Is Help On The Way?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Is Help On The Way?
By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit

On many threads people are talking about the fact that the middle class life has been slipping away. I'm wondering if people believe the above Kerry/Edwards slogan.

By Perry (Perry) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

At this point,I would put far more trust in Kerry/Edwards than I would in Bush-Cheney. Why is it that Republicans like Bush and Cheney, both of whom evaded Vietnam, think they have a monopoly on patriotism and national security? In my view, it is unconsciounable that the current administration has sent troops into combat while at the same time cutting verterans' benefits.

By Patient (Patient) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Most of what Bush and Cheney have done has been unconscionable.

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

I agree with Perry.

I believe K/E will do the best they can to help most Americans, while B/C have been doing the best they can to help the privileged few.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Well, B/C have set an awfully low bar for K/E to beat when it comes to helping the non-wealthy. I'm still looking for that extra money in my paycheck from the tax cut...

We veterans call folks like Cheney and Bush "chicken hawks" because they are hawks who were too chicken to serve. Of course, now, with Iraq, Bush makes sure the Nat. Guard does get combat. Interesting contrast to his day.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Actually, it is Kerry's inability to make a stand relative to national security without taking political consequences into account that scares me. His worst move was to not support the Gulf War. Imagine what a situation that we would be in now if he were president in 1990 and we allowed Iraq to take over Kuwait as Kerry effectively voted for:

-There never would have been any inspections (which found huge amounts of WMD).

-We would never had found out that he had an active nuclear program and was within 6 months of having a working bomb.

-With his Kuwait acquisition he would have controlled enough of the oil to blackmail the rest of the world.

-Seeing the mood of appeasement by the rest of the world toward his aggression against Kuwait, and with a nuclear arsenal, is there any question that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states would have been next?

What a great place we would be in if we had a President Kerry back then. That's why I hope for the security of this country that we never have a President Kerry - he just doesn't get it.

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Massdad -- interestingly, the Washington Post business section (or perhaps its Sunday Op-ed section, can't remember) had a comparison chart with four different income situations for a family of four, and how their tax burden would change under the K/E plan vs the Bush cuts. Until you got to incomes above a pretty high level (can't remember exactly what, but I'll try to track down the article), there was NO DIFFERENCE. But in the highest income level, the Bush cuts were MUCH bigger.

I'm afraid I'm beginning to lose my faith in the American public, however. B was out today saying "they will raise your taxes!!!" to a crowd in Missouri, when K said just last night that their plan is to maintain the cuts for those individuals making less than $200K. I'm beginning to wonder where people have checked their brains.

I like the chicken hawk term -- may just use that one!

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Fundingfather,

Your post is funny! and imaginative! Do you write (fiction) for a living? Revisionist history, perhaps?

Oh, BTW, did you ever stop to think that some Kerry votes reflect the views of his constituents as much as his personal views? Or should our elected officials always vote their conscience?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

MassDad,

So what do YOU think would have happened if we had not kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Everything that I said was fairly obvious and doesn't really require much imagination.

But, then again, if you believe the 9/11 Commission, the the reason for our failure to prevent 9/11 was a collective failure of imagination. Clearly the Bush administration has learned from this. The Democrats have not - they still follow the same old precepts on national security.

Actually, some of the Democrats have learned. People like Joe Lieberman, Ed Koch and Zell Miller really get it. Too bad the rest of them are so bitter about Bush that they allow their bitterness to cloud their senses.

Regarding your snide remarks about chicken hawks, are you aware that many air national guard units were called up for Vietnam and many died as a result? But, if extent of military record is what dictates your vote, can I assume that you voted for George HW Bush and Bob Dole? They REALLY earned their medals the old fashioned way.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I guess what I was really wondering is if people believe that a new administration can really make things better for the middle class and the future middle class. Raising minimum wage by 2 dollars sounded great until I read the views of some economists I respect on what that would do to small business and how many jobs would actually be lost. Other commentary has focused on the fact that there is no possible way to pay for everything K/E are saying needs to be done. And living in Silicon Valley it is clear to me that there is no way they are going to stop outsourcing. Can the middle class be saved?

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

Mom101:

Can outsourcing be stopped? I'm not sure. I'm not sure either whether there are currently policies that provide positive incentives to outsource and thus could be eliminated by a different administration.
Is raising the minimum wage desirable? I'not sure either. When times are good, wages rise by themselves. I remember the ubiquitous signs "Help Wanted" in the late 1990s. Were are they now? At the video store where my S used to work, the manager told us that his staff are asking to work more hours, but he cannot give them more hours. Instead, HE is the one working more hours. (Tangent: It seems there are always reasons to work more hours: when times are good, staff is hard to find, ergo, managers need to work more hours; when times are bad, managers cannot afford to hire more staff, therefore, they need to work more hours...)
Can the Kerry/Edwards policies help the middle class: I think a better, less costly health system than we currently have would help. I don't know much of a dent college credit would make in the overall tuition bill. Eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthiest would also help reduce the deficit without, as Clinton pointed out, significantly affecting their well-being.
I am inclined to discount a lot of election year rhetoric but on the whole, I think the middle class has a better chance under Kerry/Edwards.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

what I would like to see sounds like heresy to the whitecollar liberals in my area
We need to bring backgood vocational programs in the schools.
Not everyone is going to college right after high school, for students who are lucky if they graduate, a relevant school to work program could be a lifesaver.
Right now I see schools piling on the AP coursework and the IB programs, students who don't qualify for those are seen as not good enough/or not working hard enough.
The metal shop/auto shop program in high school gave my husband his start for his career working with composites and building prototypes for the military and corporate interests.
Some schools do still have some programs, but we need to improve and fund them across the board.
We still have good jobs that can't be outsourced. Car mechanics, plumbers, electricians,chefs, massage therapists, lots of jobs that don't necessarily need a college diploma but are going to be part of a healthy society for a long time to come.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I was against the war in Kuwait and with a majority of the US, voted Bill Clinton in. I am against the war in Iraq-not the men and women serving there- and I will vote against a Bush again. He has mad a mess of things diplomatically speaking. I attended a question and answer series with my son at SMU. It was part of the Tate Lecure Series and the speaker was Madeleine Albright. She spoke of the breaking of treaties with Europe and of the decades of hard work down the drain and how the US is turning into what we would have termed, under another administration, a rogue country. (Now called a country of concern or something like that.) That was six months after Bush took office and sadly, her predictions have come true. Our friends and allies are distancing themselves from us, if now turning their back altogether.

Kerry/Edwards is the only hope the middle class has right now. I seriously don't know if the middle class could recover after another four year of Bush/Cheney.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Emeraldkity:

I agree with you completely. I talked to someone in CA who was lamenting the total absence of vocational programs which could have trained his S for a great job. We're lucky we have a great vocational school nearby, and our own program is also improving after being nearly eliminated.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Alongfortheride,

If anything that history has taught us it is that the Gulf War was the right thing to do. What positive circumstances would have happened if we had not interevened? John Kerry was flat out wrong when he opposed it and only now do we know how wrong he was.

What, exactly are Bush/Cheney doing that threatens the middle class? Have you thought about the negative second-order effects of some of the Kerry proposals? The costs to businesses in terms of taxes and health care would drive even more jobs off-shore. Look at Europe to see the effect of an overly protective government. They have double digit unemployment and have an economy that is not even close to matching the growth of the US economy in the last 2 years.

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Marite -- I completely agree with you. I don't think K/E or anyone can fix all the problems faced by the middle and lower economic classes, but I think K/E will at least make an effort. Health care is particularly important -- it's shocking that the US can't ensure basic health care for its population.

I think a second B/C term is a terrifying thought. I have many friends who work in different federal agencies, and they tell me to expect a no-holds-barred approach if, God help us, there is a second term.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Well, I thought the Democratic "promises" were fairly empty. "Less than meets the eye" is what stuck in my mind.

As well as gall (if not guile) that left me incredulous. To stand up and accuse the administration of lieing and abusing the constitution and then to end by calling for civility......!!!!! It looked like a SNL parody. Actually, it was funnier than most of that junk is now, too.


Kerry and Edwards are two attractive opportunists, but I doubt that most of the country will take the bait.

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit

man some of you people make it sound like the world will come to an end if Bush is reelected and the only way to save the US is to elect Kerry

my lifestyle has not changed significantly since Bush was elected other than we now hear about terrorism all the time (which has nothing to do with Bush), and i don't expect to change that significantly after this election either

everyone always wants to have tax cuts so they have more money to spend on themselves, however then they complain about how the government doesn't spend enough money on them

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

>>everyone always wants to have tax cuts so they have more money to spend on themselves, however then they complain about how the government doesn't spend enough money on them>>

Please do not speak for me. I did not want the tax cut, but I got one anyway. I don't feel better off with it, but I sure worry about the size of the deficit.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Mac87:"my lifestyle has not changed significantly since Bush was elected other than we now hear about terrorism all the time".

You are fortunate to have the same life style. But accroding to the recent IRS data, the incomes of Americans have dropped on an average of 5.6% in the last two or three years.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

"Please do not speak for me. I did not want the tax cut, but I got one anyway. I don't feel better off with it, but I sure worry about the size of the deficit. "

It was your choice to accept the tax cut. You could of sent a check to the government if you thought your tax cut was harmfull.

Kerry says hell keep some of the tax cuts, but this is for political reasons. He voted agaisnt the bill that included these tax cuts for almost all americans. Also, he would raise other taxes, not income taxes, which would hurt the middle class and prevent avenues for them to become better off. Dividend and capital gains taxes are a horrible sentence for middle class people with small investments. Also, all the other taxes and protectionist policies of kerry will make prices rise even further. He likes to point out how gas, healthcare, and education have gone up during Bush, but forgets to say that under Bush, automobiels, food, clothing, technology, and housing have become much more affordable. We are seeing record home ownership under Bush.

And talk about working with other nations, Kerry voted against the liberation of Kuiate, which was supported by the UN and saved a country from Saddam's tyranny and allowed inspections which found tons of wmds.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Mac87,
congratulations, you must be among the very privledged of America. my along with many of my friends lives have changed dramatically since bush took office. my dad lost his job, my mom is in danger of losing hers, and i can't afford college. but realistically i don't have it nearly as bad as some do. but ya know what? screw them, i'm gonna vote based on what's best for me and me alone... o wait... i'm a democrat...

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

How is it Bush's fault? And it seems the jobs are coming back now that Bush did something, and unemployment is at the same % as during Clintons 96 election.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

>>And talk about working with other nations, Kerry voted against the liberation of Kuiate, which was supported by the UN and saved a country from Saddam's tyranny and allowed inspections which found tons of wmds.>>

Tons of wmds? where?

By Clipper (Clipper) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Everyone seems to be talking about lower class, middle class and upper class and what is fair to each.
My question is - what is the answer? NO CLASSES? What will you have then? Communism where the government is responsible for feeding you, getting you a job (whether you are a trashman or doctor you get the same things), and provide health care for you. Is that socialism? Is that the democratic party???
For me, I would rather work hard for my money and get what I deserve and not have the government tell me what to do. I think there should be a flat tax where everyone pays the same. People complain that the "rich" get more tax relief - well, they are also paying MORE.

For those of you who want the government to take care of you and make sure your job doesn't go overseas then you are free to find another country where the government will tell you what to do.
As for me, I love living in this country where I have CHOICES. Choice of job, where to live etc.


Just my thoughts on this middle class thing.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Clipper:

I am not concerned about "fair." But without exactly being in the same class as Clinton, I had the same reaction to the tax cut as he did. It did not make much difference to me (a few more meals out perhaps). But the same amount I got would have fed a family of four for six weeks or more. More important, the deficit is something that all our kids will inherit.

I do not want the government to take care of me. I don't know anyone else who does either. As for communism, did you know that, thanks to post WWII US policies, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have far less of a gap between rich and poor than the US? Is either of these countries Communist? Let's not get into red-baiting.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Marite:

No one disputes the fact that after the first Gulf War that tons of WMDs were found and destroyed - this is factual and not subject to spin. Democrats and Republicans all agree on this fact. Also what was found was that Saddam had a very active nuclear weapons program that was very near to having a working nuclear bomb. This came as a surprise to the nuclear inspections community since they were not even aware of his program.

The bottom line is that had Kerry's non-interventionist mindset prevailed in 1990, Saddam would still be in Kuwait (and probably Saudi Arabia by now) and would have had nuclear weapons.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I thought we were talking about the invasion of Iraq and its justification? Or is Bush Sr. running for president?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

No, the reference was to Kuwait - implying the first Gulf War. The relevance to this election is that Kerry demonstrated his lack of national security instinct by voting against the first war. Had his vote prevailed, the world order would have been royally screwed up right now.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

The world order would be different or screwed up, but might 9/11 have been avoided? Remember Bin Laden became actively anti-US because of the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. Clearly there's no way of knowing, but it's an interesting thought.

I agree with you that Kerry is not great for national security, but he is no worse than Bush, who in my opinion has increased the threat of terrorism.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Those who say we are "safer" now are taking a simplistic view. While there can be a good case made for such statements, I think that it is wiser to say that we WILL be safer as a result of the Iraq war. We are still in a war against terrorism and Iraq is just a single battle. Just as in WW II when we as a country were less safe after we joined the battle, we will likely be temporarily less safe because of the potential increase in terrorism. However, I'm convinced that had we done nothing in Iraq the long term danger would have been significantly worse.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

If the threat is Iraq itself, I agree (even though Iraq was not going to be a threat by itself for a very long time). If you are referring to terrorism, I would have to disagree. US policy is what stimulated terrorism is the first place and what is more blatant than the invasion of a Muslim nation. This is not conventional in that there is no way to defeat the enemy. The only solution is to minimize the threat (which I can kind of see the war in Iraq as a solution IF there were actual weapons of mass destruction) along with minimizing the roots of terrorism (which the Iraq War does the exact opposite).

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

"Dividend and capital gains taxes are a horrible sentence for middle class people with small investments. "

How true. Well over half of the American population now owns stocks and/or mutual funds, and this percentage is growing rapidly. Dividends are one of the few ways that lower middle class workers can afford to let their money work for them in the market rather than living from paycheck to paycheck. The wealthy don't care about dividends; they can easily live off of appreciation in capital.

Increasing the dividend/capital gains tax would create an unfortunate split between the upper and middle classes, a split which is now bridged by rising investors and upper-middle class homeowners.

Interestingly, such a split would help the Democratic party greatly.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

If you think that if we had not invaded Iraq that terrorists would just leave us alone, I think you are greatly mistaken. UBL declared war on us long before we invaded Iraq and he gave absolutely no indication that he was going to just call it quits after 9/11. To let Saddam off the hook to restore his WMD programs with the high probability that he would use al Qaeda as a delivery system was just too great of a risk for us to take.

I think Ed Koch states it the best: If Bush had ignored all of the intelligence that he had and did nothing, and if at some point we were attacked again but with WMDs from Iraq, he would be justifiably have been impeached.

I think the following statement from before the war is quite accurate:

"In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

You would be awfully ignorant to think that terrorism has not spread due to the war in Iraq. It's a perfect situation for al Qaeda -- think how much more funding and how many more people are interested in being part of the organization. Terrorism wasn't going to go away (I never said that by the way), but it wasn't going to get worse either like it is now. Think how much more Bin Laden's opinions are respected in the Middle East. Bush has done his job for him by fulfilling the essence of the United States in Bin Laden's mind.

In response to Ed Koch -- I don't think it is responsible to spend $120 billion just because of a fear only substantiated by 30% of the intelligence before checking it out a little more thoroughly.

Isn't North Korea a much greater threat? There is just as much of a connection to al Qaeda and actual weapons of mass destruction. What about Iran? They have a weapons program as well and provide just as much of a threat. I just don't get why Iraq was picked considering the other nations out there. It would be hypocritical to not do anything any place else.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit

"I think Ed Koch states it the best: If Bush had ignored all of the intelligence that he had and did nothing, and if at some point we were attacked again but with WMDs from Iraq, he would be justifiably have been impeached. "

Fundingfather,

for starters, the poor military planning on behalf of the Bush administration has created a melting pot for Terrorists in Iraq.

Now about the Ed Kotch quote... since when do we base our decision to go to war on "IF's"

If in ten years you kill your wife, should you have been arrested today for it?
...tooo many ambiguities

We had no credible evidence that Iraq had or even attempted to get WMD's. It has been reported time in and time out that Bush even stated something along the lines of "this is all we have? get me something more"

I just don't understand how you can justify going to a war based on totally faulty intelligence.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

India and Pakistan, and a few other countries, including Russia, if I'm not mistaken, also have nuclear programs and posess a significant amount of nuclear warheads. Frankly, I don't see what the big freaking deal is with the USA and our whole "Hey, if we think you're a bad country, we don't think you can have so-called "WMDs", or anything else that might be able to hurt us. We, however, can have as many of the said WMDs as we want, because we are a good country who would only use them against people who are doing things we don't like". There's actually a word for that in the USA, and that word is hypocrisy. So to me the only good that principle has now is that it was the reason for us attacking Iraq, (Oh yeah, let's not forget the liberation of Iraq's people, seeing as they were the most oppressed and downtrodden people in the world, and now, since big bad Hussein is gone, they're gonna name every street in Baghdad Easy Street, because that's what it's gonna be from now on!), and now that reason blew up in whoever supported the war in the first place's face.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

Craig:

The quote that I included was actually a quote from John Kerry from his speech to the senate when he voted for the war. His reasoning was sound then but somehow got clouded - perhaps by a threat from the Dean part of the Democratic Party. That is my biggest concern with Kerry - he places national security second to politics. That is not a good trait to have in a president.

I never said that terrorism has not increased because of the Iraq war. In fact, if you re-read my previous post I essentilly admit exactly that. Just as in WW II we became more vulnerable once we entered the fray, we are going to be more vulnerable for awhile while we wage war with terrorism.

However, the choice was:
a) post- 9/11 level of terrorism with a deadly mix of WMDs either now or in the near future once Saddam was unfettered (and anyone who claims that there never was WMDs or that Saddam lacked the expertise to re-create WMDs is an idiot)

b) a temporary increase of terrorists but without the potential for Iraqi sourced WMDs.

Bush chose the later and I agree (as do people like Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards and John Kerry - the latter two at least based on their at their pre-primary positions).

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Imagine if Bush had not decided to topple Saddam, and then 5 10 15 years down the line we were attacked with a wmd by saddam or a terrorist he passed it onto. There would be such an outcry that Bush was to stupid, irresponsible, and in-bed with the arabs to ignore the cia, british intel, russian intel, israeli intel, saddams prior use of wmds, Saddam's threats, the un inspections, iraqi scientists, prior presidents, and spy photographs, all of which said Saddam had not proved his disarmerment from chem/bio/or nukes.

And ppl were trying to peg him for 9/11 because of one vauge pdb. Compare that to a decade of international and national onslaught of intel and obvious non-compliance with the un by Saddam

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit

To those who think national security policy should be uniform toward all countries to avoid "hypocrisy" - that's nonsense. National security is meant to be one thing and one thing only - to assure the security of this country. If that means that we do things that seem hypcritical that's tough. Do you blame FDR for allying with Stalin to defeat Hitler since it was "hypocritical" to team up with an enemy? Of course not - its what was in our best interest at the time.

Each and every country that poses a possible threat to us needs its own policy. A one-policy-fits-all approach is lunacy.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:05 am: Edit

Ha ... that's why I'm voting for Nader. You were trying to twist that into me being against Kerry like so many others on this board.

So ...
1. You didn't respond to the threats posed by countries just as viable as Iraq. Stuff is still out there, it's just not from Iraq (and it never was going to be). We better start a list if we are invading countries that could provide terrorists with WMDs.
2. There still is no proof that Hussein was developing WMDs so how can you call anyone an idiot in that respect. As I've said before only 30% of the intelligence pointed to WMDs -- shouldn't we be more thorough before spending $120 billion?
3. How do you know the rise in terrorism is going to be only temporary? I see no reason why this invasion will be forgotten in the Muslim world ... do you?

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:06 am: Edit

Remember that War on Drugs, also set in motion by an administration with questionable ethics, a few decades back? Man, those were good days, fighting that war. At least we won though, and nobody does drugs. I guess it's pretty smart of these Presidents to keep starting "wars" against things that are likely to always be, or at least not gone in my lifetime, or anyone's who is living right now, barring totally unusual circumstances, like an asteroid collision or a sudden reconciling of all hostile nations.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

Do you want to play what if's ...

What if an Iraqi insurgency group pulls something off like 9/11? What if they get a WMD from one of the many different nations possible?

My point is that we cannot play the what if game. No one can win ... each side can match the other. So, it's quite pointless.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit

It's not hypocrisy in foreign policy that I have a problem with. It's if Iraq is an actual threat, then so is Iran and North Korea among others. Therefore, by doing nothing in regard to those nations, this administration is jeopardizing our national security.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit

Craigk10, this is off-topic, but, if you're more intent on getting Bush out of office than ushering a specific candidate in, the best strategy would be to see how polls that include Nader and are representative of most types of people in voting population turn out. If half who don't want Bush vote for Kerry and the other half votes for candidates from other parties, say, then the vote will be split and Bush really WILL win in a total landslide. I'm just saying, because it seems that many Nader-supporters are not taking that into consideration. Most of the people who are planning to vote for Bush will not be swayed, so that is probably the best strategy.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit

Nader and Kerry arnt similar.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit

How can you possibly say that there is no proof of saddam's WMDs? Certainly you saw the piles of bodies from when he used them? Do you think that he destroyed all of the WMDs AND all of his information about how to make them? Did you read the Kay report? They found information about nuclear bomb making hidden in the house of a scientist. What was he trying to acquire uranium from Niger for if he had no plans for it? Saddam had proven himself to be so vile with his previous use of WMDs, it would be a dereliction of duty to assume that he had no capability to reproduce his stockpiles.

I did respond regarding the other countries - each one needs its own policy. To say we can't take care of Iraq because Iran also has potential weapons is pretty silly. Note that unlike Iraq, Iran has not attacked anyone, nor has it ever used WMDs. Also note that there is a very strong and organized undercurrent of dissension in Iran which could be undercut if we handled Iran with the same policy as Iraq. Also note that sanctions have not even been implemented against Iran yet. Time will tell what the best approach for Iran will be.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

I understand you're point ... but
1. My state is most likely going Kerry anyway, so I think sending a message to the Democrats and Republicans is a better use of my vote.
2. I really have big problems with Kerry -- the issues I feel strongest about (getting rid of the Patriot Act, campaign finance reform, universal health care, foreign policy, etc.) would not change that much under Kerry. Sure Kerry is better than Bush, but I don't think anything substantial will change under Kerry. Bush won't invade another country after Iraq I believe so it doesn't make too much of a difference.
3. I'm unbelievably sick of the special interests (i.e. corporate ownership of Washington) and political rhetoric out of each party.
4. Nader is the most intelligent and capable of the three in my eyes. I think I can actually trust him, unlike the other two.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 01:32 am: Edit

Show them to me ... then I'll believe you. That's all it would take.

I'm pretty sure that Iran would've used them in the Iraq-Iran War like Iraq did if they could've. Let's not paint the Iranians as some sort of shining light compared to Iraq.

Iran has proved to have just as much of a connection to al Qaeda as Iraq (I don't believe either is to serious though).

Sure Iran had not attacked anyone, but neither had Iraq -- that's the whole idea of a pre-emptive attack. I know you are going to cite Kuwait but that was over ten years ago. We might as well use Iraq-Iran War as proof that they'll attack another country.

So you are saying we should sit back and watch, when a country who has the same threat potential (if not more) as Iraq should be dealt with when the time is right? Isn't the whole idea of the Iraq War to not sit and wait for something bad to happen.

I never said that we shouldn't deal with Iraq because Iran is a potential threat -- I said that if we do deal with Iraq, we damn better sure take care of Iran.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

To bunmushroom: They're not very similar, but they're the main contenders against Bush in this coming election. Since Bush realistically has very near 50 percent of the population, the other portion voting for 2 different people could easily split that portion between those 2 candidates, giving Bush, say, 50%, while Kerry gets 25% and so does Nader. Who wins the election? Aside from another voting scandal or electoral college foul up, Bush.

To craigk10: As I explained to bunmushroom, I just see the situation I explained to him as being a likely one in this election. I also do believe that Bush may attack another country once again, and that includes starting or increasing occupation of that country, as in Afghanistant.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:37 am: Edit

Well, as I've said it really doesn't matter for my state and I really don't like either. Sure Kerry is preferable, but not so much that I would vote for him. It's not like Nader is going to split the votes with Kerry. I'm going to have to write him in my state so it's going to be about 2%. You can tell by this board that Nader isn't going to get many votes since I seem to be the only supporter.

Somewhere else I've commented on Nader being appealing to true conservatives as well. He'll take votes on both sides.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit

Oh and a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It's a vote telling the Democratic Party that they better damn represent what I want if they want my vote or my money.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:54 am: Edit

Oh, one of my friends seems to be a staunch Nader supporter, and I don't know too much about him, but I'm definetly not opposed to him. I've mainly been abiding by my "splitting the vote" theory in rallying for Kerry, as I prefer him over Bush.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:54 am: Edit

You are fortunate to have the same life style. But accroding to the recent IRS data, the incomes of Americans have dropped on an average of 5.6% in the last two or three years.

And most of the decrease comes from the rich and very rich taxpayers. Did you not notice that the lower and middle class increased?

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 07:59 am: Edit

Xiggi: My heroes are the pundits at FNC and Rush...I learn from the best !!!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

"They're not very similar, but they're the main contenders against Bush in this coming election."

Yes, but Nader is also a contender against Kerry. Those who support Nader think having to choose between bush and kerry is like choosing which limb to cut off. Also, it might even benefit the Greens/reform/third party more if Kerry loses because of them, because it will force the dems to take their positions into account next election.
Also, I saw an interesting poll done a few months ago that ask the 2% of Nader voters what they would do if Nader dropped out. About 65% said they would not vote for Kerry or Bush but for another candidate, about 15% said they would not vote, a few said theyd vote for kerry, and a few said they'd vote for Bush. So it is not like Nader's base is similar to Kerry's.
Craig, you are the only Nader one on here because while cc is overwhelmingly liberal, it is also overwhelmingly northeastern elitist liberal, which is not the type who would support Nader.


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