that leader we'll see.  Personally, I believe what is keeping Germany and France out of the war is purely public opinion, for them to get into anything pre-rebuilding process would be political suicide.

 

Good post Jas. But dead WRONG!

Canada's Prime Minister announces in conjunction with this thread what Canada is up to when it comes to Iraq.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...iraq041014.html

[Molto]

This is kind of spun out of the Sinclair thread and some off my stuff refers to it, but then I decided to get on a larger tangent in a sense. 

 

Lets talk Hannity.  I watch the show a few times a week, more now then usual, but whenever something is going on I pay a lot more attention to politics and will pretty much flip back and forth every day now and catch segments of all the Fox News programs.

 

Today I decided to check out some of CNN after the debate.  I typically try to flip channels and see what the consensus was, but what I saw after the debate tonight was sheer garbage coming from CBS and CNN. 

 

I was absolutely disgusted and I'm not one to cray afoul...these few posts by me today and yesterday were about the first I've made on stuff like this.  I try to stay out of this type of nonsense but its becoming clear to me that the democratcs are screaming bloody murder and right fully so over this sinclair thing, but they have never seemed to have a problem by the consistent hack job bulls*** coming from CBS (Viacom) and CNN (especially has of late).  It amazes me how much CNN has gone downhill.

 

They used to actually be a credible news source, now its like they are trying to play into the liberal since Fox has cornered the conservative viewership and does a far better job covering politics, imo.  People told me to listen to NPR and I caught it for a full weekend when I was in Iowa.  My god was I amazed at the bull coming off those airwaves, it was horribly slanted.  It was almost like listening to Rush, who by the way I can't stand.  But Rush doesn't act like he's impartial, NPR is supposed to be impartial, CNN is supposed to be impartial.  The talking heads aren't impartial, they are typically on to argue one side or the other. 

 

However, as far as Hannidy and Colmes go, I don't know how much you watch of it, but as of late it appears to be both guys get equal time with each person to ask their questions.  You must be flipping during the time where Hannidy is getting in his licks or comments because they usually go one for a few minutes and then the other gets their statements and ocassionally each will but in during the others segments.  Its pretty equal, especially of late.  A year ago I'd of told you it was much more Hannity but that doesn't seem to be the fact anymore. 

 

I also have never figured out how Kerry can do no wrong.  People act like he's completey perfect, well at least his supporters seem to.  Their is no denying the fact that this guy is a self serving asshole.  Just look at how over the place he is on issues.  Now I'm not going to talk about issues where he says one thing and does another, but the 87 billion was absolute garbage.

 

To publicly state he was going to do one thing and essentially claiming to not vote for it would be stupid and then not doing it is pure assinine. I get you want to make a protest, but he said he was for it and wanted to and voted against it soley in protest of the war, not in protest of the financing.  Well great, protest by putting troops on the line without the proper protection...really freaking brilliant. 

 

Or how about not attending an intelligence meeting for essentially a year after the first World Trade center attack.  And then having the balls to go in and propose a 6 billion dollar intelligence cut back.  Now he has the gusto to say that we have to spend more on intelligence and strengthen.  Well ya, I agree with that, the problem is your 20 year record doesn't support you have the ability to do it or will do it.

 

How about the tax cuts.  He keeps talking about rolling back the cuts for people paying 200,000.  While I'm not in that tax bracket, its wrong to punish those that make a lot of money.  That same group, or essentially the top 20% pay 80% of our income taxes so htey are pulling their fare share and when you give a tax break of course they are goign to see a heavier savings considering they put in a whole lot more. 

 

And lets get a rid of the dividend tax break and all those things which help spur investing and help improve the economy.  Any economist will tell you, put the money in the hands of the public, not the hands of the government.  When the government sector has to come in, it means you've had a major failure in the private sector.  Their is no reason to have failures in our private sector.  Were the most sucessful country in the wordl and while the government may ocassionally have to step in and protect sectors and on rare ocassions break up ocassional monopolies.  However, I will stand with him on the tax shelters with companies that move out of the US, I do think you shouldn't give them deffered tax or whatever it is they get.

 

But don't tell me, that taking money from the people making 200,000 or more to finance the government health care program is worth it.  Bulls*** the government isn't involved John Kerry.  I don't know how anyone could believe that considering the government will be footing the estimated 1.3 trillion bill (was estimated to be as high as 2.3 trillion dollars but those estimates have dropped a bit, but like any government program, the estimates will be too low). 

 

Plus its not right to tell only those rich to finance government health care for everyone else, when we all know those upper class people are going to still use their same health care.  Its an absolute garbage policy.  I'm not syaing that health care is right, its not, but a government sustained health policy is not in the best interest of this country. 

 

Now lets talk about the war in Iraq.  While Kerry may have some sensible arguments, his comments are absolutely ludicrious.  He keeps saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.  Well after Saddam was taken out and initially he didn'dt seem to be too down on it.  Now until Howard Dean and his anti-war ticket caught fire in the democratic campaign for presidency did Kerry and Edwards start leaning anti war.  Both of these people have numerous quotes supporting it.

 

Whats the say when the candidates completely change their position essentially right after Dean picks up his momentum.  Thats not why you make decisions and go out and do things.  And he seems to think this diplomacy will work.  Well put it this way France never wanted a war in Iraq. Their oil for food program with Iraq was helping France out just fine and in no way did they want to risk losing oil.  Now Kerry says he will get other countries involved.  How do you plan on doing that, when you yourself are now calling this war a failure.  Why would any country want to get involved in something thats doomed.  I got news for you, no country would want to do that. 

 

Think about it, would you go to the UN and go hey guys, I know I said this a month ago trying to get re-elected, but I need your help now, will you guys help me down in Iraq so we can get our troops the hell out of there.  I know this is a failure, but I really need your help.  YA right.  Plus France and Germany, the two allies the democrats complain about not being involved, have already stated that they will not join the coalition if Kerry is elected. 

 

And before we call the war in Iraq a failure.  Lets remember that Saddam was a ruthless killer that gassed the Kurds and his own people.  The guy may of been put in power by us, but that does'nt mean we should look the other way.  Well, I guess he didn't have WOMD, but their is strong evidence to indicate he was doing everything he could to get the sanctions remove and then restart his programs...to do what you ask...build weapons of mass destruction. 

 

Should I mention the people in Iraq?  These were people that had absolutely no freedom.  The average wage in Iraq was roughly 5 bucks a month.  Now its sky-rocketing since the regime change and the tech sector in Iraq is starting to show up.  Prior to this, Iraq had no tech sector.  They also should have 125,000 trained soldiers by the end of the year and free elections to follow. 

 

Look at Afhghanistan, where they just held elections and had women, who were so oppressed by this regime, get their vote heard.  Heck, even Iran is starting to come along and is starting to encourage both women and men to register to vote. 

 

Well, that gets a good amount off my chest, but trust me their will be more.

Jas, I've had teachers who have worked deep within some of the top news organizations and the consensus is that the bias is with Fox News.

 

One of my teachers who worked at Fox, and was a republican on top of it, criticized Fox News.

 

People who work at Fox News receive memos everyday telling them what they can and can't talk about.

[mreye]

As far as the wars, Afghanistan was by far the right thing to do. Unfortunately, it's been forgotten because of the war in Iraq. There was justification for the war in Afghanistan.

Forgotten by who? BUsh? I don't think so. The American people? I don't think so. The people that I know that are currently there? Not by a longshot. By me? No way. By the media? Absolutely. They've dropped the ball on this. I guess there isn't enough blood. It's sad is what it is.

[Pale Hose Jon]

Forgotten by who? BUsh? I don't think so. The American people? I don't think so. The people that I know that are currently there? Not by a longshot. By me? No way. By the media? Absolutely. They've dropped the ball on this. I guess there isn't enough blood. It's sad is what it is.

What do you want them to report on. The fact that there are only around 15,000 troops there? That gangs basically are running the country right now?

[Palehosefan]

Here are my problems with Kerry.

 

There is never an issue that he can't solve in his mind. He's similar to the school class president that promises to do away with homework, add more vending machines, and give longer recess breaks. Instead of choosing his issues and going all out to solve them, he promises to solve everything. He preaches he has answers to everything from minimum wage, to education, to equal pay for minorities and women, to job stability. He wants to try to solve all of the problems that past presidents have faced at once.

 

I don't know what to believe from him, whether its the false claim of the 56 bills passed, or the claims that border patrol and security hasn't improved at all since 9/11, or that his health care will cover ALL of the population, or that Bush never met with the CBC. It goes on and on and on.

 

How do I or any other voter know what to believe from Kerry?

[kapkomet]

One other note:

 

Kerry, in his tax proposals, has proposed to increase the medicare tax from a cap (meaning you don't get taxed anymore) of 89,000 (or so - I don't remember the cap right now) to approx. 130,000. So... no tax increases on the folks who make less then 200,000? Uh-huh.

 

I'll find a link to back this up - I was reading this last weekend...

[Chisoxfn]

I think the cap is 82,000 but not positive on that. He's not going to repeal the tax cut, but he will definately be upping some of those type of things.

 

Just like the mid 90's solution he came up with in regards to social security. Instead of taxing people up to like 38,000 they upped it to 82,000 or so.

 

And his stance on social security was absolutely awful. We'll stay put and once it becomes a problem we'll do what we did in the 90's and solve it. So what, your just going to have American tax payers more money instead of actually do something about a system that is failing.

[jackie hayes]

And his stance on social security was absolutely awful.  We'll stay put and once it becomes a problem we'll do what we did in the 90's and solve it.  So what, your just going to have American tax payers more money instead of actually do something about a system that is failing.

And Bush's response was any better? He said that he will partially privatize it for the young, which takes money out of the system. How will he cover the shortfall? Ahh, our president said that the system will be made solvent by the "compounding rate of interest effect". If he really believes that social security can be saved by putting the money in a savings account, he's far more delusional than Kerry.

 

In all fairness, Bush only promised it would be solvent for "our children and our grandchildren", not for the baby boomers.

 

Frankly, no politician has the first clue how to save Social Security, because even the best plan will be painful, and will probably require benefits cuts. It's just flat-out wrong to act like Kerry is the only one avoiding the issue. Every politician in America is avoiding the issue.

[Rex Kickass]

Jas,

 

You make some interesting points here. I don't have time to talk about them all because I gotta get to work in a bit, but let's take a look. The two most vocal people on the Fox News post debate panel the other night was Fred Barnes who was absolutely gushing about Bush and Mort Kondracke who was angry that Kerry dared to mention that a gay activist was gay. That's dirty pool, he said. I can't say that I watch Hannity and Colmes very often. Mostly cause I work late, and I never found the show too terribly interesting or informative. When I have watched it, it seems like Alan Colmes can't get a word in edgewise over Sean Hannity. So, lets leave that alone. I don't have statistics to back up my argument, you don't have statistics to back up yours.

 

I watched CNN mostly after the debate. For the first hour or so, the commentators were talking about how it was a draw. After the snap polls showed a Kerry victory, the commentators talked about how Kerry dominated the debate. I think I remember at least one CNN commentator talking early on about how Bush wiped the floor with Kerry. The problem with debate analysis is that it inherently leans on opinion. Any news network is going to show a slanted view based on the commentators who has it on. FNC had angry white guys yelling about Kerry's dirty pool, MSNBC had a nearly all republican crew, CNN had four people - two who said it was a draw, one who said Bush won and one who said Kerry won. If that's leaning left Jas, you need to review your definition of Fair and Balanced ™.

 

I remember sometime last year a study being released that showed that this President has had more Press Events carried live by news networks than Clinton, Bush 41 or Reagan. The day after the first debate, Bush announced a new policy initiative would be declared at a campaign event - it was a standard stump speech though and all three major cable news networks carried it live for over 45 minutes. When was the last time CNN carried a Kerry stump speech for that long? I think it was when Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

 

NPR differentiates itself from reporting and analysis. I think shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered are incredibly balanced. But they don't shy away stating problems that this administration has. I hear stories on NPR, the other "news" networks wouldn't dare to cover. Partially because it doesn't fit the established storyline of the campaign. Pure and simple, most news networks aren't biased in this country, they're just lazy.

 

As for treating Kerry like some kind of God. I don't. The truth is, I don't agree with his health care policy. I don't agree with a lot of the things he says, in fact. But this election is not about John Kerry. This election is about the last four years and the next four years. You can sit there and revel in the minutia of how a Senator voted in which case, etc. You can say Kerry voted for higher taxes 97 times, a number which by the way isn't true. You can also point out that Kerry voted for lower taxes over 200 times. Which is, by the way, true. It's all irrelevant to me.

 

Kerry is my man in this election, but if he f***s with the things I believe in - he's out in 2008. Bush's supporters act like the guy should be put on Mount Rushmore. Like he's never made a mistake and marginalize anyone who disagrees with a president. Hecklers get a chance to heckle at a Kerry campaign stop. Hecklers aren't allowed in at a Bush stop. Hell, even undecided voters aren't wanted.

 

I frame the election this way, and you should too. Timothy Noah said it much better than me so I'll quote him.

 

Instead of trying to master the details of complicated new proposed initiatives, focus on the following question: Which of these guys will do a better job cleaning up the horrible fiscal mess left behind by President Bush's first term? Because, when you get down to it, that's the only honest job description for the domestic-policy part of this gig. One way to answer that question is to compare Bush's $2 trillion to $4 trillion in new costs to Kerry's $1.27 trillion. Another is to see if you can identify which candidate even recognizes that there's a mess to clean up. Come to think of it, that isn't a bad method for sizing up the foreign-policy part of this job, either.

[Steff]

One other note:

 

Kerry, in his tax proposals, has proposed to increase the medicare tax from a cap (meaning you don't get taxed anymore) of 89,000 (or so - I don't remember the cap right now) to approx. 130,000.  So... no tax increases on the folks who make less then 200,000?  Uh-huh.

 

I'll find a link to back this up - I was reading this last weekend...

Umm.. I don't like this.

[southsider2k5]

Umm.. I don't like this. 

Just think of it as an income readjustment...

[Palehosefan]

Here is a couple of other quotes about Kerry's new budget.

 

"Even with that generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years." (Kevin Hassett, "An Analysis of the Ten-Year Costs of Senator Kerry's Spending Proposals," AEI, 8/12/04) AEI = American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

 

"Although Kerry's aides privately admit the Democratic candidate cannot fulfill all of his campaign promises and still reduce the deficit by half as promised …" (Jim VandeHei, "Kerry Gets Boost From Surprising Sources," The Washington Post, 3/23/04)

 

 

 

Again, how can you know what to believe when his own advisors agree with me that he can't possibly fulfill his campaign promises?

[Molto]

NPR differentiates itself from reporting and analysis. I think shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered are incredibly balanced. But they don't shy away stating problems that this administration has. I hear stories on NPR, the other "news" networks wouldn't dare to cover. Partially because it doesn't fit the established storyline of the campaign. Pure and simple, most news networks aren't biased in this country, they're just lazy.

one problem with the news networks is that they are afraid to look biased, because no matter what you may find nowadays to make a point, there is always something the opposite side can refute that with.

 

A perfect example is a case I had in my Media Ethics class. The case (not a real case) talked about a mayor of a city publically holding a press conference at 4 PM and using that conference to criticize a committeman for something deal with pesticide (sp?) anyway, by holding this conference so late, they give the reporter little time to dig deeper because they are on "deadline."

 

So, instead of ignoring the deadline and waiting till the next day in order to find out if the accusations are true, they simply run a story about the mayors accusations, true or not.

 

So instead of getting the facts straight after hearing both sides, they simply say what each side said and basically wipe their hands clean of it.

 

it isn't about being lazy ... the hours and work they put in our crazy. the problem is politicians have them by the balls and they are being forced to produce something, anything.

 

this is exactly why I don't want to have anything to do with daily newspapers or big TV networks.

[Rex Kickass]

If people here are so concerned with runaway federal government spending, why wouldn't you vote for Kerry? With a Democratic president and a Republican congress, how is any major reform going to pass anyway? If anything, this would be the surest way to maintain fiscal responsibility. Dems plans get shot down in committee. Republican pork gets vetoed.

 

Talk about Kerry's plans, let's talk about Bush's reality. He has vetoed 0 spending bills in the 3+ years he's had the opportunity to. Including a ridiculous multi-billion dollar tax cut to corporations that even John McCain referred to as ridiculous.

[jackie hayes]

Here is a couple of other quotes about Kerry's new budget.

 

"Even with that generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years." (Kevin Hassett, "An Analysis of the Ten-Year Costs of Senator Kerry's Spending Proposals," AEI, 8/12/04) AEI = American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

 

"Although Kerry's aides privately admit the Democratic candidate cannot fulfill all of his campaign promises and still reduce the deficit by half as promised …" (Jim VandeHei, "Kerry Gets Boost From Surprising Sources," The Washington Post, 3/23/04)

 

 

 

Again, how can you know what to believe when his own advisors agree with me that he can't possibly fulfill his campaign promises?

First of all, why would you think quoting an AEI pub would convince anyone? AEI is a famously conservative think-tank. We knew before Kerry was even nominated who they would side w/.

 

Also, of course Kerry's plans are unaffordable. So are Bush's -- except they're even less affordable. See this Washington Post article. A lot of that comes from extending the tax cuts (the sunset provision in them was fundamentally dishonest, anyway, another reason to not vote Bush), and even more from his plan to take money out of Social Security (in favor of private investment). Moreover, Bush continues to simply ignore the costs of Iraq.

 

Personally, I don't trust much of what Kerry says, and I doubt much of it gets done. But I've known (we've all known) that much of what Bush is saying is just pure lying -- the sunset provision in the tax bill is a good example. They even canned the only honest cabinet member (O'Neill). No chance am I voting to give another term to someone so full of bs, just because his opponent has overextended himself (by less than the incumbent!).

[Palehosefan]

Thats exactly my point jackie, its about which one you can trust more. I trust Bush more, though not 100%. As for the quotes, its not about WHO its from, its about the facts themselves. If the statistics aren't true, it would be libel. There are lies coming from both sides, as in every election. But I've found more inconsistencies with Kerry's speech vs. actions than with Bush.

[jackie hayes]

Thats exactly my point jackie, its about which one you can trust more. I trust Bush more, though not 100%. As for the quotes, its not about WHO its from, its about the facts themselves. If the statistics aren't true, it would be libel. There are lies coming from both sides, as in every election. But I've found more inconsistencies with Kerry's speech vs. actions than with Bush.

But the quote is an "estimate", not a "statistic", meaning that they made particular assumptions which may or may not be fair. (Or in this case, fair and balanced?)

 

I don't see how Bush is more consistent. The Social Security partial privatization is by far the most expensive proposal of either candidate. There's very little chance that his proposals will be less expensive than Kerry's. Yet he claims that he will cut the deficit in half in 5 years. It's pure garbage.

[Palehosefan]

You gotta atleast have a plan to make something work. Kerry didn't even have a plan for SS, he just said when the problem arrives they will take care of it. How easy of an answer was that? Bush could have said that about everything. The war and defense spending account for the majority of the deficit. Take a look at this.

 

"The President's FY 2005 Budget manages to accommodate a 10 percent increase in discretionary homeland security spending and a seven percent increase for defense while limiting total discretionary spending to just under four percent. While in office the President has restrained the growth of non-defense, non-homeland related spending, slowing it from 15 percent in 2001 to below one percent in 2005. " ("Mid-Session Review," OMB, 7/30/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf)

 

Here's another quote backing up the assumption that Bush can cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Unless you consider the Wall Street Journal biased also.

 

Bolten: "By continuing the President's plan for economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to strengthen the economy and cut the deficit in half. The MSR estimates the deficit will decline from 3.8% as a share of the economy in 2004 to 1.5% of GDP in 2009." (Joshua B. Bolten, "We Can Cut The Deficit In Half," The Wall Street Journal, 12/10/03)

 

The end of the war and a steady defense budget will cut the deficit significantly for ANY president, whether it ends up as Bush or Kerry. Here is a quote from Alan Greenspan on what needs to happen with Social Security.

 

"Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement."

 

That sounds eerily like Bush's answer to social security. I would be willing to trust Greenspan over any Kerry advisor. Is asking today's youth to save money possibly a disaster waiting to happen? Sure. But do you or does Kerry have a better answer?

[Rex Kickass]

Here's the problem, where has Bush actually delivered on Spending Restraint?