Democratic National Convention





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Democratic National Convention
By 1212 (1212) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

to those who have been watching, any comments that you need to express? edwards is speaking now and i think he is decent, nothing special. CNN really jumped on Al Sharpton. Im too lazy to type so Any comments on this (i would expect CC to be pretty conservative)?

By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

WHAT!?!?! Edwards was amazing!!!!

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

A little biased, are we?

I agree, Edwards was decent. Didn't rock my socks.

By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Me, biased? :)

Okay, well, I like Edwards tremendously to begin with but I think that his speech was actually really good, and the delivery was excellent... he knows how to reach the "common man". On CNN they mentioned that he kind of glazed over the war issue... I think he covered his bases just fine. The speech was an effective one- perhaps not the most brilliant but I was certainly impressed and captivated. (No, not just because he is great looking.)

By Iplayoboe (Iplayoboe) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

im watching now as they cast the state delegates votes... its so much fun to watch, im totally into it, i wish i could be there! ... im biased simply because im dreaming of being President of the United States in 20 years... (vote for me!!!)
i loved when she called Florida...
"Florida, you have 201 and one votes to cast."... cheers.,.. "and this time.." cheers.."and we're going to count everyone of them"
that was funny.
anyway... GO KERRY EDWARDS!
im too tired to type more, but im sure this thread will take off and ill type more later !

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

He was ok, wouldnt be anything special if it werent for his looks and lawyery persuasivness and suavness. Message was nothing special. The two americas thing turns me off, espessially since it is so contradictory and victimizing. They talk about being united and not divided, and then they constantly use class warfare and say we are divided by everything under the sun into 2 americas; they talk about united and not being two americas, but it is mostly the dems who group people into racial, gender, and economic units. Also, it is contradictory since most of their speakers came from the so called "unprivlidged" other america, such as clinton, obama, and edwards (middle class) himself, and have succeeded tremendously. So there is obviously a pathway for all to reach success so long as their is focus, hard work, and determination.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

That wasn't his best work but still better than most.

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Edwards' speech was good but Al Sharpton's was the one that incited me. Most people probably think he comes off a little obnoxious with his aggressive tone but I just admire how darn soulful he is! And his wit is awesome!

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

>>>(i would expect CC to be pretty conservative)


hahahahhahahahahahhahah, good one!

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

There is a big difference here, Edwards actually writes his own speeches cnn was saying he made 30 rough drafts of that speech untill he perfected it (I wonder what would happen if our current President wrote his own speeches lol)....and yes Edwards was great

..a lot of otheres were great as well

my top 3 order:

1.Clinton
2.Obama/Edwards

Its hard to even rank these guys...they are all top speakers in politics...i'm not even sure if the Republicans can rival a single one of them at their convention

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Prepare to be surprised. Democrats don't have a patent on speechmaking (though those three are world-class.)

Look for John McCain, Bush, and Zell Miller to whup oratorical a$$ if they get the nod.

Where I think the Republicans are gonna screw up is trying to go too moderate with their message. It will hurt their credibility, IMO.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

i enjoyed the speaches, especially Sharptons. Wow, what a powerful speaker. Reminds me of Dr. King.

But, despite the fact that I am a Democrat to the bone, I felt that the entire convention was too riddled with political rhetoric. This is probably unavoidable in a convention such as this one, but still, i'd say 40%-50% of what every speaker said was already said befored during other speaches in the past.

This is why i loved Sharpton so much. His ability to ad lib his own thoughts is truly a gift.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Sharpton didn't even use the teleproctor at most points...he completely veered off from the speech that was on it ([lus the teleproctor only had a 7min speech on it)

...pretty impressive

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Setting aside my political bias, I think there were a few great speeches that worked well for the convention. The best were obviously Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. However, the greatness was mostly for a a very nice delivery. The contents of Obama did not amount too much as it should be expected. This is NOT a criticism as I like him. The reality is that he cannot steal the thunder from the candidates (past, current, and future) and his speech had to be candid yet harmless and forgettable.

As far as Edwards and Sharpton, if you are a Democrat, you probably can enjoy the delivery but you should shudder at the can of worms that were opened. Some of the issues raised by Edwards will play in the hands of ... the Republican candidates. Sharpton's speech WILL simply cause more damage than good. It is one thing to energize an ultra-partisan crowd with stories about kitchens and mules (quite appropriate, come to think about it) and quite another to get votes, as he found out himself.

All in all, the Republican leadership SHOULD be delighted about yesterday's speeches.

By Alicia129 (Alicia129) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit

I dunno about anyone else, but I absolutely adore Teresa Heinz Kerry, and loved her speech. She's getting a lot of flack for being so outspoken, but I think she'd be a nice change for First Lady. Her speech has been one of the highlights for me so far :)

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

THK should probably be investigated or prosecuted for income tax invasion. She earned $5 million, but paid $750k in taxes - roughly 15%. Alternative Minimum Tax will FORCE her to pay more than that. Anyone have any idea of what's going on? Also, the lady is the widow of a die-hard Republican, but is now supporting her uber-liberal husband in his bid for the presidency. Heinz must be rolling over in his grave.

Strong women, good. But one can have morals and still be strong and politically powerful. HRC missed that one, and I'm afraid that THK is, too.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Noodleman: you said the R's will have some good speeches, including McCain, Bush & Zil Miller.

Hmmmm. Small problem there. Or just a problem with timing?

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Please elucidate; I know not to what you refer.

Thanks,


El Noodle.

P.S.: Yes, Zell Miller is a Democrat, and yes, he will be speaking at the convention.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Ariesathena,
What is your source on that? Many wealthy people do not pay the full tarif of taxes and they do it "perfectly legally". If you want to educate yourself on taxes I suggest reading the book, "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston. By the way I saw Theresa on Larry King and she specifically said that she became a Democrat when she saw what the Republican party did to Max Cleland. She said her husband would have been very disturbed by how the Republicans behaved.

By Televelis (Televelis) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Hayden - Zell Miller has been rather open about his support for this administration.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Noodleman: I was just wondering if Zel Miller might be going to announce he is becoming a Republican at the convention.

(I just thought it sounded amusing the way you said the Republican speakers were going to be good, then named another Democrat. But you're right, he's not really a Dem anymore.)

By Isaman (Isaman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Ehh...Edawards was ok, but I cannot say that I'm totally disapointed, since I didn't expect much from him. I jsut don't really buy his "Hope Is On The Way" slogan. I mean, a lot of people already have hope. They hope the war in Iraq ends. They hope the economy improves. They hope that more jobs are created. While I am democrat, I must say that I think Cheney had it right in 2000. What the people need is a promise that "Help Is On The Way," and I, for one, hope that help is coming.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Hayden, Zell Miller, a democratic senator from Georgia, who is angry at his party, is retiring from the Senate. There is a race to fill his spot, and it is almost a lock that a republican will fill it, since the dems in that race are all a bit shady. But anyway, I dont think he'll change over, since he is retiring anyway.

THK saying "shove it" has nothing to do with being outspoken, it has to do with being arrogent, as does her whole self revolving snail's paced speech.

Obama was pretty good. Edwards has absolutly no substance or solutions except taxing the rich more and taxing avenues towrds wealth for middle class, such as dividend, capital gains, and business and corporate taxes.

By Isaman (Isaman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Amen to that

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit

I am not too sure about Schup's book recommendation but there is an easy explanation for THK tax figures, it is because she earned tax exempt interest income of approximately $2,777,000 from state, municipal and other public entity bonds.

While Kerry went through extensive games to avoid disclosing his wife's tax returns, I do not believe that anyone will find anything to worry about. This is a non-event since her taxes won't be filed until the last second of October 15th, 2004.

The real question is why her fortune yields so little reportable income. The sticky point will be to see how Kerry would attempt to close the generous loopholes exploited by the Heinz Corporation. His current proposals made sure to preserve the loopholes for Heinz.


Quote:

Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid approximately $750,000 towards her 2003 federal, state and local income tax liability at the time of the extension filing. This represents approximately 32 percent of her gross taxable income. She paid $587,000 in estimated federal income taxes for 2003, and $162,777 in estimated state and local income taxes. In addition, in April she paid $280,000 towards expected additional 2003 and 2004 federal tax liability.

Based upon the information received to date concerning her investments, her advisers estimate that in 2003, Mrs. Heinz Kerry had gross taxable income of approximately $2,338,000, consisting primarily of dividends and interest, and tax exempt interest income of approximately $2,777,000 from state, municipal and other public entity bonds.

In 2003, Mrs. Heinz Kerry was responsible for over $4.6 million distributed as charitable contributions, primarily through charitable grants by the Heinz Family Foundation, a 501(c)(3) corporation Mrs. Heinz Kerry established with her late husband, Senator John Heinz, and later significantly expanded after his death in 1991 through her creation of the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Fund within that Foundation. The Heinz Family Foundation is principally funded by a charitable lead trust, the Teresa & H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, established as a result of estate planning decisions made by Senator John Heinz and Mrs. Heinz Kerry before his death.


By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Hayden: Yes that was amusing; I thought of that, too and chuckled.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Xiggi, Do you have a reason for calling my book suggestion questionable? Have you read it? It was written by a New York Times reporter who writes about taxes and spent 10 years researching the book. Oh but I forgot you think the New York Times is liberally biased and so no reporter could possibly speak the truth.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

there's only one word that i can say about this convention: SHAM!

omg! have you seen their platform? Suddenly, the Democrats are no longer singing Kumbaya and destroy corporate America, but:

* make the War on Terror the top priority
* want higher defense spending
* SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT?
* never mention the fact that they want to raise taxes.

And i wonder why Michael Moore isn't a featured speaker, since he obviously represents how most of the delegates there feel.

minus all that I found Obama to be a very amazing speaker, and respect should be given where it's due.

By Isaman (Isaman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

It would be bad politics for Kerry to assosciate himself with a left wing propogantist like Michael Moore.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Deleted by Moderator - Even in the Café, we expect civility.

By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Kerry killed it when he mentioned adding 40,000 troops & doubling the special ops. I wonder where he plans on getting these soldiers from? A draft? WTH. I walked out of the room on that note. I am "deathly" afraid of a draft.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

I didn't read this thread, but all I can say is UGH...and that he said some pretty corny stuff tonight.

Among Kerry's most corny lines were:

"I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

"I was born in the West Wing!"

Yes, we know you were born in the west wing of your hosptal...get over it.

"My Mom taught me to see trees as the cathedrals of nature."

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Kerry's speech SUCKS. its a campaign speech, and a bad one at that. Its the wrong time and place for that. DNC should be a place where ppl praise and celebrate Democratic Party values. The speech should have been about him-his character, and how that makes him the best candidate for the presidency. The issues should be saved for campaign speeches with a swing vote audience.

...too many should haves....i am not satisfied. Kerry needs a speech lesson from Clinton.

By Abrandel05 (Abrandel05) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Lol good chocolate i had those impressions too, especially the first two i was like "WHAT are you syaing!!!! do you hear yourself?" TO be honest, i feel wat the Narrarator is saying, but i think from his point of view, the only thing that can save his case is to present some ideas complete with numbers and anwers, which yes makes it a campaign speech, but thats wat the Convention has become

By Idiias (Idiias) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit

I finally got to watch this. I saw Madeline's speech. Kerry's was good and I really liked it when all the balloons were falling down.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I loved it when the Democrats were talking about the importance of values!

I'm not *SAYING* Democrats don't have any values, but you have to admit that if they do have them, they never talk about them!

By Kousuke (Kousuke) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

al sharpton is a beast.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Well, they talk about beliefs, and I guess beliefs would entail values.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

is Kerry's speech going to air again? or any part of this convention

By Mahras (Mahras) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

Well all this Kerry bashing will backfire because I dont suppose Bush will give any better speech. First off if Kerry needs speech lessons, I suppose Bush needs speech THERAPY considering the fact that the guy can't even pronounce nuclear properly.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

Idiias, yes, tongiht they will show it on the news channels probobly (fox, cnn, msnbc, cspan).

Maharas, Bush has made excellent speeches. His convention speech was really good, and his state of the union and post sept 11 addresses were regarded by almost all as strong and inspiring. Even in the debates against Gore, Bush either tied or beat the arrogent Gore.


Now for this speech:
It was one of Kerry's best delivered speeches. Part of it might of been because the bar was set low since he isnt regarded as an inspiring or connecting speaker, but it was good.
I didnt like how he took so many cheap shots, yet tried to pretend as if his campaign is so clean and positive. I think Bush haters have been more hatful than those that disagree with Kerry. Both campaigns use negative stuff, and Kerry shouldn't act like his is taking a high ground.
I found it extremly revolting how he quoted a line from the funeral service of Ronald Reagan. His movie spent about 0 time discussing his time in the senate, something they are clearly trying to avoid, one because he accomplished very little legislation and second because of his very liberal voting record. The incosistencies between his voting record and what he is campainging on are extraordinary. How can he say he wants better veteran and military and intelligence funding when he was consistently voting down bills that would better fund these important agencies. He never mentions his vote against the liberation of Kuiate, something which was mandated by the UN.

I also find it troubling how he video taped his time in Vietnam. Who takes a video camera, something not common in those days, to video tape themselves? Who reenacts battle scenes for the video, something that has come out today? Why did he serve only four months, and immediatly upon return search out the spot light in front of the senate and throw his medals away. He said he was ashamed of his service, and now there isnt a line at the convention where they dont mention vietnam, almost as often as we are left without doubt that edwards was a son of a millworker. Before he went to Vietnam, his friends at Yale said he was planning to run for President, so this all gives me a troubling feeling of disingenuous and exploited service.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

Ariesathena:

I respect THK. She, like Margaret Marshall, did not have to march in favor of rights for Africans, but both did. To me that shows moral courage. I don't know why you think she has no morals. What exactly has she done that is immoral?

I distinctly recall that John Heinz and John Kerry were friendly, perhaps even friends. Heinz was a moderate Republican. I doubt very much that he would be rolling in his grave. More important, why do you think THK should not have ideas of her own? Should she be echoing her first husband, dead more than a decade? How ghoulish. Do we even know how he would stand on specific issues, or do we assume, "my Party, right or wrong?"

Xiggi is right in wondering how Kerry would act in regard to the laws that have enabled THK and other wealthy Americans to pay so little taxes. Let's face it, those laws are favored by Republicans. If you object to them and to the fact that THK paid so little taxes, please direct your objection to the Republicans. But please also realize that they have more probability of being amended under a Democratic administration than a Republican one.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

Well all this Kerry bashing will backfire because I dont suppose Bush will give any better speech. First off if Kerry needs speech lessons, I suppose Bush needs speech THERAPY considering the fact that the guy can't even pronounce nuclear properly.

I was commenting on Kerry at the DNC; I think he did an awful job. He said corny lines non-stop, and made himself look *too* good -- even Average Joe should be able to see through his oh-so-clever guise. Your attack on Bush isn't related to this thread at all, and I'm sure it didn't offend anybody -- it looks like one of those "heat of the moment" posts people do when they're really pissed off.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

>> Before he went to Vietnam, his friends at Yale said he was planning to run for President, so this all gives me a troubling feeling of disingenuous and exploited service.>>

If you plan on running for President, there are far safer ways of doing so than putting yourself in the line of fire, as GWB so manifestly did not. Kerry's Senate service was unglamorous but not insignificant. I recall that when he decided to serve on the Senate Banking Committee there were those who tried to dissuade him from doing so because it was so unglamorous. It would take him away from the limelight. But he wanted to clean up the financial mess known as the S&L scandal. He spent endless hours over the POW/MIA issue, together with John McCain. He upset the more leftist of Democrats, of which there are plenty in his home state of MA, by his early calls for welfare reforms, well before Meanwhile, GWB was doing what exactly? Getting drunk? Will we see these scenes in the GWB biographical video or the one where he reports to National Guard duty in Alabama?

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

Xiggi, Do you have a reason for calling my book suggestion questionable? Have you read it? It was written by a New York Times reporter who writes about taxes and spent 10 years researching the book. Oh but I forgot you think the New York Times is liberally biased and so no reporter could possibly speak the truth.

Schup, get off your high horse! Speaking about reading, did YOU even read my post before jumping to your usual and prejudicial conclusions? I provided an answer to the question about the tax situation of THK in a clear and quotable manner. Do I think that Aries needs to go buy "a tax" book to find the answer? Obviously ... Not!

Now, as far as what I think, how would YOU have the slightest idea of what my thoughts are?

Lastly, since you read the book sufficiently to recommend it to understand the THK taxes, could you share your opinions on her situation and tell how she fits in this puzzling situation of having a husband who pretends to champion correcting the egregious corporate abuses and deriving her income from a corporation that could be the poster child for tax dodgers?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit

Well he did do a few things in the senate, but for 20 years, it is very very sparse. And he voted against time limits for welfare, against job training requirments, before changing and voting for the popular welfare reform

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit

You know Xiggi you could have explained the tax situation without putting the book into question. I don't know what you think. I thought I remembered you making a statement discounting the New York Times because of its"liberal" bias.

My name is not Schup and I'm riding my "high horse" right back off this site. I forgot why I left.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

"Where I think the Republicans are gonna screw up is trying to go too moderate with their message. It will hurt their credibility, IMO."

They don't have any choice now that the Democrats have. (Granted those speakers were picked before the Democratic convention)

There just aren't enough conservatives out there in America to win an election. If the GOP didn't try to attract any moderates the Democrats would win every election in a landslide.

And I guess the reverse is true, also... except for the "liberal" Kerry-Edwards ticket which is still running even with a "moderate" Bush-Cheney ticket.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit

It is very hard to serve as junior senator with Ted Kennedy who attracts the limelight both in MA and elsewhere effortlessly. I do not agree that Kerry did only a very few things. What he did do is work tirelessly behind the scenes. John McCain and he displayed real courage in working together on the POW MIA issue; it was such a political landmine.

As for changing his mind on welfare reform, he did not do it because it was popular. He was in fact reviled by many in MA, where it counted if he wanted to be re-elected.

By Digmedia (Digmedia) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:27 am: Edit

I'm a democrat through and through, but I have to admit that when Bush has a prepared speech, he is quite a good speaker (anyone remember the speeches after 9/11 or the State of the Nation speech in 2002?). I'll credit him that.

It's when he deviates from the prepared text that he gets himself into trouble...

=

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:28 am: Edit

Simply put, I find Teresa Kerry's tax situation objectionable. She paid a lower percentage of her income in taxes than almost anyone I know - including those who earn entry-level salaries. Alternative minimum taxation should ensure that, regardless of charitable donations or whatever, that she pay a certain percentage of her income in taxes. That did not happen.

I find it entirely objectionable morally because, simply, our society functions in part by all citizens paying what they are told to pay. Should we dislike it, we have the options of voting to change it (or running for office to change it), but actions like hers, especially someone who is a public, prominent figure, have the effect of undermining our system.

Frankly, I do not think that either party will close tax loopholes for the uber-wealthy: it would stop the gravy train. My guess is that most donations (in total dollars) come from the very wealthy or the corporations thereof. What might happen is that the middle class (either the true middle class or the upper-middle class - i.e. professionals who still wince when putting a kid through school and drive old cars) will bear the brunt of any tax system imposed by either party. Kerry may indeed shift the tax burden to the wealthy, but I have a hard time imagining that it would be to people like his wife; rather, it would probably be to those who earn good, but not amazing, salaries. (Take a look around any one of the "define middle class" boards for discussion on this.)

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:31 am: Edit

"Will we see these scenes in the GWB biographical video or the one where he reports to National Guard duty in Alabama? "

Just looking at political gain (truthful or not, the parties don't care) that issue has the greatest potential for the Dems, IMO.

Regardless of the "truth", most Americans aren't going to delve into the issue. I'd keep playing up Kerry's Viet Nam service, but I'd start getting a little negative and keeping the questions about Bush's Alabama service in the spotlight, too.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:52 am: Edit

Ariesathena:

I do not disagree about your analysis of the tax SYSTEM. But that does not make THK herself immoral.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit

True. She followed the law of the land. When does following a law make you 'immoral' If she 'cheated' IRS will audit her and make her pay or she could go to jail.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit

I cannot help wondering if the individual positions would change if THK would be THC as in Theresa Heinz Cheney?

Do not draw any parallels to Halliburton, that is a separate issue. Just think how you would react if the Heinz empire would be a major source of income for Cheney's wife?

Would you be that understanding about playing the system under the aegis of the law of the land?

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

Republicans made the law and she followed it....If she broke the law, procecute her. Stop whinning. No and as you suggested I will not draw any parallel to Haliburton...They don't even come close.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I don't know how much Lynn Cheney is worth and how she came by that worth. I don't particularly care, as long as it was not in an illegal manner. I did not like her stewardship of the NEH, not the fact that she is married to Dick Cheney, or that she is an opinionated woman (so am I!).

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Frankly I expected more from John Kerry and John Edwards. I thought they would use their speeches to bring in huge amounts of people to their side with a powerful, new message. Instead, they copied and pasted part of their caucus campaign speeches and inserted a couple of "we will destroy you" to pacify the moderates. I was expecting a JFK-type speech and instead got let down by a good speech... but not a great one.

By Sprangbang (Sprangbang) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I thought Kerry really delivered his speech well, and I think some of the more important points he brought up were-

The fact that he will not raise taxes for the middle class-This is tantamount for the swing votes. Many "regular" Americans often look at Dems as a group of rich New England liberals with money to blow on useless, expensive government programs. He simultaneously introduced his goal to make healthcare more affordable.

How he potrayed the values of the Democratic party as representing all Americans, rather than those of a secular group (Bush/conservative christians)- Indirectly referring to gay marriage, Kerry said that he would focus on national issues, such as education, fire and police department cuts by the Bushies, affordable healthcare, etc., rather than those bound to seperate the people. The use of the Abraham Lincoln quote was also brilliant and brought the greatest applause of the speech. Kerry showed that his goal was to improve the nation on the domestic front through innovation and programs, rather than vainly attempting to carry out "God's Will," or at least Bush and the religious right's version of it.

And not limited to a certain passage or phrase of the speech was the strength of character and intelligence that Kerry showed throughout his speech. The trait apparent in Kerry that was absent with Edwards, at least in my opinion, was not the ability to be president but that of commander in chief. Kerry is not soft on military, and is a decisive leader, as he showed in Vietnam, and as Bush failed to do in that war and his poor immediate response to the trade center attacks, which were carried out instead by "Vice" President Cheney. Many Ohioans in a focus group gathered by CNN felt that Kerry had convinced them with his speech that he would be a strong leader.

The low point, in my opinion, is the sketchiness of his stand on Iraq. I plan on voting for Kerry, but I still can't figure this out. However, I think that with his intelligence and bravery, and his combat experience, Kerry will make decisive and informed decisions on what to do there should he be elected.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Marite~

My question was not about Lyn Cheney! :)

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Simba~

Am I whining? Am I advocating that THK did anything illegal? In this instance, I believe that you are confusing posters.

I am absolutely certain that you understood my question. I still doubt that the former Mrs. Heinz would be the recipient of your charitable opinion, were she the spouse of a Republican candidate.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

No Xiggi, I think as Marite thinks - I don't care. I don't care weather she was poor or rich.

FYI (this was long long time ago), when I was a graduate student Nixon for two years in a row had paid less in income taxes than me (Think one year it was $500 and another year it was $750).

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Xiggi:

Sorry, you asked how one would think if she had been Teresa Heinz Cheney. The point I was trying to make is that I judge her as well as Cheney for what they have done. They are both smart, strong women, not their husbands' ventriloquist's dummies (especially not one who died 13 years ago). I admire what she did as a young woman (she did not have to march, after all), and, to the extent that I know what the Heinz Foundation has done, I respect its work.

Xiggi: are you miffed that she did not refer to les belges-americains? Still cannot make that accent aigu to work, btw.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Oh, I am not miffed about anything. The truth is that I have paid virtually no attention to the spouse of the candidates, expect for Laura Bush. As far as I am concerned, First Ladies -or First Hubby, in a not too distant future- make little difference in the election and in the White House.

I take good note of your stance regarding THK, the Heinz corporation, and the tax proposal of JFK. I find it odd but I respect your position, which is surprisingly similar to mine.

PS My comment about First Hubby was not accidental. However, I should have added that it does not mean that I think the 42th President will ever become First Hubby. That is a pipedream that requires stuffing strange substances in the pipe!

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Xiggi:

I agree with you regarding the possibility of WJC becoming First Hubby. What do you think about Laura Bush? I actually like her, too, the little I do know of her .

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

>>Would you be that understanding about playing the system under the aegis of the law of the land? >>

Is that what you found odd about my position? A person would have to be an idiot not to play the system. I do not like the SAT, but that does not mean that, given its importance, I do not want my S to do as well as he can on it. If someone in a fiduciary position did not do everything LEGAL to maximize benefits, I would not think him or her very competent. I have in fact written about the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Now, Enron is another story.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Would you be that understanding about playing the system under the aegis of the law of the land?

OMG, what a horrible sentence. Obviously, I must have fused two separate thoughts because I cannot make any sense of what I tried to say!

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Most republicans don't make any sense anyway !!!

Got you!

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Argh! I get it now. The sentence was supposed to remain attached to the preceding part. Oh well, at least I understood what I was trying to say. :)

Would you be that understanding about playing the system under the aegis of the law of the land (if the players were the spouses of the Republican candidates)?

Voilà!

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Xiggi: not fair taking advantage of the fact that I still haven't figured how to do acute and grave accents (that's the Luddite in me trying to cope with a new computer). That red "a" is like thumping your nose!

Anyway, I think I responded to the statement you intended to make as opposed to the convoluted sentence you wrote. Yes, I am understanding, and I would like to change the system so that earned income is not taxed at a higher rate than unearned income (another one for the middle class).

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Marite~

I am doing my best to get you up to speed with those pesky accents!

I see no problem with the taxes paid on the $5 million declared income. The use of municipal bonds and the like is absolutely beyond criticism. The questions surround the disparity between her assets and the level of declared income, and reports of tax abuses by the Heinz Corporation. The Heinz Corporation has been reported to be one of the most aggressive (ab)users of foreign tax loopholes. The same tax loopholes targeted by John Kerry for repeal. Apparently, the fine line of the story is that JFK made sure to protect the loopholes used by The Heinz Corporation.

That is the story as reported. I do not have enough interest in JFK/THK to go look up the sources and check the veracity of the attacks. If there is something nefarious, I am certain that Bush legal eagles and election barracudas will be all over it. Watch the news around October 16th, 2004!

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Xiggi:

I have the same feelings about legal eagles, so that's why I'm not too exercized about THK's billions. I'm sure someone else is going over her tax returns with a fine tooth comb.
As for those pesky accents, I need to consult my S who is more technologically adept than I. He is coming home tomorrow with a swarm of locusts--oops, I meant his chums--to eat us out of house and home. The least he can do is to teach me how to put in accents. But thanks!

By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Why is it that people criticizing the taxes someone pays often compare the tax they paid, to their gross income.

But when Republicans defend Bush's tax cuts, they only compare taxes paid to adjusted gross income.

That is such a huge difference, and the richer someone is, the bigger the difference.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Marite~

Show him the files I linked to. I still do not understand why it won't work. The shorcuts to accents should be easy. Your son can reprogram your keyboard to use keys that are hardly used but I never liked that solution.

Proposed solution: set the "chums" feeding rate at one slice of pizza per accent discovered :)

By Kousuke (Kousuke) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

i was just watching daily show with jon stewart and they were showing a clip from the DNC, did anyone else see the funny looking red headed girl? what the hell was that? "if i said anything like that, i would be put in a time out"??? woopy, use the funniest looking kid to try to connect with teenagers. that had to be the worst idea ever. she looked like annie the orphan or something. all i did was laugh.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

haha I saw her. She was a pretty good speaker for a 12 year old. "Dick Cheney needs a timeout" lol. I watched the convention all day to make up for everything I missed. I really like Cate.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

what was the song called that played after John Edwards speech?

By Idiias (Idiias) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:43 am: Edit

where was teresa heinz from? how did her parents own the company if she wasn't from here?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

She is from mozambique, but was educated all over the world. Her parents didnt own the company, she married a senator who was the owner, he died, and then she got the money. Then she married another senator, kerry.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page