Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

jsn112 · Jun 14, 2004

jameseb said:
I had to rep you for your post. I noticed no one has challenged you either... I guess they realize its hard to debate someone who actually lived it, was actually there.

God bless.

Holly molley, James. That's a lot of rep. You didn't have to do it, but thanks. Wow.

jameseb · Jun 14, 2004

jsn112 said:
Holly molley, James. That's a lot of rep. You didn't have to do it, but thanks. Wow.

You're quite welcome and it was my pleasure! It was a great post!

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2004

jameseb said:
"Between 1985 And 1990, Kerry Accepted Over $120,000 In Special Interest Honoraria. 'Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show In 1985, Kerrys freshman year in the Senate, he supplemented his $75,000 salary with $19,480 in speaking fees. The next year the fees grew to $22,725.'

John Solomon, Kerry Pocketed Speaking Fees, The Associated Press, 2/9/04

As a forced member of a union, and forced to contribute my hard earned money to his political party, I can think of no other appropriate word to describe him other than a thief. If anyone wants to vote for a thief, be my guest.

While I can understand your anger at your union paying for a speaker you don't like, isn't it misplaced to be angry at Kerry? After all, didn't Bush also accept speaking engagments from unions and get paid for them?

Public speaking is work. It takes time to prepare. Surely as a union member you think people should be compensated for their labor, whether you agree with their views or not. And surely, as a union member, you would want to hear the views of potential candidates so that you could decide whether you want to vote for them or not?

So, I don't think either your union bosses or Kerry robbed you. Instead, they responsibly spent some of your dues for speakers to inform you of the issues of the day. One of those issues is politics. Other speakers, I'm sure, covered health care, taxes, and other items of interest to you as a worker.

Certainly Kerry never held a gun to the heads of your union bosses and demanded payment! So if you think anyone "robbed" you, it is the people in your union, not Kerry.

But it's a nice emotional attempt to slam Kerry.

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2004

jamesebLynn said:
non-union[/i] jobs at that? You can't make that kind of case, I'm sorry.

Those jobs do exist. That is what illegals get.
The lack comes also from the fact that those bleeding heart liberal politicians passed a law saying what the minimum wage could be, remember? And they based that, in part, on what the unions had been able to force the companies to pay.
Now, when you refer to "10 cent an hour jobs" and are referring back to the early 1900s, are you taking into account inflation and what the equivalent pay is in today's currency?

lucaspa · Jun 15, 2004

BFWard said:
Agreed. I just hope that this disappointment does not give us Kerry as a Commander and Chief. I too admit that Bush II has done some things that cause me great concern, mainly the Patriot Act. On the other hand, anyone who renounced his service to his country should not run it.

Kerry renounced the type of bad political leadership such as Bush's that got Kerry thrown into the meat-grinder to begin with! He renounced service to the stupid politicians that got American soldiers into a war they should not have been in.

You see, that is the job of the citizenry -- to decide whether the war should be fought. Soldiers can only fight it. While a soldier, that is what Kerry did. He fought and did so without question. However, once he was a civilian, then his duty was to examine the war from the standpoint of: is it a just war? Should we be fighting it? At this point Kerry decided, along with a lot of vets, that the political leadership had sold them down the river.

I'm afraid that is what the troops in Iraq are going to be feeling before long.

Texas Lynn · Jun 28, 2004

jameseb said:
Lynn, how does that account for the lack of 10 cent an hour jobs that now exist in the country today.. non-union jobs at that? You can't make that kind of case, I'm sorry.

Non-union operations have to pay competitive wages due to unionization; when people are satisfied with wages and benefits they don't unionize.

There is perfect truth to the bumpersticker "Unions: the People Who Brought You The Weekend".

renegade pariah · Jun 28, 2004

..........Down with Bush.

2001MustangGT · Jun 29, 2004

Yes down with Bush!

One thing that makes America great is its self criticism, and its ability to "adapt" and "evolve" to change. Americas ability to take positive correction will be displayed this Nobember.

Bush will lose the election.

dlamberth · Jun 29, 2004

We are going for Regime Change..Bush is going to be voted out of office.

.

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

GW_in_04 said:
Than Bush should win by a landslide if that were really true!

I don't think so. I don't consider Fundamentalism to be Christian. It is false-idol worship.

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

GW_in_04 said:
as far as taxes yes the more you make the more you pay, the more you pay the more you get back. Sounds fair to me. Why should I get back 50% of my taxes when I don't pay a small percentage of what the richer people pay.

Because the rich can afford more than you. Look, if $300 is such a good tax return, why should not both you and a millionaire get that? Does he really need the extra $100,000 he gets? Are you telling me that you can't have a comfortable life style on a mere $500,000 a year and need that extra $100,000?

This is what bothers me about the new Christian right. It is so greedy. Jesus wanted you to give away your wealth to help the less fortunate. You argue to keep more and more of your money. Selfishness.

It has gone up about 50-60 dollars a pay period since those tax cuts took effect.

But look at your total income. How much has your property taxes gone up? How about your state taxes?

John Kerry WILL raise taxes he has said so over and over. And GW will continue to push for no new taxes, and lowering the ones we have now even lower.

And I hope Kerry gets elected! Sorry, I'm just not as greedy as you. I'm perfectly willing to pay more dues if I don't leave a debt my grandchildren can't pay off! I don't want to make the bankers rich off the interest on the debt Bush's tax cuts made. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to restore the drug treatment programs, education programs, and health research Bush has cut and which will have to be cut more because more of the budget is going to be spent on paying the national debt because of the deficits Bush is running.

You see, I'm not as greedy as you. I believed Jesus when he preached helping others. My little self doesn't have enough money to do that. But by combining a little money from you and me, that's more that can be done. By yourself, the $60 a pay period you get back isn't enough to rent on a safe after-school hang-out in the Bronx, even if you were generous enough to share your tax cut, which you aren't. However, take your $60 (make you be a good Christian even if you don't want to be), add my $60, and the $60 of everyone who posts here, and there is enough money. Yes, we cut into your greed, but I can live with that.

Thankfully the market is recovering and the business scandals that were in large part due to the way Clinton ran his office are behind us now as well.

You obviously are ignoring that the executives in the business scandals were all Bush supporters and croneys! Can't blame that one on Clinton.

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

BFWard said:
On the other hand, anyone who renounced his service to his country should not run it.

Kerry renounced the REMFs that put him and his buddies into a meatgrinder where they couldn't win. I don't find a problem with that.

I renounce the REMF that holds office now that dares the Iraqi resistance to come kill our soldiers! I would much rather have a commander-in-chief who knows what it is like to be on the sharp end and won't betray the people there than have an idiot who is safe and sound and invites enemies to kill people he put in harm's way!

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

BFWard said:
As an old soldier, you should know that throwing medals means you renounce your service.

Where did you get this? It means renouncing the leaders you feel betrayed you. I know of some vets that threw their medals when Carter announced amnesty for draft dodgers that fled to Canada. Did they renounce their service? Did they renounce their loyalty? Or did they protest at what they saw as a betrayal?

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

jameseb said:
As a matter of fact, the sups at my place of work are non-union members and they have all the same benefits. Interesting.

And that is because of the union. The company could hardly keep supervisors if they got worse benefits than the workers, could they? So even the sups have to thank the union.

lucaspa · Jun 29, 2004

jsn112 said:
It's not a wrong war. I was born there. Because the US lost, I had to leave. Otherwise, I would still be there. My family fought alongside with the US. And if you think only the Americans "murder" innocent Vietnameses, the Viet-cong was just as bad or worse.

The tragedy of Viet Nam was that it was a mistake to get into it and then a mistake to get out.

If the US had not gotten in, the South may never have been able to be established in the first place. Heck, if we had listened to Ho Chi Minh at the Versaillie Peace Conference in 1919, he would never have been communist! But we were too into colonialism in defiance of our own ideals, and that betrayal of our ideals led to tragedy.

Yes, by the time the US got out, the war had radicalized the North to such an extent that it now was what it wasn't in 1960: a bad, repressive government. However, the truth is that we could not win. Even if we had stayed, we would only have prolonged the agony. It was simply a war that the US military could not win. Wrong tactics, wrong strategy, but mostly the wrong politics of the civilian leadership.

And yes, your family and millions like them paid the price for our stupidity. That is why it is the responsibility of the civilians to critically examine any war the government wants to fight. And to protest if they think the war is wrong. To prevent people like you from paying the price of a war that should not have been fought. It is the responsibility of soldiers to fight a war, but the responsibility of the civilians to ensure that the soldiers should fight the war. We don't support soldiers by blindly supporting the war.

Ampmonster · Jun 29, 2004

the US did not suceed in SV because of internal division. any parralels with the iraq situation are not about what happening there but whats happening here.

2001MustangGT · Jun 29, 2004

Wonderful, lucaspa!

And as I said before, when you fight in battle in multiple tours of duty, and win medals for heroic actions, you have proven your ability to fight with your fellow troops, and you know how to work as a team, and you know how to be brave in tough situations.

But if you can then go home, and protest and argue against an unjust war that you served in, with no regard to your personal reputation as you testify in front of congressmen, that proves you have selflessness, a sense of right and wrong, a wonderful set of morals, and a strong amount of devotion not only to your country, but to the world.

But if you go to national guard service to avoid having to fight in a war, and then you go AWOL on that service in the national guard, then you are nothing more than a selfish, spoiled, self-important, unreliable, unpatriotic, scared little cocaine addicted aristocratic son of a not-that-great president.

Bush, in his youth, was a male version of Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie: A spoiled rich brat who had everything handed to him and had no redeeming qualities of his own; just a connection to a powerful man. Bush has relied on his "its not who you are its who you know" skills for too long, and now he has the one job where it DOES matter who you are. Well, America, and the world, found out who this clown is. AND HE IS GONNA GET A BIG COMBAT BOOT PLANTED RATHER FORCEFULLY ON HIS POSTERIOR THIS NOVEMBER !!!

MethodMan · Jun 29, 2004

This thread is unbelievable.

2001MustangGT · Jun 29, 2004

MethodMan said:
This thread is unbelievable.

Can you elaborate on that at all?

I see youre new here. Welcome to CF.

Generally, if you want to state your views or opinions on a topic, more specific statements are encouraged.

From this post of yours, I cannot even tell if you are in approval or disapproval of this thread.

Either way, can you explain why you do or dont agree with it? Can you reply specifically to some quotes? Can you share facts or data or new info about the situation? Who will you vote for, and why? Who do you think will win, and why?

Thanks in advance. I do hope you get an opportunity soon to flesh out your statement more and "share your feelings with the group".

MethodMan · Jun 29, 2004

Bush still has 1 state... I guess 1 out of 49 aint a TOTAL loss, right?

Im willing to bet a shiny new KJV (or maybe even NIV) Bible that Kerry will win in November! Any takers?

I guess using the Word in Wager is one way to spread the Good News.

That's one. You really want further comment?

Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

Senior Veteran

Smite me, O Mighty Smiter!

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

FORD lover

Senior Contributor

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Swords to plowshares

FORD lover

Legend

FORD lover

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency