Guiliani's AMAZING speech!!!





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Guiliani's AMAZING speech!!!
By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

i'm biased, i'm republican, i support Bush--but to all those who watched the Republican National Convention, i want to know your honest opinion on what you thought of Rudy Guiliani's speech tonight. I thought he spoke amazingly well and made the case for all of Bush's policies better than Bush himself ever has. I also loved the way he attacked Kerry on his flip-flopping record and irresolute character. Guiliani also gave the best personal glimpse of the President, particularly when he was at his best: September 11th and the days afterward.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:32 am: Edit

yes the RNC absolutely ruled. McCain and Giuliani were bothamazing. the best part was when Michael Moore was giving the big "LOSER" sign to McCain and McCain SLAMMED him and the crowd went nuts!! Awesome. Giuliani was typical giuliani: charismatic, powerful, and an awesome leader.

Ed Koch, former democrat mayor, was also pretty cool when he announced his support for W.

Next up, Ahhhhnold and company

Should be great viewing

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

the GOP really selected some incredible moderate speakers like McCain and GIuliani to win the swing voters, while giving staunch conservatives like Santorum a chance to speak too.

Compare them to the DNC speakers.

1.Al sharpton, you are a funny dude, but few people take you seriously.
2. Ter-ay-suh kerry, ewww.
3. Al Gore the inventor of the internet
4. Hillary, eww again.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

i must give props to McCain. I wanted him as president.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

At least the Dems picked speakers that represented their party and most of all their candidate....

McCain and Giuliani are far from conservative... moderate at best... often leaning toward the Dems on a given issue

McCain doesn't even support Bush's tax cuts...he openly criticized him for not condeming the SBVT, accused him of dirty politics... and disagrees with him on a ton of other issues

Giuliani is pro choice and pro gay rights...

And thats a very feeble attempt to belittle the DNC speakers.

For starters, Al Sharpton gave a more passionate speech than any Dem or Rep

And you have neglected to include the 3 best speakers at the DNC (Giuliani and McCain looked like amateurs when compared to them)

1.Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

McCain spoke well but he did little to help the party. Often times he spoke totally objectively ... not really favoring either side with the issues intact... so it's like ok you made a good speech but how does that make me want to vote for Bush more?

McCain and Kerry have a lot of respect for one another. That was the GOP's first mistake in giving McCain a prime time spot

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

my opinions are totally contradictory.

I thought McCain's speech was very well prepared, but he didn't give a good performance. He isn't a very charismatic speaker (GOP needs a lesson from Bill Clinton). The speech, IMO, was damage control for all the controversial Bush decisions. McCain and the rest of the speakers ran like hell towards the center and damn near landed on the left.

Guiliani's speech, I ABSOLUTELY HATED!! I'm a New Yorker, and I liked him as mayor. I respect the man, and I thought did very well running the city. But his speech made him a complete jackass in my eyes. "I've never seen so many republicans in NYC. I'M FINALLY HOME!" WTF!!! how dare he. "....the Democrats are wrong most of the time."--punchline to one of his jokes. what an ignorant douche. "...from Lincoln to Bush"??? the republican party was completely different then and stood for completely contradictory values.

Guiliani's speech was 45 mins of the same bullsht. "9/11...down with terrorists...war was good...united america" Its everything we've been hearing from the Republicans for the past year. How bout something new? How about a real, dignified statement of Republican values, of Republican issues, of why the Republican Party is the right party for America, and why George Bush is the right person for the presidency. All I heard was damage control and Kerry bashing. yeah, they talked about a "unified america," "freedom for all," peace in the world....but those are the same values Democrats share. How about some distinction?

the 9/11 family section...complete nonsense. "do something" "do something" "do something" "thats what my husband would want".....yeah, what we need to DO is vote Bush out!

I'm quite open minded, and honestly, I think that the Republicans are in a great position to gain ground in the election. the Democrats had their chance (and they did very well), and this is the Republican's chance to kickass. They get the last word (as far as conventions go).

I was truly very disappointed tonight.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

Guiliani was excellent. Kind of long but very very good. Very strait fwd, unlike kerry who is a pain to listen to. McCain is good, but not such a dynamic speaker. And he is not a moderate, he is more of a maverick. He is espessially a hawk on intl affairs, and is more conservative than Bush on spending and immigration. He is also very prolife.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:49 am: Edit

i think it's fair to have moderate speakers because it shows that the Republican Party isn't just made up of a bunch of narrow-minded religious anti-homosexual freaks that the media (like MTV) likes to portray.

it's a party with room for lots of diverse discourse and opinions (especially on issues of personal choice, conscience, and religion) but there is a mutual respect among everyone in it because the party's united by some CORE common values: an unashamed patriotic love for America, a committment to freedom/self-reliance, and a firm stance on defense.

and today, a respect for the leader in place.

the Democrats just seemed to be united by a hate for Bush--they don't even like Kerry much or agree with all this "I love the military and want to keep it strong" slogans, but accept it because they know Kerry has to say those things to win.

Bush is who he is no matter what the political climate and the Republican Party is united---but i WOULD like to see a bit more energy and oomph at the convention. Didn't feel it so much today.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:08 am: Edit

I think it is a good cross section of the party and relavent people who represent important facets of the party and our nation. Guiliani was at the heart of 9/11, McCain is an experienced senator who is and was a strong propenent of the war on terror including Iraq, Arnold is a fresh face who can talk about economic issues and frame the differences between Bush/himself and kerry/davis who are liberal and tax raising, and Miller is a disenchanted dem who represents the 20% or so of democrats who support Bush (only 3-5% of republicans support kerry).

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit

Alright, Jlq, I have a very hard time believing that 20% of Democrats support dubya. I would love too see where you pulled that stat from. I didn't actually catch the speeches made by McCain and Giuliani, however, I do believe that this is a shameless ploy by the GOP to show their more "moderate side." Give me a break. This has been one of the most, if not the most Conservative presidency in history. McCain disrespects and hate George W. Bush after his denouncing of McCain in 2000. For his party to force him on that stage and try to swing undecided voters is absolutely horrible and the Republicans should be ashamed. Also, GET OFF 9/11 ALREADY!!!!! It happened, we were all saddened, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this election. This election is about choosing which duo, Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney is best fit to lead our country as of this moment.

If there are any speeches made by the GOP saying how the economy is up and how jobs are coming back to the US, I would really like them to read the latest economic report. Not only have 1 million more jobs been lost in the past year, but the economy has dwindled and after a short rebound is on the downswing again. If Bush, Cheney or any other Republican says we are on the economic rise, then they are lying and that is a fact that cannot be disputed. The poverty level and unemployment rate has risen greatly in the past four years after this country was as its highest surplus and lowest unemployment rate ever.

Tomorrow's theme is "Compassionate Conservatism." Can anyone actually tell me what a compassionate conservative is? Do they...respect the environment...support the rights of minorities including gay's and women? The idea of compassionate conservatism is an absolute farse because there isn't one.

Oh yes, and after a summer hiatus of being away from these boards discussing politics...I'm back.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit

This has been one of the most, if not the most Conservative presidency in history.
With increased spending on education of 50% and a medical prescription bill, this is a hard statement to defend

McCain disrespects and hate George W. Bush after his denouncing of McCain in 2000.
This is an old canard continually put out by the media. If you look at McCain's history, he has an amazing ability to forgive and forget. Look at his views of Vietnam and John Kerry if you don't believe that. If you assume that he still does hold a resentment for Bush, that adds even more to the fact that he supports Bush over his friend John Kerry - clearly McCain sees that Kerry's foreign policy is dangerous for this country.

Also, GET OFF 9/11 ALREADY!!!!!
But I assume you think it is quite relevant to bring up actions that happened 35 years ago if it makes Kerry look good?

It happened, we were all saddened, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this election.
WRONG! It has absolutely everything to do with the election - the major point of the election is to pick the person best suited to make sure that 9/11 is not repeated. The problem with the Democratic view is that this is viewed as a past-tense event.

Not only have 1 million more jobs been lost in the past year,
This is not even close to being factual. In reality 1.5 million jobs have been created in the last year

unemployment rate has risen greatly in the past four years
The unemployment rate is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1996 when Clinton ran on a "great economy" message

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit

When will people understand basic economics? People really believe that Bush is responsible for job losses and the decline of the middle class! Does anyone really think Kerry can create jobs? Stop outsourcing? It goes right along with Edwards telling a little girl at a campaign stop last week that he and Kerry would protect her from terrorists.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

It would really be nice if every time a politician said something that he knew were deceitful, he would lapse into two minutes of uncontrollable sneezing. Both parties would have to buy a lot of Kleenex.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Scubasteve, i know Al sharpton is your man, but the moderate swing voters are going to be the deciding factor in this election. he just doesn't appeal to them like the way Giuliani does.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

I was a 'swing voter,' and although I liked Guliani before, I now think he's a total jerk. I'm a New Yorker, and I agree with anyone who asserts that the republicans are taking advantage of our 9/11 history. So much of the RNC that I've watched so far has been in poor, poor taste.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

should the campaign NOT be centered around what happened on 9/11???

i think it was former Clinton advisor, Dick Morris (gone conservative?) who said it best:

The Democrats' campaign strategy is to take the American public back to September 10th, 2001

The Republicans want to remind everyone of it and focus on the complex challenges ahead of us in this century. Americans, (like myself) seem to forget about 9/11 and all its important implications way too fast. I'm so grateful I am reminded of it and I remember why this election is so important, and why Bush should get another 4 years to offer his strong leadership.

It disgusts me when both Kerry and Edwards completely simplify how they can "win" the war, and how portray the Iraq situation as totally black and white.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Shortcakefairy, it's not just Iraq and terrorism they can simply dispense with. They will immediately create millions of jobs, make sure all the middle class are highly paid, get socialized medicine through a Rep dominated congress, make college education cheaper, balance trade, vastly improve public education....all by raising taxes only for those making more than $200K!!

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit

"Scubasteve, i know Al sharpton is your man, but the moderate swing voters are going to be the deciding factor in this election. he just doesn't appeal to them like the way Giuliani does. "

He's not my man, I just appreciate his passion. And that was a weak response to my initial post. Once again you evading talking about Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Why? Because they gave far superior speeches than anyone at the RNC as of yet.

My take on the RNC is this: I did not know it was Haloween already.

You got the nail in the head with the swing voter factor. It seems all the GOP is doing is putting on a mask. Giving moderate speakers prime time slots. I have no problem with that, IF YOUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WAS MODERATE. These speakers are a pis poor reprsentation of President Bush. At least all of those who spoke at the DNC were good representation of Kerry's views and policies.

The GOP is virtualy attempting to con the swing voters. I understand it is a diverse party and includes moderates and conservatives. However your Presidential candidate is a conservative. The moderates you have speaking are not running for President.

None of you see anything wrong with having prime time speakers who are a poor reprsentation of Bush?


PS. "but there is a mutual respect among everyone in it because the party's united by some CORE common values: an unashamed patriotic love for America, a committment to freedom/self-reliance, and a firm stance on defense. "

That is total BS by the way. Those are not the Core values of the GOP. They are the only values that the prime time moderate speakers at the RNC have in common with Bush. Sad part is all parties share those "CORE common values" Democrats included.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Kerry/Eddwards are trying to con the middle class.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I am seeing some very ignorant statements from you folks.

"WRONG! It has absolutely everything to do with the election - the major point of the election is to pick the person best suited to make sure that 9/11 is not repeated. The problem with the Democratic view is that this is viewed as a past-tense event. "

"The Democrats' campaign strategy is to take the American public back to September 10th, 2001 "

"It disgusts me when both Kerry and Edwards completely simplify how they can "win" the war, and how portray the Iraq situation as totally black and white. "


Kerry is just as committed to the war of terrorism as Bush is. Do you even listen to what he says? He is not scared of going to war if necessary. He is not scared of being on the offensive. However unlike Bush, HE IS NOT SCARED OF EXPLORING A DIPLOMATIC APPROACH AS AN OPTION.

If anyone portrays Iraq and the whole war on terror for that matter as black and white, it is Bush. His approach is "if we think you are evil we will take military action against you."

Kerry's approach would be more along the lines of "if we think you are a potential problem, we will diplomatically attempt to correct this, if it fails we will take action against you."

And why is the whole RNC based on 9/11. Bush didn't do anything that great. He pledged war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Would Kerry do the same exact thing? Absolutely. Would any President.. repub, dem, green party, watever, do the same exact thing? Absolutely.

We would actually be much better off with Kerry as President during 9/11. Iraq would have never unfolded the way it did.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

"Kerry/Eddwards are trying to con the middle class. "

You cant make just make a statement like that without supporting it. Historically the Dems have always represented the middle class. There is no need to con anyone. Edwards is probably one of the greatest representations of the middle class in all of politics. The Republicans however.....

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Edwards, who had millions of dollars invested in Asian funds, is telling the middle class he will stop outsourcing and save their jobs. This is pretty much imposible as the trade agreements that encourage outsourcing are cast in stone, many signed by Clinton. They are promising health care for all, more money for education, child care and a host of other things that would require raising taxes for all. Of course they claim they will not do that. They claim they will significantly raise the minimum wage although economists have clearly shown that it would be a disaster for small businesses and cause further loss of jobs. They blame Bush for the decline of the middle class although no living economist can agree. They are totally playing on the decline of the middle class and promising what they can not possibly deliver. They'll then blame it on a Rep congress. It's all such BS, and I'm hardly saying the BS is not on both sides. It just amazes me what people are willing and able to believe.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Scubasteve, you do agree that this election will be determined by the undecided moderate swing voters right? We all know that those of us who are already firmly made up our minds will be unlikely to be swayed.

After saying that, it is only sensible for both the Democrats and Republics to try to appeal to as many undecided moderates as possible. i feel that with McCain, giuliani, Ahnold, and Zell Miller (D), the Republicans have done a good job with this.

And plus, both the GOP and the Dems are huge parties. It's only sensible that each party has many people with differing viewpoints. And it's only sensible to get a wide variety of speakers onto the RNC to appeal to as many people as once: hence moderate republicans like McCain and staunch conservatives like Santorum.

I watched the DNC and I could not help but notice people like Al Sharpton pushing it further and further left. Sure, it rings of passion like you said Steve, but is unlikely to convince the moderates.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Or anyone who remembers Tawana Brawley.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

"This is pretty much imposible as the trade agreements that encourage outsourcing are cast in stone, many signed by Clinton. "

It is impossible to stop all of outsourcing but you can put it on a decline. They plan to take give tax breaks for businesses who do not outsource. Will it work? Time will tell..

"They are promising health care for all, more money for education, child care and a host of other things that would require raising taxes for all."

They are not so much promising more money for education as they are improving education. Bush raised a lot of money for education with his no child left behind act. However what he did with it was disastorious. The money is there Kerry and Edwards are just trying to focus it more on the lower performing, lower budget, and yes often times minority filled schools. They are also going to establish a National Education Trust Fund to ensure proper funding for all schools who need it. College Oppurtunity Tax Credit, Schools open till 6...etc... seems like a great plan to me

Health care will certainly improve under Kerry. Unlike Bush, he actually wants to lift the ban on the prescription drugs from Canada. And under his plan premiums will be cut by up to $1000 a year per family.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Yes I agree that this election will be decided by the undecided swing voters (most who lean towards Kerry by the way)

"After saying that, it is only sensible for both the Democrats and Republics to try to appeal to as many undecided moderates as possible. i feel that with McCain, giuliani, Ahnold, and Zell Miller (D), the Republicans have done a good job with this. "

Yes it makes sense to try to appeal to the swing voters, but if you are going to do so in an almost deceitful way by putting guys in the spotlight who barely represent the candidate...

And furthermore, that is ALL the GOP is doing to appeal to the moderate swing voters. Bush is not changing policy to accodomate to them. All they are doing is just trying to buy them over by putting McCain, Giuliani, etc. on stage. Or rather trying to confuse the American public once again this time by blurring the lines between moderates such as those mentioned above and a conservative like Bush ("Iraq, terrorism, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Iraq, terrorists...errr no no we never "said" they were connected... ring a bell?)

The Dems have at least created policy to cater to the undecided

I mean don't get me wrong I like Giuliani and McCain ...if there was an election for Senator or Governor(hopefuly Giuliani will run) I would probably vote for him over a lot of Dems...however they are not running for President Bush is. Its almost as if the RNC's whole purpose is to confuse the differences between Bush and the moderates.

Unfortunately, the majority of this country is uninformed (little harsh to say but yes they are dumb)...and they will not be able to understand the difference between say Bush and Giuliani. I have always felt that the GOP prospers more from what I call the "dumb" vote. Simply because they tend to be way more cunning and yes sometimes deceitful in the way they run their elections. I guess it is just smart campaigning on their behalf. Dirty; but the Dems can surely resort to the same if they wanted. Yet still, i'm glad they dont.

Luckily, most Americans do not even watch the conventions.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

"Jlq, I have a very hard time believing that 20% of Democrats support dubya. I would love too see where you pulled that stat from."
August 26 LA Times Poll: "While 3% of voters who called themselves Republicans said they would vote for Kerry, Bush drew 18% of all Democrats, and 20% of Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative, the poll found."


"I do believe that this is a shameless ploy by the GOP to show their more "moderate side." Give me a break."
I dont see how Cheany, Bush, McCain, Frist, Guiliani, and Arnold are some type of "mask". They are an accurate reflection of the party, and represent important aspects at different levels. Do you think McCain is moderate? You obviously do not follow politics. And economicly, arnold mccain rudy bush and cheany are not moderate, they are main line conservative.


"This has been one of the most, if not the most Conservative presidency in history."
I wish. They have increaced education spending a lot, as well as having the prescription drug benefits. I wish they were more conservative, but it is better than what kerry would want.


"McCain disrespects and hate George W. Bush after his denouncing of McCain in 2000. For his party to force him on that stage and try to swing undecided voters is absolutely horrible and the Republicans should be ashamed."
I think McCain wanted to go out. I dont see how they could force someone. He has spoken at many gop conventions going back to the 80s. He is also one of the most powerful republican senators, so it is fitting that he should speak. He is also a very strong propenent of the war on terror, including the removal of Huisain.


"Also, GET OFF 9/11 ALREADY!!!!! It happened, we were all saddened, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this election."
I dont even know if this deserves a response. We are fighting a global war on terror, and if you believe it does not matter, than I guess there is no point in convincing someone with such poor judgement and compassion.


"If there are any speeches made by the GOP saying how the economy is up and how jobs are coming back to the US"
Arnold will focus on the economy, along with Bush and Cheany.

"I would really like them to read the latest economic report. Not only have 1 million more jobs been lost in the past year, but the economy has dwindled and after a short rebound is on the downswing again."
Have you read the latest economic report????? It is very irresposible for you to put out blatent factual errors. In the last year, 1.5 million new jobs have been created, home ownership is at all time highs, and gdp growth is the fastest in 20 years.


"The unemployment rate has risen greatly in the past four years after this country was as its highest surplus and lowest unemployment rate ever."
I am starting to think you are not a serious follower of the current events, because so many of your facts are just plain wrong. The unemployment rate has fallen from its highs after the 2000 reccesion and then 9/11. It is now at 5.5%, lower than the 5.6% during Clinton's 96 reelection. So do you now say we have the "lowest unemployment rate ever"? You are extremely uninformed.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Outsourcing will not, and should not, be stopped. Period. And they know this. That's why it's so pathetic to listen to. There will be some lame efforts to make it appear like they've done something. There's Kerry's brilliant idea to make call center staff identify where they are!! Unreal! Here in CA we have an assinine attempt on Novem,ber's ballot to stop the State from outsourcing. Should it get implemented it's well known that the retaliation will be swift as it violates trade pacts.

Good luck to K/E with their brilliant education plan. Once again we will stop one plan before we see if it can work and try some new plan sure to result in more of the same. The same being the pathetic state of education in America which will ensure lots more outsourcing.

And how exactly are they going to lower health care premiums for me? I'm insured through a private policy. When will I see that $1000 decrease exactly.

The bottom line is that K/E are promising trillions of dollars worth of wonderful things that they just can't deliver without significantly raising everyones taxes.

And while the Republicans spew BS too, I must give Bush credit for admitting stopping terorism may not be possible. I wanted to be sick watching Kerry promise a "little darlin", in his Southern drawl, that of course he would protect her from terrorists. Yuk!!!!

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I agree with an earlier poster, in that I don't think those speeches would be particularly helpful to the GOP.... neither was Al Sharpton at the DNC, but come on. People aren't stupid enough to think that Guiliani shares even remotely similar views with the President on a majority of issues.

It's interesting that the RNC is going so moderate (at least so far) because the GOP claims that "liberals" essentially don't exist anymore. Why pander to the center and left-of-center if they are such a small percentage of people? Maybe because there are most people on the left than we are led to believe?

You think the conservative base of the GOP supports Guiliani for ANY reason besides the little "R" beside his hame? No way.

Guiliani revealed White House aspirations for 2008, and I've already seen many conservatives declare that they'd never vote for him, Republican or not. He's to the left of many congressional Democrats.

As for McCain, he is very popular and represents the Republicans better than Guiliani... but still, I think most people are smart enough to realize that voting for Bush is not the same as voting for McCain. In contrast Clinton (who is still very popular, too) is close to Kerry's views, closer than McCain Guiliani and Bush are to each other.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Kerry/edwards makes the worst, unrealistic, tricky promises to people.

Does he want other countries to stop outsourcing to us? We get more jobs insourced from overseas than outsourced.

Does he want to increase the middle class squeeze he likes to talk about by creating a protectionist economy like Japan where things are very very expensive?

Does he want to increase outsourcing by putting more govt regulations on companies such as minimum wage?

Does Edwards want to increase outsourcing with so much pandering to the trial lawyers, who take away jobs and increace costs with so many frivolous law suits? It is very hard to do business or practice medicine when you have beurocrats and trial lawyers running the show trying to gain profit. Edwars actions in nc increaced health care costs by 23%! He has opposed every piece of court reform. No other senator has such a record pandering to the lobby he used to chair.

Does Kerry want to trim or build the deficit. He wants to repeal tax cuts on investors and those who create jobs, and has proposed 1.9 trillion dollars in new spending. That figure does not include uni health care which kerry has backed off of, which would nationalize 17% of our entire economy.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit

"We get more jobs insourced from overseas than outsourced."

Please explain this.

"Does he want to increase the middle class squeeze he likes to talk about by creating a protectionist economy like Japan where things are very very expensive?"

Yes, Japan has expense problems.... but our economy is entirely based on paper now. We have little or no manufacturing, innovation, research, etc going on today. All we have these days are lawyers and doctors. Even the scientists from foreign countries that used to come here to work no longer do because conditions in their home countries have improved. Our education system continues to fall below the rest of the world. Eventually we will not be at the forefront of science or technology anymore. It's scary, to me. And we continue to let other countries get away with illegal business practices here.

"Does he want to increase outsourcing by putting more govt regulations on companies such as minimum wage?"

I'm sure McDonald's is going to start putting their fry cooks to work in India instead of in the U.S. Right.

"Does Edwards want to increase outsourcing with so much pandering to the trial lawyers, who take away jobs and increace costs with so many frivolous law suits?"

I absolutely agree that this is a problem. However many prominent Republicans have denied tort reform passage, too. Might as well vote for a Democrat since I disagree with both parties on this issue.

"He wants to repeal tax cuts on investors and those who create jobs"

Assuming that theory of economics has been proven, which is a pretty big leap.

"and has proposed 1.9 trillion dollars in new spending."

Rather it go to Americans than Iraqis. As someone said about Republican beliefs, "Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. Providing it to all Iraqis is sound policy."

"That figure does not include uni health care which kerry has backed off of, which would nationalize 17% of our entire economy."

And yet Kerry TROUNCES Bush on the issue of health care in most if not all polls. Most people realize that there are SERIOUS problems in our health care system. I do not promote nationalizing health care, but I also realize that the bills passed by the GOP-controlled Congress are ineffectual. Something needs to be done. At least Kerry has an idea.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Wow, I'm really very suprised at the amount of conservatives on this board.

Jlq, if you actually took the time to read the latest economic report you would realize that from 2000, over 1 million jobs have been lost. the 1.5 million created in the past year were only to make up some of the losses from the previous 3 years.

Also, are you saying that education and prescription health care come second behind big corporations like Halliburton? I know you are going to Stanford so obviously you are willing to get a good education, but how can you say that education and health care are not priorities in America?

If Bush was such a great leader and immediately did the right thing during 9/11 why did he sit in an elementary school in Florida for over 7 minutes staring blankly?

The war on terrorism has actually created more terrorism, not lessened it. Take the Iraqi soccer team. Bush says that without the US, they wouldnt be in the Olympics. True. However, after a postgame interview on the last day of soccer competition the entire team denounced Bush and the US for intruding into Iraq. This sentiment is one that can be seen throughout the rest of the Arab world. By invading Iraq we have caused anger within the hearts of millions of Arabs and therefore terrorism has actually risen, not fallen as our president would like to have us believe.

Also you have misread the LA Times Poll. It says "20% of Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative." That means that of the Conservative/Moderate Democrats (a small minority within the party) only 20% support Bush. That means 80% of the Conservative/Moderate Democrats support Kerry along with 82% of the rest of the party (an overwhelming majority).

Im suprised that you believe Arnold to be a conservative economically. In order to help California get out of debt, Arnold has been RAISING taxes, not lowering them. This is why on a lot of the propositions that Californians will be voting on in November have to do with taxing Indian Casinos and other various California groups.

To say that I lack compassion is very irresponsible of you Jlq. I was deeply saddened by 9/11. However, we are choosing a leader to lead the war on terror and fix the problems at home. Saying that 9/11 is part of the war on terror is irresponsible of you. It was what brought the war on, not part of it. Also, it was primarily Rudy Giuliani's doing that NYC was so successful in recovering from 9/11 not Bush. His photo-op on the rubble cannot be seen as great leadership. I actually would like to see Giuliani run because he is a moderate on most issues, withstanding the economy.

I never said that using McCain and Giuliani and Frisk is a mask for the GOP. What I am saying is that they are a minority, not the majority of the party. As much as the Democrats are left wing, the Republicans are right wing. For moderates to make the claim that they are a large part of the party is false. The majority is very conservative. The White House is extremely right wing, including many born-again Christians.

Also, signing legislation that you dont believe in won't help your campaign. Early last week, Bush signed legislation that put into effect very minor changes that the 9/11 commission has requested. The 9/11 commission has actually shown that most of the information fed to the American public used to start the war on terror was false and made up.

Moving on to Mom101's latest points:

So Mom, by your statement that outsourcing should not be stopped, you agree with the idea that it is better for foreigners to take jobs over that Americans could be doing for better wages and more competently? Take companies such as Dell who have seen dramatic decreases in their technical support because of outsourcing to India. That I guess is a good thing in your eyes.

If someone in Washington were to care about the American public's well-being then they would be trying to find a better education plan. At least K/E has one. Bush is so concerned with his war on terror that he has practically neglected issues at home. Not once last night did I hear any other issues come up besides 9/11, the war on terror and the economy.

If you are on a private health care plan (like me) then you will not see the benefits of the K/E health plan. However, if you are one of the millions that are insured by government policy, then you will. Simple as that. Wouldn't it be nice to support all Americans instead of thinking about yourself first? We are one nation, a unified people. We should be caring for one another, not trying to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

What is wrong with raising taxes? For 12 years between 1980-1992 taxes were lowered, causing a major decrease in the US economy. With Clinton, he raised taxes and the economy reached its highest surplus. Now we have lowered them again and guess what, we are in a recession. Do I detect a pattern?

I also give credit to Bush saying terrorism cannot be stopped entirely. But in fact the level of terrorists has risen as contempt around the world has risen.

This global war on terror isn't very global at all. If it was, we would be in Sudan, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. We are not sadly. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq...two of the world's leading oil exporters. I know that most conservatives dont want to hear that, but sad to say, its true folks.

Also this great global coalition I keep hearing about..uhh...whats so great about it? 30 nations...only two of which can actually send a large amount of troops over (Britain and Australia). The others such as Palau, Morocco and Poland...uhh..what are they doing exactly? Where are our democratic allies in France and Germany? I forgot that they hold the same values we do and for some reason dont support us...odd now isnt it?

Let's get back to the issues at hand. I believe we should stop talking about Vietnam because it happened 35 years ago. Also, I dont see why Republicans are willing to discuss the issue because while one candidate served voluntarily, the other was drunk and AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard (read the records from the armed forces). Let's talk about how we are going to help out children with a better education plan, how to help senior citizens pay for their medication so they will not die, help the poor get out of poverty. Those are the real issues that need to be discussed.

2/3 of every tax dollar should not be going to the Pentagon. Someone explain why that is better than giving back to the country to help the poor get out of debt and help out all Americans during these troubled times.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Why can't people give the other side credit for anything? McCain and Guiliani gave good speeches- and they are Republican, so they would accurately represent the Republican party.

I did not discredit Obama when he gave his speech- one that was VERY moderate and appealing to both Repubs and Dems, even though it does not represent the Dem. party right now. Both parties are going very far to the right and left, but there are moderates in both parties, so it is smart, and accurate to have moderate speakers.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit

"McCain and Guiliani gave good speeches- and they are Republican, so they would accurately represent the Republican party."

Zell Miller is a Democrat. Does he accurately represent the Democratic party?

That's not a great reason for saying someone represents a party.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Jaqu1, we now live in a global economy. Period. And overall it's a good thing for the long run. This has been planned and implemented for decades. We are not going to go back to manufacturing things that can be made cheaper elsewhere. We are not going to be doing anything here that can be done as well for less somewhere else. Period. We can do some idiotic things like stop government agencies from outsourcing at the expense of taxpayers but that's a drop in the bucket. The reality is that if we don't outsource, American companies will not be globally competitive and none of us have jobs.

The poster who pointed out that McDonalds will not outsource fry cooking is correct. That class of jobs continues to grow. He also pointed out the need for innovation. Bingo. That's where a better class of jobs will come from. However, unless we vastly improve our educational system, beginning with kingergarten, this innovation will likely happen in other countries. 50% of Indian and Chinese college grads have degrees in math or science. It's 6% here. Our elementary school children score lower than kids in several third world countries. How did we let this happen. 8 years of Clinton did much damage to education in this country. They sure didn't have their eye on the ball when they were signing all those free trade agreements.

Outsourcing in theory will create more jobs than are lost if we fulfill our proposed role which is to create and grow new industries. Only problem is we're not teaching our kids how.

The fact that the middle class has eroded, and has less of the nation's wealth is directly tied to trade--it's not a plot corporate America hatched. All of the high paying manufacturing and other jobs in industries like the auto industry have been replaced by jobs at the Walmarts which pay much less. And those jobs are growing because Americans can't wait to get their hands on all those cheap products made overseas. Thank you to those same trade agreements. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If you think Bush damaged relations with the rest of the world (and he did), wait until you see what Kerry can do if he trys to be protectionist. The only things countries care about more than war is their economies.

But the good news is that Kerry/Edwards are just blowing smoke. They very well know what can and can't be done. But hey, if telling the middle class "hope is on the way" will get them elected, what the hell! And they know that socialized medicine is a disaster, but hey, most American's don't! I just wonder what happens if they win and the middle class finds out the reality of what needs to happen to save them.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Yes, he represents an aspect of the Democratic party. There can be conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, doesn't mean they're not really Dems/Reps. Miller was a Clinton supporter, he just doesn't like the direction the majority of the party is going in, but he still holds many Democratic beliefs. As a biased Republican, I think the Dem. party has moved more to the extreme than the Rep. party- but the majority of people remain in the middle.

They may not represent the party's big-wigs, but they represent the majority of party members, which is why they are asked to speak.

I wish there was a moderate party to fill the void that the other two parties are creating, it could include guys like McCain, Miller, Ah-Nold, Lieberman, Obama, Guliani, Rice, Powell, and other such moderates (please don't turn this discussion into "so and so is not a moderate")
.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

"I also give credit to Bush saying terrorism cannot be stopped entirely. But in fact the level of terrorists has risen as contempt around the world has risen. "

He actually "flip flopped" on that statement today. After catching a lot of bad press because of the initial statement today at the American Legion convention he said that we will and can win the war on terror.

Here is what the Kerry campaign said in response:

"The president has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."

"George Bush might be able to read a speech saying we can win the war on terror, but as we saw (Monday), he's clearly got real doubts about his ability to do so, and with good reason."

----------------------------------------------

"they are Republican, so they would accurately represent the Republican party. "

Not at all. The Republican party is almost two in itself. You have the conservative end (Bush) and then you have the moderate end who actually leans Democrat on certain issues (Giuliani).

The Democratic party is much more united, especially now.

"I did not discredit Obama when he gave his speech- one that was VERY moderate and appealing to both Repubs and Dems, even though it does not represent the Dem. party right now. "

True Obama gave a very good speech, but I disagree with the second part of that statement. It does represent the Dem party right now. They have been taking a moderate approach to this whole campaing policy wise inclusive.

Someone said this earlier: Clinton, Obama, etc. are very on board with Kerry and his policies. They are great representation of him and what he stands for.

While Giuliani and McCain may be Republicans, they are merely a good representation of a small faction of the Republican party... a faction that surely does not include George Bush

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Rifles, more companies from other countries hire people here than companies from the US hire people in other countries. For example, Toyota has many auto plants in the US.


"I'm sure McDonald's is going to start putting their fry cooks to work in India instead of in the U.S. Right."

You flip flop. Your side contends outsourcing is a huge problem, and now you say it doesnt exist. Your one example that does not represent every job in the US.


"I absolutely agree that this is a problem. However many prominent Republicans have denied tort reform passage, too. Might as well vote for a Democrat since I disagree with both parties on this issue."
No, the Trial Lawyers Assn is the largest single democratic monetary supporter. The democrats are overwealmingly the party that panders to them, and has been the party in opposition to court reform. Edwards is the worst of the worst when it comes to this. He has voted every single time against it.


"Assuming that theory of economics has been proven, which is a pretty big leap."

So an investor and a business owner do not create jobs? Reagan's supply side economics doubled tax revenue while cutting taxes.

"Jlq, if you actually took the time to read the latest economic report you would realize that from 2000, over 1 million jobs have been lost. the 1.5 million created in the past year were only to make up some of the losses from the previous 3 years."

Just admit you made an error. You said 1 million jobs have been lost over the last year, when in fact 1.5 million new jobs have been created.

"Also, are you saying that education and prescription health care come second behind big corporations like Halliburton? I know you are going to Stanford so obviously you are willing to get a good education, but how can you say that education and health care are not priorities in America?"

When did I talk about halliburton? And when did I say health care and education are not important. I just am not a fan of socialism as a fair and effective way to convey these products. The point is Bush isn't that conservative, espessially not enough for my liking.


"If Bush was such a great leader and immediately did the right thing during 9/11 why did he sit in an elementary school in Florida for over 7 minutes staring blankly?"

I am not going to answer such a plebian attack that has nothing to do with the extraordinary job he did leading us through those dark times. How would you respond to what kerry said, that when he heard about the attacks, he was "frozen and could not think for 40 minutes"


"Also you have misread the LA Times Poll. It says "20% of Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative." That means that of the Conservative/Moderate Democrats (a small minority within the party) only 20% support Bush. That means 80% of the Conservative/Moderate Democrats support Kerry along with 82% of the rest of the party (an overwhelming majority)."

I did not misread anything and you still agree with my original point, that 18% of the party is voting for Bush, according to the recent poll.

"Im suprised that you believe Arnold to be a conservative economically. In order to help California get out of debt, Arnold has been RAISING taxes, not lowering them. This is why on a lot of the propositions that Californians will be voting on in November have to do with taxing Indian Casinos and other various California groups."
What are you talking about. Arnold repealed the tripling of the car tax, opposes higher gas taxes. Your only weak example is a tricky one. The Indian casinoes have not been taxed at the same rate or at all as other businesses, so he is just forcing them to pay their fair share.

"Saying that 9/11 is part of the war on terror is irresponsible of you. It was what brought the war on, not part of it."

Semantics. The cause for war and the danger of future attacks is important. So 9/11 should not be ignored.

"What is wrong with raising taxes? For 12 years between 1980-1992 taxes were lowered, causing a major decrease in the US economy. With Clinton, he raised taxes and the economy reached its highest surplus. Now we have lowered them again and guess what, we are in a recession. Do I detect a pattern?"


You are so very very very factually wrong. Please take a course in economics and history. Reagan's supply side economics doubled tax revenue, gave the country huge growth that was absent under carter, and set us on the path for the tech boom of the 90s. Do you even know what the definition of reccession is???? If you had a basic knowlege of economic, you'd know it started in the last year of Clinton's term. Right now we are experiencing economic growth that has not been seen since Reagan.

I am getting tired of debating with someone who puts out such out right wrong facts, and does not even admit it. From saying 1 million jobs have been lost in the last year (when in fact 1.5 million have been made) to saying we are in reccession (there was reccession in 2000 under Clinton, not now), you are trying to spew loads of crap just to make your side look better, even at the cost of being deceitful.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Alright Jlq, I'm going to assume you have a better grasp on economics than the english language..."If you had a basic knowledge of economic.."

However, you seem to be missing the key factor with why supply side economics does not work. To quote Alan Brinkley of Columbia University in his recent history anthology "American History," "Throughout the 1980's, the annual budget deficit consistently exceeded $100 billion (and in 1991 peaked at $268 billion). The national debt rose from $907 billion in 1980 to nearly $3.5 trillion by 1991."

So now how exactly does supply side economics work again? Just because tax revenue doubles does not mean your economic policy works. Even a knowledgeable person such as yourself should agree to that.

Now lets discuss this current American economic situation. In this article from cbsmarketwatch at http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B41094BEC%2D4218%2D40E9%2D8D45%2DBD79D9DAD598%7D&siteid=mktw it states "A slowdown in job growth in June and July is turning the nation's consumers more cautious, the Conference Board said Tuesday," along with many statistics to back this up.

Another article from the same site at http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=true&dist=ArchiveSplash&siteid=mktw&guid=%7B130F4AE7%2DA420%2D411D%2D93E3%2D985C6D9F4F72%7D&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B130F4AE7%2DA420%2D411D%2D93E3%2D985C6D9F4F72%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D states: "Personal incomes of U.S. residents grew 0.1 percent in July, the slowest growth in two years, the Commerce Department estimated Monday."

Other articles there discuss how poverty has risen for the fourth straight year along with three consecutive years of Americans without health insurance, which, by my mathematical calculations has been the four years of Bush.

Also, just because Arnold may oppose raising car taxes, doesn't mean that he won't accept the raising of them if it benefits California, as he has done.

Now to the day of 9/11. I don't recall Kerry being the President of the United States on that day. He is a senator, not the President. When someone says "Mr. President, the country is under attack" you do something, not sit there. His sitting there endangered the lives of all the children at that school. Kerry was in the Senate the day of the attack and while he did wait 40 minutes to do anything, that is because Bush did not do anything for that time as well. How can a senator act during that time when he has no control over the country, something that the President does have.

Ok, Bush is extremely conservative. He is a born-again Christian who belives in cutting taxes, supporting the military and cutting the budget for education and health care. That sounds pretty damn conservative to me.

Rifles never said outsourcing doesnt exist just because McDonalds doesnt outsource. Where do you come up with that insane hypothesis? We agree that it exists, yet we want jobs to come back to the US, not leave it.

And yes, I misquoted earlier about the 1 million jobs being lost in the past year. I meant to say that over the past 4 years.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:27 pm: Edit

"The poster who pointed out that McDonalds will not outsource fry cooking is correct. That class of jobs continues to grow. He also pointed out the need for innovation. Bingo. That's where a better class of jobs will come from. However, unless we vastly improve our educational system, beginning with kingergarten, this innovation will likely happen in other countries. 50% of Indian and Chinese college grads have degrees in math or science. It's 6% here. Our elementary school children score lower than kids in several third world countries. How did we let this happen. 8 years of Clinton did much damage to education in this country. They sure didn't have their eye on the ball when they were signing all those free trade agreements.

Outsourcing in theory will create more jobs than are lost if we fulfill our proposed role which is to create and grow new industries. Only problem is we're not teaching our kids how. "

Absolutely. It's all about education, and I personally think the Democrats are the better party for education. I disagreed and do disagree with Clinton's stance on trade.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

"Yes, he represents an aspect of the Democratic party. There can be conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, doesn't mean they're not really Dems/Reps."

I just really don't think there are enough of either (liberal GOPers or conservative Dems) to justify having them speak at the party's convention, where the platform is adopted. Let's quit playing around... you and I both know that Guiliani and McCain do not represent a majority of the Republican party today. McCain lost to the more conservative Bush in 2000 (albeit because of dirty tricks).

Even if McCain and Guiliani do represent a lot of Republicans, why were they selected as the headline speakers? The whole moderation thing is great politics but I think the American public can see through it, just as they obviously saw through the Democrats attempt to appear more hawkish on national security.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit

"Not at all. The Republican party is almost two in itself. You have the conservative end (Bush) and then you have the moderate end who actually leans Democrat on certain issues (Giuliani)."

And the moderate wing is dying, just as the conservative wing of the Democrats is dying.

"The Democratic party is much more united, especially now."

Agreed. They all hate Bush... it's much easier to be against an incumbent IMO.

"While Giuliani and McCain may be Republicans, they are merely a good representation of a small faction of the Republican party... a faction that surely does not include George Bush"

Again, true... and it's like saying George Wallace would be a Democrat today. Or that Strom Thurmond should have stayed a Democrat. Parties change, and the GOP clearly has not recognized that the radical right has hijacked their party, just as the liberal left is doing for the Democrats. (It's more recent for the Dems because the Clinton coalition was much more moderate than Bush is... but Kerry is as far left as Bush is far right)

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Much to the contrary of what Jauq1 states, Bush added a great deal of federal money to education. Much, much more than Clinton. Sorry Jauq, you need economics 101, much of what you say is just plain confused. You attribute a lot to Bush that took many years of groundwork to come to fruition.

The trade pacts are a done deal. I actually haven't read any economist who doesn't think they are the right direction for the long term. Unfortunately, we will feel the pain in terms of quality middle class jobs until some more innovation kicks in. Advances in technology and biotechnology among other things. Those who think we can make jobs "come back" have been listening to too many Edwards speeches.

As for the dems being better for education, I'm open to hearing why. Eight years of Clinton certainly didn't help education.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit

"Rifles, more companies from other countries hire people here than companies from the US hire people in other countries. For example, Toyota has many auto plants in the US."

I see your point, but I detect a difference. Cars were originally made almost totally in Europe and the United States, until we started letting them use illegal business practices against us to destroy our market share. So basically Japan stole our market share in automotives and then turned around made cars for that market share in the U.S. again. Great deal!

"You flip flop. Your side contends outsourcing is a huge problem, and now you say it doesnt exist. Your one example that does not represent every job in the US."

No, you mentioned the minimum wage as a reason for outsourcing and I was being sarcastic and suggesting that minimum wage jobs aren't necessarily being outsourced. I understand that higher costs of wages can hurt companies, though.

"No, the Trial Lawyers Assn is the largest single democratic monetary supporter. The democrats are overwealmingly the party that panders to them, and has been the party in opposition to court reform. Edwards is the worst of the worst when it comes to this. He has voted every single time against it."

Nice talking points, but both parties have been sadly lacking in supporting tort reform. Edwards may be against tort reform but I doubt he'll control Kerry like Cheney has controlled Bush. So I'm not too worried about his views. Kerry seems healthy, too.

"So an investor and a business owner do not create jobs? Reagan's supply side economics doubled tax revenue while cutting taxes."

Not enough to justify the cuts in services and overwhelming deficits... plus selling out the future for tax cuts now.

"The point is Bush isn't that conservative, espessially not enough for my liking."

He can't be conservative on health care and education because most Americans are liberals on those issues. He's a politician and understands that the Democrats will beat him every day of the year on health care and education. Economically, he can't pass anything too radical through Congress... but foreign policy wise you should love him.

"Arnold repealed the tripling of the car tax, opposes higher gas taxes. Your only weak example is a tricky one."

All well and good that Arnold opposes these things... but I haven't heard of any drastic improvement in California's situation. He's turned out like many of us thought -- a movie star.

"and set us on the path for the tech boom of the 90s."

Funny that the foundations of the tech boom were laid under CARTER. But why let facts get in the way.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

whose this guy speaking right now...he sucks

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

"The trade pacts are a done deal. I actually haven't read any economist who doesn't think they are the right direction for the long term. Unfortunately, we will feel the pain in terms of quality middle class jobs until some more innovation kicks in. Advances in technology and biotechnology among other things."

Every advance we make in technology is stolen or sold to another country because of lobbyists and bribes in Washington.


"As for the dems being better for education, I'm open to hearing why. Eight years of Clinton certainly didn't help education."

Clinton was hamstrung by a GOP congress. Democrats want to spend more money on education, while many Republicans want to scrap public education or at the least severely weaken it. Bush passed all sorts of mandates in Many Children Left Behind, but many are unfunded. He puts on a good show, I'll admit.... but the education problem needs funding, not showiness and fluff.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

Unfunded educational mandates have been the rule for decades in this country. Education is a national crisis aand it seems we really should all be able to get together on this one. Unfortunately, we have our collective head in the sand for some reason. It shouldn't have been hard to see what was happening a long time ago.

As for Arnold, he is very much against new taxes. As noted, the casino thing is just an anomoly. And it's not that Arnold didn't try to make some bigger changes. He is hamstrung by a liberal legislature.

People seem to be missing the very basic fact that at both the Federal and State levels, leaders are often blocked by the legislature. To assign blame or credit for many things is just plain stupid. Presidents do not create jobs and they do not have unilateral power.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Mom, how old are you beacuse you make much more intelligent and well founded comments than Jlq3d3?

Anyways, I completely agree that most things in the US get halted because of a party difference between leaders and the legislature. This being said, currently the GOP holds the White House, Congress and Supreme Court. Because of this, Bush, well, not really Bush but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz and Rice have taken advantage of the system. They can unilateraly spread power and wealth to those they want (i.e. big corporations and war hawks) and those they dont (liberals and the poor/middle classes).

Education is a major issue, and in all fairness Bush has put money into education. However, from his leadership in bringing Texas to having the 49th worst public schools as governor to the decrepit state they are in now, more money needs to be spent. I don't care whether you are conservative or liberal, it needs to be done. K/E is willing to put that money in. I don't believe Bush is as he wishes to increase the figure of 66 cents per tax dollar to the Pentagon.

As for the economy, yes, Carter screwed a lot of it up. That being said, the idea of supply side economics hasn't helped ease things. At least with tax rates increasing under Clinton, the DOW rose greatly and so did the nation's surplus.

My family is a member of the upper middle class and therefore should like the tax breaks Bush has given. But we dont. Why? Because while my family may benefit some (I don't think $600 makes that big of a difference), the vast majority of Americans suffer. If we as a nation wish to see ourselves grow and prosper we need to start caring and taking each other in, not disregarding each other. The fact that people as young as I am who cannot even vote yet (although I missed out by only 1 year..damn being born in '87) becoming so involved in politics can help illuminate the fact that our country is so divided. The Democrats have become more liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Then again on the line of politics, Democrats and Republicans are really very close compared to what it could be.

It is not like we liberals hate conservatives, because they are actually good people. But liberals believe that we should aim towards a greater good while I cannot say that for the conservatives. Another thing that seems to be an issue is the idea that saying the world liberal connotes the idea of a curse word. Saying one is a conservative does not nearly have that effect. Why is this so? Why do liberals get tormented and ragged on for what they believe while the conservatives dont nearly feel the same flak?

I think it is great to talk politics in the open like this as it shows we as a people in the US have matured much like the Europeans. The problem I see is that some of us (both liberals and conservatives alike) disrespect the other's views. If we can somehow bypass that I believe that as a nation we could become stronger and more united. To be as divisive as we are today in this global climate is a disturbing thought.

Everyone should stop ragging on each other because of their political beliefs. Let us just have a mature conversation with facts to back up our points and debate these issues intelligently.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit

"Throughout the 1980's, the annual budget deficit consistently exceeded $100 billion (and in 1991 peaked at $268 billion). The national debt rose from $907 billion in 1980 to nearly $3.5 trillion by 1991."

The deficit had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The tax cuts doubled govt revenue. The deficit was because of military spending against the soviet union. After the soviet union was eliminated, military spending went down in the 90s.

"Other articles there discuss how poverty has risen for the fourth straight year along with three consecutive years of Americans without health insurance, which, by my mathematical calculations has been the four years of Bush."

The % of people without insurance is lower than during 1996. And the poverty numbers that just came out are from 1 year ago, during the height reccesion. 2004 has been a banner year with 1.5 million new jobs and fast growth.

"Also, just because Arnold may oppose raising car taxes, doesn't mean that he won't accept the raising of them if it benefits California, as he has done."

Can you name one time he has risen taxes, outside of the indian casino readjustment? He has promised and followed through and not raised any taxes. In fact he repealed them.

"Ok, Bush is extremely conservative. He is a born-again Christian who belives in cutting taxes, supporting the military and cutting the budget for education and health care. That sounds pretty damn conservative to me."

I did not know that all christians are conservative. Thanks for informing me. Can you name one instance where he cut education or health care. He has put more money into education than Clinton did. Clinton wanted to pass an education act such as NCLB, but could not according to advisor dick morris. And was making a rx plan "cutting healthcare"??

"Education is a major issue, and in all fairness Bush has put money into education."

You are contradicting yourself again.

"But we dont. Why? Because while my family may benefit some (I don't think $600 makes that big of a difference), the vast majority of Americans suffer. If we as a nation wish to see ourselves grow and prosper we need to start caring and taking each other in, not disregarding each other."

First, 600$ per family is a lot. Second, that was not the only tax cut. Bush has cut divendend and capital gains taxes. Also, how did the national suffer by getting money back? Second, by no means were you "subjected to the tax refund". You could have easily sent it back to uncle sam or sent it to someone who you think needs it, instead of "disregarding them" and keeping it for yourself.


I agree we should have a mature conversation. But a mature conversation requires a modicum of factual honesty and a basic knowledge of the facts, something which you seem to lack.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 02:37 am: Edit

I never insulted you Jlq so why are you bad mouthing me?

A) Would you ever go and read something from a history textbook or anything of the sort? If you would you could understand that the deficit in the 80's and early 90's was a result of the tax cuts. Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it isnt true.

B)Those numbers are from 2003. A year under Bush. How do you know those current numbers from this year? The reports haven't been issued yet.

C)Yes I can give an example of him cutting the budget for health care and education. Since Bush has come to leadership, we have seen a growth in Pentagon spending money. Up to now 66 cents per 1 tax dollar. That means that other things in the budget must get decreased funding. This means less money for education and health care.

D) Just because you read a sentence does not mean you read my whole point. Next time quote the whole thing, not just the part that serves your purpose.

E)I never said the words "subjected to the tax refund" in my last post. Why did you make that up? Subjected is not the same as suffered. The greater good of the US did suffer from the tax refunds. Why? Because if you have looked at percentages of those who have the majority of wealth and then the majority of who pays taxes it goes a little something like this... The percentage of those who control the vast majority of wealth in the US are within the top 2%. Over the past four years, the other 98% has begun to pay more and more of US taxes, relieving those who have the money to actually pay taxes. So essentially the people who get wealthier due to larger size tax cuts for the wealthy pay less and those who make less and get less in a tax cut pay more in taxes. Thats what happens. Take a look and read up on your history of supply side economics.

The "disregarding them" comment did not have anything to do with the fact that my family kept the tax refund. If you look at the statement it came from, "If we as a nation wish to see ourselves grow and prosper we need to start caring and taking each other in, not disregarding each other."

See, we both have facts to back up both our sides Jlq, so we are having a mature conversation. It doesn't require insults or anything.

Yet, I will give you a flip flop example for you. While I say we shouldnt have insults, let me say this. How the hell did you get into Stanford? divendend? That isnt even a word. I think you were looking for dividend. And "how did the national suffer..." National..what?

Go to cbs.marketwatch.com and actually look at the latest economic reports under the heading "Economics and Politics."

I'm sorry I had to resort to that low comment. Anyways, hopefully our future debates can be taken in a more kind and gentler setting.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:47 am: Edit

"Would you ever go and read something from a history textbook or anything of the sort? If you would you could understand that the deficit in the 80's and early 90's was a result of the tax cuts. Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it isnt true."

How can a tax cut, which causes more revenue going to the gov, make the gov have less money? They only reason was becaue of increaced military spending which ended the cold war. It is basic arithmatic.

"Those numbers are from 2003. A year under Bush. How do you know those current numbers from this year? The reports haven't been issued yet."

We don't know them, that is the point. You cannot judge him by the year under the height of the reccesion, and then ignore the incredible growth and new employment of 2004.

"Yes I can give an example of him cutting the budget for health care and education. Since Bush has come to leadership, we have seen a growth in Pentagon spending money. Up to now 66 cents per 1 tax dollar."

You said you were going to point out an example of his cutting health care or education spending, but you disappointed me, because you did not give any.


"E)I never said the words "subjected to the tax refund" in my last post. Why did you make that up? Subjected is not the same as suffered. The greater good of the US did suffer from the tax refunds. Why? Because if you have looked at percentages of those who have the majority of wealth and then the majority of who pays taxes it goes a little something like this... The percentage of those who control the vast majority of wealth in the US are within the top 2%. Over the past four years, the other 98% has begun to pay more and more of US taxes, relieving those who have the money to actually pay taxes. So essentially the people who get wealthier due to larger size tax cuts for the wealthy pay less and those who make less and get less in a tax cut pay more in taxes. Thats what happens. Take a look and read up on your history of supply side economics."

Wait, in what way are 98% of americans paying more taxes. Last time I read a newspaper, income taxes for every american have been reduced, divedend and capital gains taxes have been reduced... Point out one tax hike on anyone.


See, we both have facts to back up both our sides Jlq, so we are having a mature conversation.

I did not see to many solid facts, please provide the examples I asked for.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 03:58 am: Edit

And how dare you play low ball with me. Are you some kind of coward. You question my right to get into Stanford. I know you want to apply there, and by your stupid insulting standards, you shouldn't even be looked at. Your second to last post had "beacuse", "unilateraly", in addition to countless non-abbreviations. If you are going to be petty, at least be accountable to petty things.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:27 am: Edit

"How can a tax cut, which causes more revenue going to the gov"

Ooooookay...

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit

Children, children, let's keep this on high ground. I'm old enough to be your mother Jauq1. Jauq, I'll repeat, your intensions sound good, but you don't yet understand economics. There is much to be said about stimulating the economy through tax cuts. This is not an us versus them thing. Job creation is key in this country right now. Much of what is billed as the top 5% of wage earners are actually smaller companies that file taxes through individuals.

Yes, the middle income Americans are losing ground financially. But this is not because the rich are getting richer and hoarding the wealth. Again, it's due to the replacement of higher paying middle class jobs by jobs in the Walmart sector. This is what needs a solution, and that solution is not overtaxing the wealthy. The top 5% already pay over 35% of taxes.

On another thread a wise poster said that we should want the rich to get richer because it means prosperity for all. This is the class that creates jobs and wealth for the country as a whole. There is a lot of middle class anger in the Country right now and it is causing us to lose sight of the real issues.

The assumption that the wealthy do not want prosperity for all is bogus. Who wants to live in a Country that is falling apart? It is uncomfortable to be wealthy in a Country where no one else is prospering. Look to Countries like Mexico and Brasil to see that life is quite dangerous for the wealthy in places with huge divides. The issue is that Conservatives just don't believe bigger government, restricting free enterprise and high taxes are the answer. You're buying into a lot of liberal drivel if you assume Conservatives care less.

America has always been about free enterprise. The freedom to create wealth. Wealth was greatly admired by those who arrived at Ellis Island. The American dream. Suddenly it's a bad word. The Democrats have lost their center and are sounding more like socialists every day. Do we really want to be another Canada? I've lived there, believe me, we don't.

I understand a young persons inclination to believe the simplistic things being thrown out there during this election. The problem is that the rich are getting tax breakes and keeping America's wealth. We would have health care and great educations for all if the Republicans weren't just putting the money in their already rich pockets. Bush has destroyed the middle class. He is allowing jobs to leave the Country insted of stopping this. It's all BS Jauq. Hopefully you'll take at least some economics in college and get the foundation for a meaningful analysis of what's really going on.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit

"Job creation is key in this country right now"

Very well said, Mom101

Job creation is key in this country right now... and furthermore a very key reason to vote for Kerry

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 04:58 pm: Edit

"But this is not because the rich are getting richer and hoarding the wealth. Again, it's due to the replacement of higher paying middle class jobs by jobs in the Walmart sector."

I'd say it's due to both.

"The top 5% already pay over 35% of taxes."

The top 1% of households own almost 40% of the nation's wealth.

The top 10% of Americans own over 70% of nation's wealth.

Extrapolating, the top 5% should own around 55 percent of the wealth. But they pay 35 percent of the taxes. Wow, they sure are generous!

"On another thread a wise poster said that we should want the rich to get richer because it means prosperity for all."

Too bad that's not really true. When the rich get richer the poor get poorer and get trampled upon. That's why we went through the Gilded Age then Progressive Movement, because we SAW the effects of unbridled wealth being controlled by a very few people.

"Wealth was greatly admired by those who arrived at Ellis Island. The American dream."

Unfortunately the "American Dream" is and was extremely rare. Just because you hear the EXTREMELY isolated reports being circulated continually in the media doesn't mean that everyone is living the American Dream.

"The problem is that the rich are getting tax breakes and keeping America's wealth."

The rich are doing more than keeping America's wealth; they are increasing their share.

"We would have health care and great educations for all if the Republicans weren't just putting the money in their already rich pockets."

The Democrats would do a better job at both health care and education. Republicans are for the most part either rich businessmen (who don't need public versions of either) or poorer Southern social conservatives who aren't worldly enough to know the difference. The rest of the Republicans support Democrats on these issues, which is why Democrats poll so well in them.

"Bush has destroyed the middle class."

It's not Bush; it's conservative policies.

"He is allowing jobs to leave the Country insted of stopping this."

The fault for this belongs to both parties.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:24 pm: Edit

So most Republicans are either rich businessmen or ignorant (or should I say, un-worldly?) Southerners? Wow, I didn't know that the midwest/Rocky Mountain regian was made up almost entirely of rich businessmen! And most southern republicans are idiots/unworldly! Thanks for clearing that up!

I cannot see any justification in a person paying over half their hard-earned income to the government, no matter how much they make. Again, why should we punish the successful? Based on your claim about the rich getting richer, it seems like you would want a cap on how much money a person can make. You seem like you want to limit how successful a person can be. I would like to dust off the old chestnut and point out that the richest man on the planet, Gates, is also (at least one of) the most generous man/men on the planet. Despite what you may think, Republican entrepeneurs (not "rich businessmen") do a lot to help out the world, including paying a lot in taxes. They are not all scheming to take away everyone's money and keep it for themselves.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

"So most Republicans are either rich businessmen or ignorant (or should I say, un-worldly?) Southerners? Wow, I didn't know that the midwest/Rocky Mountain regian was made up almost entirely of rich businessmen! And most southern republicans are idiots/unworldly! Thanks for clearing that up! "

Hehe, it's as accurate as calling the Democratic Presidential candidate a Socialist :)

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

Watie, all my grandparents and extended family live in Kentucky and are Republican. They all wear overalls, plaid shirts, and combat boots. And yep, they have dirty grimey bushy beards that are grey smell terrible. FYI, they also are missing the obligatory front row teeth, and what few teeth they have left are yellow with decay and filth. As you should know already, all of my family members are members of the NRA and own a grand total of 1352465 guns, plenty of assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, and a license to kill. Buck heads hang from our walls as trophies of our savageness, and dead racoons and cats litter our dirty front lawns. A confederate flag flies above our house, and the only vehicles we have are dilapidated old Chevys. All we eat for dinner is fried chicken, fried rats, fried racoons, fried deer, and fried bear meat. And that's just my extended family!!!


My mom and dad are uber-rich business people. We take in a grand total of $994,123,151,513 per year. We live in an isolated mansion where we can look down on all of the slums and poor folks homes . We don't donate squat to charity, or do squat for the community. We sit around in our fur coats all day, watch our 60in. plasma TV, and annoying the living F&#K out of our 14 butlers, 135 maids, 132452 lawn care specialists. We throw our bathroom waste on those lowly poor folks who don't have anything compared to our mercedes, BMWs, and ferraris. We complain to our rent-a-cop security guards to systematically eliminate all poor folks in a 13515 mile radius so we can live without the lowest members of society constantly bugging us. To light our Cuban cigars, we throw name-brand lighter fluid into our fireplace and use $50 bills as the matches. We only eat cavier, drink the finest wine, and we ALWAYS give evil laughs when the situation calls for it. Following those evil laughs, we clink our wine cups together and say, "Here's to Money."

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 05:56 pm: Edit

I think the key thing to address in what Rifleswatie says (and his thinking is mainstream) is that the American dream is isolated. Americans no longer believe it can happen. This is what is so sad and unfortunate.

I live in Silicon Valley. I grew up in the bottom tax rate and ended up in the top. I believe. My greatest fear is that Kerry wins, he can't finance (or get through congress) a fraction of what he is promising, and mainstream America becomes more angry than ever. How can people think the Dems have the answer to education. Clinton was a disaster! And we saw Clinton try socialized health care. K/E are blowing a lot of smoke to capitalize on the "Walmart anger". I truly fail to see how any "help is on the way" through their specious promises.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Why are we talking about Clinton!? The K/E plan for education is nothing like the Clinton plan. K/E actually plans to put a good portion of the budget into education! So stop blaming Clinton and using him as the example of Democratic policy towards education!

THEY DONT WANT SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE!!!! Wow. This is the error of Faux news actually describes a democratic policy. Just because we want more money for health care doesn't mean it becomes socialized!! C'mon you really expect people to believe that K/E are a bunch of socialists?! (Although there really isn't anything wrong with socialism if it were to be done in the fashion as Marx envisioned)

Walmart is purely evil. While I don't like the way in which she wrote her book, Barbara Ehrenrich's "Nickel and Dimed" is a valuable resource to show the way in which Wal-Mart works. She did work there and she discusses their policies which include immediate firing if an employee attempts to go to a union and paying long term employees minimum wage (and sometime's even lower than minimum wage).

In an experiment conducted last week, I watched Fox News for an entire week while on vacation just to learn the other side of the argument. I don't disrespect Fox's programming because some of it is actually decent. But the fact that they call themselves fair and balanced when the entire country knows they are a bastion of right wing conservativism. I watched Hannity and Colmes, the O'Reilly Factor and other Fox programs and the fact is that all they discuss is why Kerry/Edwards is a campaign full of slander and maliciousness. We all know both sides commit slander so you can't blame just one campaign.

Oh yeah. The idea of the American Dream of rising from rags to riches...is extremely rare in today's society. The truth is a person in the lowest tax bracket has little to no chance of rising in society because of the way the society is set up. If someone were to have taken any sort of psychology class one would know that the most basic human instinct is greed. The ability to make money and keep it. Now, put that into today's society. What do you have? A bunch of wealthy businessmen who are still greedy for more and are very reluctant to give away their money. While there may be anomalies such as Gates, the majority of wealthy business men do harbor and keep their money. Simple fact. This is why people in the lower classes can't move up in society anymore...because those with money won't help give money to those in the lower classes.

Oh yeah...P.S. KOBE IS FREE!!!!!

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit

"We all know both sides commit slander so you can't blame just one campaign. "

BRAV-FRICKEN-O! Jaug1 gets the Hunter1985 stamp of approval just for that quote.

By Justice (Justice) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

I'm just curious about something: a question to Kerry/Edwards supporters:

What makes you think that Kerry/Edwards can sympathize with low-income citizens? They started out rich and spent all their lives amassing huge amounts of assets any way they could. Is it so easy to believe a man who claims he is fighting for the "common man" despite having never done so in his life?

At least Bush sent his daughters to public school instead of Andover! (i'm not saying this in a derogative way; I attend Andover) Kerry ironically sent his own daughter to Andover. He moved to Lowell when he was young to attempt to win over the precinct--he bought a huge house and was detested by the immigrant population there.

You want to talk about exploitation? Kerry's grandfather of the Forbes family made his fortune off of the opium trade in China--a time of brutal exploitation if you've taken world history. If you watch Fahrenheit and then think Bush's family is evil, do a little unbiased reading about Kerry's family. His ancestors basically caused the first Opium War with their smuggling.

Think about what these individuals actually do with their lives before you believe the words that are written on paper by strategic response teams and that come out of his mouth like a wolf to little miss riding hood. How anyone can trust Kerry to fight for low-income people is absolutely beyond me...

Just a nonpartisan rant: is anyone else sick of Republicans using the "Bush w/ construction worker" as an example of his great "solid" leadership? I always thought leadership required someone to do something, not just look grim yet compassionate for a photo shoot. By that logic, we should be a country ruled by actors and models.

By Justice (Justice) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

"If someone were to have taken any sort of psychology class one would know that the most basic human instinct is greed. The ability to make money and keep it."

From which perspective/paradigm of psychology did this come from? I'm genuinely curious--I took Psych and never encountered a motive theory that says greed is pervasive. Seems like more of a common sense and speculative thought to me.

"While there may be anomalies such as Gates, the majority of wealthy business men do harbor and keep their money. Simple fact. "

I'm pretty sure most rich people tend to spend their money. Spending money = very very good for the economy. Better than having low-income people spend that money on crack cocaine from Afghanistan or German beer, wouldn't you say?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Jauq, well, you are young. America is more of a meritocracy today that it has ever been. It is very possible, and hardly an isolated event, to go from a lower class home to the ivy league. Hardly impossible or even improbable to study hard, work hard and become rich. And I second justice, in no psychology class did I learn that greed is a basic instinct. Me thinks you're buying a ton of liberal BS.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

"They started out rich and spent all their lives amassing huge amounts of assets any way they could. Is it so easy to believe a man who claims he is fighting for the "common man" despite having never done so in his life?"

That was an incredibly dumb statement (no offense).

Edwards started out rich? He was the son of a factory worker his whole childhood. Worked his ass off to do well in state college and eventually graduated from unc law. He spent his whole life fighting for the common man as a personal injury lawyer.

Kerry, while wealthy, is not automatically disqualified from being able to fight for the common man. Money and action do not necessarily have to run hand in hand. He has made great effort to reform inner city schooling as a Senator.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Kerry is only wealthy by marriage. He was from the poor relations side of a blue blood family. A wealthy aunt paid for his education. Edwards fought for the common man as a personal injury lawyer? More likely he fought for his 33% of the settlements! Which he then largely invested in Asian funds. Please!!

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Uh, Mom...I do believe Edwards was a criminal trial lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer. I also have a hard time believing you are a moderate. What moderate positions do you hold?

Hahaha. Yeah, I guess professors at the highest institutions in America all can be wrong when they say greed is a basic instinct...oh give it up. It's not liberal BS, it's fact! And when again did liberal become such a curse word?! Saying conservative does not nearly have the damaging effects as saying one is liberal. So I think it's unfair to use the word liberal as an "evil" thing when it is just the exact opposite of being conservative.

Why does going to the Ivy league guarantee anyone success in life Mom? I'm really confused by that statement. Tons of underprivaleged teens work hard, study hard and end up as failures all because of their beginning place in society. The idea of financial aid has come about because they need some way to pay for their secondary school, college and graduate programs. And then again, some schools can't afford to pay for those students so they cannot even attend the schools they have worked hard to get into. And then again, going to a good school does not automatically guarantee success.

Also, I'm thrilled that Mom and Jlq's votes are going to be meaningless as California is going to go to the Democrats. :). And if Mom or Jlq pulls the "Well, look at Arnold. He is a Republican and is now our governor" card, it only happened because the Democrats in the state thought Gray Davis should have been recalled (not that he should have. Just shut up and take your 4 years of punishment. He didn't do anything illegal). The vast majority of California is still very Democratic and the state is going to K/E.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit

"He spent his whole life fighting for the common man as a personal injury lawyer."

LOL! I am sure the multi-millions he got from each case, many of which were of the ambulance chaser catagory, had nothing to do with it. That is why he only took cases with big $ potential. The common man in his home state of NC had his health care costs raised 23% because of Edward's greedy assault on doctors.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

"I do believe Edwards was a criminal trial lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer."

Another reason I think you need to follow the news a little bit better, espessially when it has to do with the candidate you are supporting. He is a classic Personal injury trial lawyer.

And our vote will count more than your vote in CA.
Lets say 7/10 (70%) will vote kerry, and 3/10 bush (30%). If you vote for kerry, and mom101 votes bush, kerry's % goes down to 66% (8/12), and Bush goes up to 33% (4/12). Sure it can't make Bush win, but it will make it a closer margin.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit

I love how you characterize people mom101. If you have ever listened to Edwards speak you would clearly be able to see that he had a geniune love for his job and helping people as a personal injury lawyer.

You claim to be so much "older" than all of us, so you should know better than to stereotype an entire profession. Not all lawyers are in it for the money. Those who are never stick around long enough because they end up not enjoying the work.

The man enjoyed his job, he was successful at it and as a result prospered... do not belittle him for that and claim him to be an "ambulance chaser."

Would you prefer him to work only pro bono cases his whole career?

And if he is so monetarily motivated how do you explain that one of his early acts as Senator was to coauthor the Patients Bill of Rights?

Are all investment bankers in it purely for money?

Are all gynecologist's in the field because they all have a secret underlying perveted drive?

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit

"The common man in his home state of NC had his health care costs raised 23% because of Edward's greedy assault on doctors. "

JLQ,

Are you trying to contend that Edwards alone rose health care costs? Please, it was the whole profession don't single him out.

Or maybe the NC doctors had it coming?

Show me one indisputable, friviolous case that he took on. Please. Emphasis on indisputable.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit

You are right Jlq...the margin will be smaller...but the fact is elections are won on a state to state basis. California is going to the Democrats. That is 54 electoral votes going to the Democrats.

If you want to look at the latest poll numbers, most of which seem to show Bush ahead in the popular vote, again...it means nothing. The fact is one would have to look at a poll from each individual state to see how the election would pan out if voting were to occur today.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Gag me, Scubasteve. Edwards is a phony. Take a look at the cases he made his money on. Note that he is the loudest voice against outsourcing while being heavily invested in Asia. Last week he promised a little girl, in front on a gaggle of media, that he would save her from terrorists. Yuk, yuk, yuk!!!!

Jauq, the ivy league schools, like all schools, can not guarantee success. However if you can get in to a great school, you certainly have the potential to be very successful. A great education is merit based today. If you want to argue that we're not preparing many young children to take advantage of this in America, I'll agree. But the American dream is alive and well and more available to the non Kerry and Bush relatives than ever. Education is status in this Country today, having replaced blue blood.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit

Mom, You are full of assumptions. I did take a look at his cases. Did you? Most are quite compelling. You are trying to bash Edwards on something your own party is not even attempting... something is wrong there wouldn't you say?

Jaug,

It is actually qutie good for Kerry that Bush is now ahead by 2 points or whatever. This election has been very cyclic. One takes the lead, then falls behind, then takes lead.

Kerry fell behind at the right time. 1month+ from now if he so much as picks up 1 point the media will play a huge role in him winning the election.

Current underdog picks up one point, gets mass media attention. Which in turn causes him to gain more points becuase people vote in trends. Which in turn puts him as leader come election day

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:16 pm: Edit

Kerry has used his 2 main charges (edwards and convention), and come up behind even before the gop convention. Unless Bush makes a big mistake, he is in very good shape.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Who said which my party was? I am certainly conservative where economics are concerned but quite liberal on social issues. I think both candidates stink. But yes, I've seen a list of obnoxious malpractice cases that Edwards took on. And I've seen that he won't be on the side of stopping such bogus cases. If he were still practicing today, there's no doubt in my mind he'd be lead attorney for the South on sueing McDonalds for making people fat. Right up his alley.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

"...picks up one point, gets mass media attention. Which in turn causes him to gain more points becuase people vote in trends."

By your analysis, Bush will gain more because of your "trend" idea, since he has gained in the last month before his convention.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Edward's record in the senate in regards to tort reform speaks for it self. Not even the liberal ted kennedy or carl levin can compete with Edward's 100% alliance with the trial lawyer lobby.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

"Kerry has used his 2 main charges (edwards and convention), and come up behind even before the gop convention. Unless Bush makes a big mistake, he is in very good shape."

What's to say that Bush's *small* bounce won't fall apart like Kerry's did? Kerry was ahead from February-June until Reagan's death when Bush shot up. After all four bounces disappear, Kerry should be ahead just like he was ahead before all of the bounces. (Reagan, VP, DNC, RNC).

The debates and any "October suprises" will determine the winner.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Zellllllllllllllllll MILLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

on the RNC tonight

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit

"By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 08:16 pm: Edit


Kerry has used his 2 main charges (edwards and convention), and come up behind even before the gop convention. Unless Bush makes a big mistake, he is in very good shape. "


Oh my friend you are forgetting one MAJOR event where Bush will undoubtly screw up. THE DEBATES.

Bush was able to fend off Gore fairly decently because he did not have 4 past years of Presidency that he had to answer to.

Kerry will eat him alive (unlike Gore he isn't afraid to be aggressive).


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