posted
A gal from work noted that shortly after reading the following e-mail content, she happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico" Check some of your Heinz products.
Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations leaving this country and setting up shop in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He is right, because that has happened. However, he is trying to blame it on George W. Bush.
As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a single factory.
That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, leases four factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories in North America, some of which are in Mexico and the Caribbean.
I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs when these plants relocated in foreign countries. I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers in the United States.
Of course they're not. However, Kerry demands that other companies that relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S. Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company, since he is married to the owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those foreign factories and bring all those jobs back to America? Of course they won't. They're making millions off that cheap labor.
She has absolutely nothing to do with running the Hienz company, or charitable trusts associated with it other than a trust in the Hienz name that she is able to live off of. She is not a CEO,CFO, President, or even on the board.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry hasn't come out and named Heinz as a company that he is critizing for moving 75% of it's manufactoring overseas tho.......
This is interesting...
Media Mum on Heinz Kerry's Enron Connection
Long after Enron chairman Ken Lay had been demonized as a ruthless corporate buccaneer who had cheated widows and orphans out of their life savings, the man Dems love to invoke to beat up the Bush White House sat on the board of Teresa's Heinz Center Foundation.
In fact, Lay was reportedly a Heinz Center trustee for more than a decade, resigning just last year. That was around the time presidential candidate John Kerry started bashing "special interests" in Washington, zeroing in on Enron by name.
Last July, the Washington Times obtained samples of personal correspondence from the Heinz Center to Mr. Lay, praising him for his management style.
"Ken," wrote one of Teresa's representatives, "Simply stated, your background, expertise and experience make you uniquely qualified [to run our] global-warming [initiative]."
When asked about Mrs. Heinz Kerry's Enron connection, a Heinz Center spokeswoman explained to the Washington Post, "Whatever troubles he had at Enron, Ken Lay had a good reputation in the environmental community for being a businessman who was environmentally sensitive."
"When someone does wrong in one part of their life, it doesn't mean they can't do good in another part of their life," she added.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
She has absolutely nothing to do with running the Hienz company, or charitable trusts associated with it other than a trust in the Hienz name that she is able to live off of. She is not a CEO,CFO, President, or even on the board.
I've been looking for someone who actually supports him...is that man you?
posted
Joe is an any-body-except Bush guy if you read his earlier posts......something about mercury emmisions etc. Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: I've been looking for someone who actually supports him...is that man you?
Well my initial post was directed at providing factual info period. From what I've read, the story/thread/completely uncited statement was bogus, and is likely a internethoax (I even would of checked more but I was in a meeting all morning).
Personally I saw a pretty candid interview about a year ago with Kerry. I honestly liked the guy, and think I could sit around and drink beer, and go snowboarding and hang out (something I don't believe would be true of Bush). Howeve based on that interview and his politics, I didn't think he had a chance in Hell of being the nominee, and I think sitting around having a beer with him, would be like sitting around with my very liberal friends... I don't agree with the large portion of their parties platform, particularly the traditional, eastcoast, oldschool liberal positions, such as Kerry can be.
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: Joe is an any-body-except Bush guy if you read his earlier posts
Pretty much have become a ABB, I think he should be fired based on 4 yrs of his environmental, domestic and economic policy which should not be allowed to move forward with a "mandate" for another 4 years. This coupled with the whistleblowers & insider critics, many long respected conservative republicans, is too much for me to overlook.
If you think its
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: something about mercury emmisions etc
you obviously don't really pay attention to my points.
Hows this for being a "Flip Flopper"
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." ~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
Guess it depends on the what your definition of priority is.....
quote:you obviously don't really pay attention to my points.
Hows this for being a "Flip Flopper"
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." ~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." ~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
Guess it depends on the what your definition of priority is.....
Talk about taking a quote out of context... Here is the Q&A at the press briefing were I think it seems like a reasonable statement in response to the question....
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Klaus: SEE Taken out of context, this is no different than taking Kerry's voting record out of context. Just making a point, I knew that it would easily be put into context.
Quote Boon "So you think that Bush has done NOTHING in his 4 years worthy of 4 more? "
No, I just don't look at it that way man. Yes, I've applauded the guy on individual actions/policy calls, etc.... But one, two, three, four things that I agree with don't outweigh the mountain of stuff I don't agree with (as far as I'm concerned, HE "flip-flopped" on statements and proposed policy he talked about during his campaign, and why I gave him the benefit of the doubt prior to the 2000 election). If your running a business, would you keep a guy who did 2 good projects a year, but F#@ked up the other 8. From my perspective, over 50% of his policy has been kickbacks to industry. I will fire Kerry after 4 years if I don't like what he's done, as I did with Clinton for all practical purposes.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I may not agree with certain things that he's said and/or done, but at least with Bush you know where he's coming from, where he stands and how he's going to act in the future.
With Kerry I have NO idea where he stands, I have no idea what his plans are except that they are all exactly the OPPOSITE of what Bush is doing. His whole campaign strategy is the opposite angle.
"I don't like the way Bush handles the environement so I assume that Kerry will do it right because that's all he talks about is how wrong Bush is."
I know you listen to your liberal friends, but have you listened to WHY they say Kerry would make a good president? I bet 90% of the reasoning comes down to: "Well Bush did it this way so I'm sure Kerry will do it the other way, which is why he's my choice in '04! Yay, now let's smoke some more pot and talk shit about the Republican enemy!"
News flash to your liberal friends: someday they will wake up and realize that they're Republicans because they have a home and a family...
Sorry, went off there for a minute...
Anyway, I don't like Kerry because he's not firm on anything. I'm not talking about flip-flop voting records as much as I'm talking about the fact that he is not an American working man. Examples:
He joined the military, but protested and created anti-war programs as soon as he got back. I read about his medals, and yes, he did a fine job in combat, but left his crew as soon as he could for a job back in the world? What kind of leader is that? Three Purple Hearts, two for scratches that didn't require him to miss any action?
He went to a Swiss boarding school, not an American public school so how can he know about our school systems? His basis for comparison is a little skewed...
He's ultra rich, so what the fuck does he know about middle class troubles???
I could go on, but I have to go.
Basically, I am looking for someone to give me the opposite standpoint...is there anything this guy will do well?
By ANDREW COHEN Saturday, March 27, 2004 - Page D4
Tour of Duty:
John Kerry and the Vietnam War
By Douglas Brinkley
Morrow, 546 pages, $39.95
On April 22, 1971, a decorated, thrice-wounded sailor from New England appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. The ornate room was packed with veterans and reporters. The lone witness wore starched military fatigues bedecked with rows of ribbons. He faced questions from William Fulbright and Jacob Javits, the greatest legislators of their day.
For two hours, he laid bare the fallacy of the war in Indochina. In "a low clear voice, calm and unhesitating," he spoke of what he'd seen as the skipper of a speedboat plying the waterways of South Vietnam, of freefire zones and U.S. atrocities. He spoke of the failure of "Vietnamization" and the folly of the Domino Theory. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" he asked. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
His name was John Forbes Kerry, and he made a splash. His eloquent appeal that day launched a career that would make him a public prosecutor, a lieutenant-governor, a three-term senator and, today, the nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency, a job for which his whole life seems to have been preparation.
It would be easy to dismiss Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War as one of those instant campaign biographies that try to dress up threadbare candidates in stylish rhetorical suits. But Douglas Brinkley is a historian at the University of New Orleans who has written many books, including biographies of Dean Acheson and James Forrestal. He insists this isn't a biography, even though it chronicles the first 40 years of Kerry's life, drawing on extensive interviews with the senator and his unpublished wartime papers (the lone condition Kerry shrewdly imposed on Brinkley was that he publish the book by 2004).
What emerges is a credible, poignant and reverential account of John Kerry before, during and after Vietnam. It is the most revealing examination of the life of the man who would be president we will see before the election in November, which is why, whatever its flaws, it has considerable value. This is John Kerry's War. It is his personal struggle waged on the water and within his soul, his own Apocalypse Now. It unfolds in stages, over years -- at home, abroad and home again, at once a glorious and mournful roll call of duty, doubt, courage, conscience, anguish, anger and acceptance.
The story begins with Kerry as a rootless adolescent who lives in Europe (he arrived in postwar Berlin in 1954), travels widely and attends boarding schools in the United States and Europe. He is the son of a romantic father who was a linguist, soldier and diplomat, and a distant mother who was a Forbes, one of New England's wealthy families (the Kerrys were only comfortable). We see him as an adventurer who bicycled alone across England at 16, hiked the Swiss Alps, sailed the Norwegian coast, ran with the bulls in Spain and did foolish stunts piloting airplanes; and as a student at Yale University, where he was a debating champion, a varsity athlete and a member of the Skull and Bones, the exclusive secret society.
As a young man, Kerry campaigned for John F. Kennedy. In 1962, while dating Jackie Kennedy's half-sister, he sailed with JFK twice -- the moment is captured in a photograph likely to be used in Kerry's commercials this autumn -- and came to adore him. Kerry was "devastated" by his death in 1963; Brinkley says that on hearing the news, he burst into tears and was "inconsolable" for days.
Brinkley notes the parallels with Kennedy, but wisely refuses to exaggerate them. Certainly Kerry shared more with JFK than a monogram and Massachusetts. Dazzled by the idealism of Camelot, Kerry was a charter New Frontiersman, ready to pay any price and bear any burden. And there, of course, is where it gets interesting. The striving, preppy Kerry arrived at Yale in 1962 and graduated in 1966, before the war turned sour. By February of his senior year, he joined the navy. Even then, Kerry was skeptical about the war, which he expressed as class valedictorian. But he and his friends signed up anyway.
This is critical. Kerry could have avoided Vietnam by marrying, going to graduate school or joining the National Guard, like George Bush. Or he could have found a desk job in the Pentagon, become a conscientious objector or a draft dodger. Why didn't he? "We never plotted it," he tells Brinkley, who doesn't explore this pivotal moment. "We just all thought it was the right thing to do. . . . Duty dictated that we enlist."
So, in early 1968, Kerry went off to Vietnam on a frigate in the Gulf of Tonkin. Bored silly, he asked to retrain at home and return to Vietnam for a second tour as the captain of a swift boat, the light, fast, noisy vessels that became the backbone of "the brown water navy." His mission was to engage the Viet Cong in the rivers, canals and coves of the Mekong Delta. Drawing on his letters, journals and tape recordings, Brinkley meticulously reconstructs his tour from his arrival in Cam Ranh Bay on Nov. 17, 1968, when he took command of PCF-44, until March 17, 1969, when he asked to leave Vietnam.
During those five months, Kerry saw enough horrors to wonder why he was there. As he took his boat into enemy sanctuaries to draw fire, inspect sampans or transport Vietnamese troops, he doubted the whole bloody enterprise. He saw crazed, trigger-happy kids kill Vietnamese civilians and he saw friends die of friendly and unfriendly fire.
Three times he was wounded, though never seriously, which earned him three Purple Hearts. For two acts of bravery, he won the Navy's Silver Star and the Bronze Star. Curiously, he never talked much about his exploits. But he does now, on the campaign trail, hoping to reaffirm his credentials on national security and accentuate the differences in character between him and the President.
At home again, a disillusioned Kerry came out against the war. He threw his decorations away in a public act of anger (well, not all of them, we learn later) and became a prominent spokesman for the anti-war movement. Later, as a senator, he made 14 trips to Vietnam to investigate missing prisoners of war. It wasn't until the United States normalized relations with Vietnam that he laid his demons to rest. Finally, his long tour of duty was over.
What does it mean today? By all accounts, Kerry was a superb leader -- sensible, brave and fair. His men say they liked him; if they didn't, Brinkley doesn't tell us. In fact, there is nary a discouraging word about Kerry (his divorce is mentioned only briefly), which suggests that Brinkley is too enamoured of his subject. When Brinkley does find a veteran or classmate cool to Kerry, he usually doesn't identify him; generally, he lets them describe him as serious, ambitious or opinionated, which critics gleefully interpret as "pompous," "aloof," "dour" and "self-aggrandizing."
Brinkley does his research well, perhaps too well. This book is too long and too dense, slavishly following minor tributaries in Kerry's life which seem longer than the Mekong River itself. It is also badly written in places, marred by ungainly language (he favours "in-country" and "transited out") and he misses opportunities to evoke the mood of the place. Actually, Tour of Duty is best when Brinkley allows Kerry to speak through his first-person accounts from his diary. The boy could write.
The author takes pains to tell us that Kerry co-operated fully but exercised no (Brinkley's italics) editorial control. Not that he had to; Brinkley has nothing unkind to say, and no study in character to offer. While the army of detail is mobilized and sent into the battle for Kerry's reputation, the analysis goes missing in action.
You are left wondering, then, how the conflicted Kerry could oppose Vietnam and still fight and kill there, and why he felt he had to do both. What was it? Ambition? Adventure? Careerism? Was it the Kennedyesque recklessness he showed in fighting or flying, the need to take risk?
In time, no doubt, we will learn more about the character of John Forbes Kerry. As the campaign intensifies, the Republicans will try to define him as indecisive and equivocal, a misguided, self-seeking opportunist who often takes both sides of an issue. When they do, here is the antidote: a portrait of a heroic young man at war, emerging from the chaos with a sense of equanimity, morality and integrity. It is the kind of profile in courage that may make Lieutenant Kerry commander-in-chief.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: but at least with Bush you know where he's coming from, where he stands and how he's going to act in the future.
Yep, he'll continue to sellout this nation's greatest resources, a legacy for generations to come, for short term profits for his corp. buddies who funded his campaign.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: [QB]News flash to your liberal friends: someday they will wake up and realize that they're Republicans because they have a home and a family... QB]
You forgot making over 30k a year.
According to the left if you make over 30-40k a year you are selfish rich scum that needs to pay more in taxes. And, if you make more than that arbitrary income level you also are no longer a "working american" or part of a "working familly".
The biggest bunch of bullshit ever.
On he war reccord, i am not ready to say that John Kerry is not a great american war hero. Though i have my doubts as to the facts as they are presented.
BUT, a veteren does not a great president make. And I belive his behavior after returning home could be construded as borderline treacherous though definetly not treasonous.
I do firmly belive that he is riding the wave of ABB sentiment in the left part of the country. I do not belive he has any solid political stances.
And as far as aproachable and "someone you could have a beer with"? I have heard many many times that bush is the most aproachable president in 50 years and a very great/nice man to talk with.
That Kerry might be the same at all is BULLSHIT. That guy is a rich crabby old snob. Anyone who takes him to task in public is completly lambasted and abused verbaly to the point of being childish in nature. He is a total asshole.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
In one breath you bitch about taxing the rich, then lambast Kerry cause he had money... PAAALEEEEASE As if Ol'King George W. wasn't born with a silver spoon in mouth.
I love how you guys know how "all liberals think", and "everyone on the left thinks...."
Pffftt...
You don't even know your self-proclaimed enemy.
I think I've been very specific that I take issue with the Bush Admin, and not true conservatives or all facets of the GOP.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Both are spoiled rich kids. But when was the last time that Pres Bush Verbaly abused someone for asking a tough question at one of his rallies.
I know the way the left thinks far better thay I would think you ever do. MY ENTIRE FAMILY ON BOTH SIDES EXCEPT MY DAD AND I ARE RAGING LIBERALS. IT DRIVES ME UP THE FUCKING WALL I HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT MORE THAN I WOULD EVER LIKE TO. CHRIST SAKES MY aunt married into the mcglaughlin familly whom are one of the richest most liberal political famillies in minnesota. Remember will mcglaughlin? Died in eveleth with welstone. That whole familly IS the minnesota DFL party.
MOST LIBERALS ARE EMOTION DRIVEN, SINGLE ISSUE, SELF LOATHING, NONSENSEICAL, IGNORANT, PACIFISTIC, IDIOTS. That do not put two and two togeather in a realistic way when taking a side on an issue.
So many liberal stances ask me to disbelive and abandon my own experience and logic that I have had enough. It's bush's fault for 911? It's bush's fault that tuition is going up? It's bushs fault that 8 years of raising corporate taxes plus an economy hit by terrorism that it is no wonder jobs went overseas temporarily? What a load of crap.
All it takes is simple logic to refute most liberal theories.
And joe when I say emotion driven I mean they use emotions to take a side not to pursue an idea. Everyone should involve emotion in pursuit of what they want but to use emotions and discard logic when forming oppinions (diversity, afermative action, anti-war sentiment, etc.) just destroys civilization.
posted
Its tough for a President with the orator skills of a 5th grader to verbally abuse anyone beyond calling them a poopy pants. Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I love how you know virtually nothing about me and my life (I'm talking about who I interact with, what my education & job involve me in, and just my life experiences) yet you somehow "know" that you somehow have vastly more experience with liberals than I do?? I'm not saying you do or don't, I think its a ridiculously silly unquantifiable point to make in the first place.
The reason I say you guy(s) don't even know your own enemy, was just based on the fact that I typically don't see anything more substative than sweeping generalizations about "those on the left", generalizations containing mostly emotional fueled anecdotal observations like "MOST LIBERALS ARE EMOTION DRIVEN, SINGLE ISSUE, SELF LOATHING, NONSENSEICAL, IGNORANT, PACIFISTIC, IDIOTS"...... Please find where I made even remotely similar statements such as: ALL CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE...... or ALL REPUBLICANS ARE........ Sorry if you call this substance, I'll look for more somewhere else.
EDIT: Don't anyone take that as bashing you, I'm not saying that ya'll don't bring substance to the discussions, but more in depth discussions have been kinda rare here, with very little in depth detailed discusions, just fiery conversations. The format of the internet certainly lends itself to brevity, I think the exchanged here is about as casual as it gets. nothing wrong w/any of that.
(I give Klaus a lot of props for almost always posting stuff on here beyond heated emotional rhetoric or at least just good satire)
I don't believe you (or anyone), your ideology, or your party somehow have the market cornered on Logic.
posted
Like I said Joe, if you have a specific issue you want to talk about lets hear it. I do not see you bringing any more specific "substance" to this discussion and others than anyone else, in fact mostly less, unless it has to do with the environment. In which case you may know more but, then, if other people do not know as much as you seem to dismiss all of their viewpoints on everything as wrong and uneducated. That may be incorrect but that’s the vibe you tend to give off.
I love how you think that "all" and "most" are synonyms?
I think you need more education yourself if you cannot see the difference between those terms and if you think its remotely insightful to judge someone’s level of education, experience, or intelligence based on their public addressing ability, not everyone has great public speaking skills but is that a true measure of their leadership abilities? I’m not saying it doesn’t help but lets put it where it belongs on the ladder of virtues. ) Down low with the full head of hair type virtues.) It helps but its not everything.
Pres Bush has a Bachelor from Yale and master from Harvard. But I guess they just give those away to 5th graders now.
The difference between the raging liberals and the majority of the country today seems to mostly be that hatred for 1 man fuels the political ideas for one and long standing morals, values, and the ability to apply logic to issues is what facilitates most peoples opinions.
Hate is driving the people that historically seemed to fear and oppose hate the most.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pres Bush has a Bachelor from Yale and master from Harvard. But I guess they just give those away to 5th graders now.
He obviously had certain advantages that his family name and status gave him while getting his education. I doubt anyone would argue that.
You guys are so funny. Can you name a president that did not back or support the people, companies, and unions that supported them? The reality is that if Green Peace or the Sierra club made donations and supported Kerry during his election campaign and during his Presidency, you know damn well he would be more supportive on certain "issues" that affected these organizations. To think that Kerry would change the way he does business with his family company is kind of ludacris. Bush is an oil man and still has to have a balance between his family business and what he puts into law regarding the envorinment. Oil isn't really an environmental friendly business.
Kerry is combative when he is confronted because he does not have the charisma that Bush has.
-------------------- Gisel, I was looking at the picture page and I do have to admit, you look pretty good for a gaming female. Having said that, don't expect any sympathy when we meet on the battlefield. I am a fighter first, lover second. Posts: 2220 | From: Prescott, WI, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try not to be emotional but sometimes it's hard. I am glad to see some emotion from Chad/Boon etc with respect to these issues, because alot of the people with right-leaning views don't get emotional and get their ideas out there. Liberals have always been good at organizing marches etc to get their ideas out there in front of everyone (maybe it's because they don't have jobs ). Republicans are kind of the silent majority and some don't even vote. This election the right will need to find some emotion to get out the vote - to counter all the (let me borrow a term from Sean Hannity) Kerry Kool-aid drinkers (MTV, minorities, college students, etc.).
As I have said before - my top two issues currently are: 1)War on Terror 2)Economy
I believe that the republicans view on both of these issues are correct and that Kerry's views are way off target. I am sorry to say Joe but the environment is on the bottom of the list as far as most peoples "issues", so I doubt either candidate will spend a lot of time on it. I know you don't like Bush because he hasn't lived up to his billing on the environement and that's a fair criticisum. I am not sure when you decided to start backing Kerry tho - that's seems like a recent change.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: Like I said Joe, if you have a specific issue you want to talk about lets hear it. I do not see you bringing any more specific "substance" to this discussion and others than anyone else, in fact mostly less, unless it has to do with the environment. In which case you may know more but, then, if other people do not know as much as you seem to dismiss all of their viewpoints on everything as wrong and uneducated. That may be incorrect but that’s the vibe you tend to give off.
I love how you think that "all" and "most" are synonyms?
I think you need more education yourself if you cannot see the difference between those terms and if you think its remotely insightful to judge someone’s level of education, experience, or intelligence based on their public addressing ability, not everyone has great public speaking skills but is that a true measure of their leadership abilities? I’m not saying it doesn’t help but lets put it where it belongs on the ladder of virtues. ) Down low with the full head of hair type virtues.) It helps but its not everything.
Pres Bush has a Bachelor from Yale and master from Harvard. But I guess they just give those away to 5th graders now.
The difference between the raging liberals and the majority of the country today seems to mostly be that hatred for 1 man fuels the political ideas for one and long standing morals, values, and the ability to apply logic to issues is what facilitates most peoples opinions.
Hate is driving the people that historically seemed to fear and oppose hate the most.
Well if thats what you see, thats what you see.
The ONLY reason I even responded to this was because I knew the inital post was internet bullshit. I'm not really happy that my choice is Bush or Kerry, so I don't consider my self a Kerry supporter, just forced into the lesser of two evils again. I didn't want to get into a discussion where I'm supposed to support Kerry, when I don't agree with him ideologically on a lot of things. I tend to bring articles, citations, and outside information to back up my point if I can and have the time. YOU NEVER DO!!!! ITS ALL YOUR OPIONION, and yes everyone is entitled to their opionion, but if you cant factually back it up, then what good is it....
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: I am sorry to say Joe but the environment is on the bottom of the list as far as most peoples "issues", so I doubt either candidate will spend a lot of time on it.
Well, I beg to differ, in Polls from both the Left & Right (from the right if they include it in the poll) Almost ALWAYS when asked about ranking Enviro protection and how important it is to the person being polled it is ALWAYS in the top-5. Even people asked if they never get to see a resource or a area, they support rank enviro protection up high. I've seen this repeatedly since the early 90's.
And as your obviously not paying attention to domestic issues in the west, Bush could loose key western states such as Wyoming & Colorado over shallow gas drilling, its HUGH issue there, and its in their papers every day. Even got a Dem elected GOV of Wyoming.... which is pretty much unheard of.
As far as your top two issue. I think its arguable at best that Bush has done a good job with both of those. Look, your still calling it a "WAR ON TERROR", exactly where is the capitol of Terror???? Where are the Terror major Ports?? After 3 years, and they cant really talk about who we're fighting on a in depth level. Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: Like I said Joe, if you have a specific issue you want to talk about lets hear it. I do not see you bringing any more specific "substance" to this discussion and others than anyone else,
Please see my first post, I was only looking for the exchange of FACTUAL information. I'm not going to COMPLETELY SPECULATE what Kerry's policies will be, but I know what Bush's have been.... thats what I base my decisions on, actions, not what someone tells me someone elses intentions are Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like WWII. There were many battles and many parties involved. Iraq is a battle in the war on terror, Afganistan is/was a battle on the war on terror etc. If you choose not to look at it in that way - that's your choice. It's a War to me - the enemy is any nation/group that sponsors terrorism.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: Please see my first post, I was only looking for the exchange of FACTUAL information. I'm not going to COMPLETELY SPECULATE what Kerry's policies will be, but I know what Bush's have been.... thats what I base my decisions on, actions, not what someone tells me someone elses intentions are
That is a MAJOR part of the problem with kerry and the democratic strategy, they provide NO PLAN whatsoever as to what they want to do to "rescue the country from the evil doldrums of bush"
They have no vision and no specific strategy for ANYTHING right now they are just riding the hate bush and no war waves right now and it is scary.
As far as your criticism about not bringing articles to the table. I have a hard time using "articles" from internet sites, and papers, and magazines as "good research" because unfortunatly in todays society they are also filled with mostly oppinion and speculation because if they were actually mostly facts and info they would be so boring noone would read them. I see this in the articles you bring to the table. People take a tidbit of research and try to use it to promote their point or predisposed mission.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: It's like WWII. There were many battles and many parties involved. Iraq is a battle in the war on terror, Afganistan is/was a battle on the war on terror etc. If you choose not to look at it in that way - that's your choice. It's a War to me - the enemy is any nation/group that sponsors terrorism.
This is a new world joe, information and people flow freely and factions form effortlessly accross silly old boundries like countries borders and oceans. War no longer has lines of battle and specific identifyable enemies.
That is just the way it is now.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: He obviously had certain advantages that his family name and status gave him while getting his education. I doubt anyone would argue that.
You guys are so funny. Can you name a president that did not back or support the people, companies, and unions that supported them? The reality is that if Green Peace or the Sierra club made donations and supported Kerry during his election campaign and during his Presidency, you know damn well he would be more supportive on certain "issues" that affected these organizations. To think that Kerry would change the way he does business with his family company is kind of ludacris. Bush is an oil man and still has to have a balance between his family business and what he puts into law regarding the envorinment. Oil isn't really an environmental friendly business.
Kerry is combative when he is confronted because he does not have the charisma that Bush has.
I firmly belive that because of all the avenues for financial aid ANYONE can afford tuition at ALMOST ANY INSTITUION in America. It is just a matter of how badly you want it. (aka how much you want to be in debt when you are finished and how hard you are willing to work OR WHAT COLOR YOUR SKIN IS)
Further, you cannot tell me that it is easy to graduate from either of those schools mentioned Yale or Harvard. I highly doubt i have the dicipline to succede at thoes schools, and UofM IT was no picnic.
You could perhaps argue that his grades were affected by his family name but it is as weak an argument as claiming that his public speaking ability is indicitive of his intelegence.
Everyone has a certain "spin" that allows them to hear what they want to hear.
Watch how many times the great speech (my opinion) that Bush gave last night is overlooked in favor of the left saying "Oh, so now Rumsfeld is Secretary Of State?" and then chuckling as if that was the most important thing said last night.
Hear what you want, but all I'm asking is for Kerry's STANCES on the issues, and I'm getting nothing but the standard Kerry supporter game. Well, he did this and this and this and blah blah blah...okay, that's not what I asked.
I want to know what he stands for, other than "I'm opposite of everything Bush stands for." Which if you read into it, it means that Kerry is against peace in the Middle East. Kerry is against the U.S. being a world superpower. He's against people earning their own money. He's against tighter security on our borders.
So with Kerry as President we can expect a U.S. where people from all nations come and go unchecked, get free money from us (the working class), the U.S. will no longer be involved in Peacekeeping missions around the world, and terrorism will go unchallenged?
I have to believe there is more to him than this...
Ask your liberal buddies what Kerry stands for Joe, as I don't intentionally talk shop with any of them because the ones that I do know (KITTY, Listen up!) have nothing of substance to say. They're loud, they interrupt and they get emotional way too fast. They divert the conversation and direct the conversation in a direction that will allow them to make a point. Mind you this point is completely off the topic of the original conversation, but it still makes them feel good, and they think they "won" the argument. The condescending conversations that I've had with them, the looking down pitifully at the poor conservative who has "never looked at the other side of the issues", and the blind assumption that he/she is smarter than you makes me sick to my stomach. They assume that because they believe the conspiracy theories set forth by the Left that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us, or that they "see" something that we don't see.
These are observations from conversations I've HAD, Joe, so while I may be generalizing to a certain extent, I have a basis for this generalization. When more than one person say the same thing, you can assume that there are more people that think that way from the same party, right? I'm not one to believe that ALL of those on the Left are that crazy (sorry, that's my word for it), but they're the ones who are getting all the attention and the most press...right?
I think I'd be pretty pissed if I was a "normal" Democrat, because these ultra-leftists sometimes come across as the default Democrat...
Anyway, sorry, too much Pepsi this morning...
My bottom line on this years election is this:
Bush has many problems, but he is a wartime President who has brought stability to the very heart of our enemies. Anyone who argues that doesn't know what they're talking about because that's what he's done. Yes, soldiers are dying, yes bodies are being mutilated, but it's also a fucking WAR. Do the math...how many Iraqi's died at the hand of Saddam?
He may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's doing a better job than Gore would have. He's done more to fight terrorism in 4 years than Clinton did in 8...and how many terrorist attacks happened on Clinton's watch? The only reason I'm asking is because if Kerry is elected and we're attacked, the response will be about as effective as Clintons: launch a strike missile into the desert, send troops in for stabilization but if they start getting killed, bring 'em on home and let the terrorists win.
I actually fully feel the position that elections seem to come down to picking the lesser of evils.
We cant all have all we want. In most cases we end up deciding based on our own personal benefits. Simply why low income families typically support democrats and the "rich" support republicans. I see the irony inherent with the democratic party being the most attractive for enviro oriented voters. Because you woulid think that the poor city living population would be the most removed from it. Thus the people that actually live off the land are the onese that would want to take care of it and thoes are conservative historically republicans. Technology and coprorate influince have kinda twisted it all up. Corporations need to make profit off of the environment and do not have much of a reason to protect it at the same time without government watchdogs. They now support the republicans. So groups like the sierra club who seem like they had good intentions at one time but are grossly misguided in the current erra looked to the "other" party. In a pieceful safe time like before 9/11 that was attractive to most people to support the enviro friendly party but they are also inherently pacifists that look to vastly limit free market economy and expand government and redistribute wealth. NOT INTERESTED SO for now I will continue to vote republican.
That was kinda the 10cent version and may not make a whole lotta sence but I am just trying to say I understand where you are coming from on your issues.
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: They're loud, they interrupt and they get emotional way too fast. They divert the conversation and direct the conversation in a direction that will allow them to make a point. Mind you this point is completely off the topic of the original conversation, but it still makes them feel good, and they think they "won" the argument. The condescending conversations that I've had with them, the looking down pitifully at the poor conservative who has "never looked at the other side of the issues", and the blind assumption that he/she is smarter than you makes me sick to my stomach. They assume that because they believe the conspiracy theories set forth by the Left that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us, or that they "see" something that we don't see.
This is EXACTLY the expterience i have when talking to any of my familly members!!
I think it completely stems from their frustration with the inability to support thier positions with logic. So when logic is used in the discussion they lose it!!!
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Worst of all they HATE when a soldier like yourself boon would actually support their comander in chief. It drives em crazy!! Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: It's like WWII. There were many battles and many parties involved. Iraq is a battle in the war on terror, Afganistan is/was a battle on the war on terror etc. If you choose not to look at it in that way - that's your choice. It's a War to me - the enemy is any nation/group that sponsors terrorism.
I know, my point is I just don't think we've completely addressed the issue as a nation. We've done a good job with the war part, but eliminating ALL fundamentalis militant radical islamist will be hard to do with a military machine, even one as overwhelming as ours. I think Bush's lack of Diplomacy will hurt the efforts in the "War on Terror" in the long run if we cant use more diplomatic avenues to quell the anti-american sentiment among these fundamentalist islamists, and the countries where they reside.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: .... my point is I just don't think we've completely addressed the issue as a nation. We've done a good job with the war part, but eliminating ALL fundamentalis militant radical islamist will be hard to do with a military machine, even one as overwhelming as ours. I think Bush's lack of Diplomacy will hurt the efforts in the "War on Terror" in the long run if we cant use more diplomatic avenues to quell the anti-american sentiment among these fundamentalist islamists, and the countries where they reside.
See now this i agree with, but in a war stance I do not fault him for lowring diplomacy as a priority. It will need an upgrade eventually though. Diplomacy goes only so far and the thing is that it is a historical fact that the cultures of the middle east seem to only respond to one thing. FORCE.
What we maybe should be doing, and i belive it is warranted after all the attacks on our country and its intrests abroad, is to go much more covert with the war on terror. Spare no expense to infiltrate these factions and terrorist groups and destroy them from the inside, it may sound kinda 007 ish but i dont se why its a bad idea. Then on the public stage take a diplomatic stance and utilize diplomacy. In otherwords we need to become a two heades snake and smile high while we hit low. I think it is warranted in this new world we live in. Honerable tactics are no longer a viable solution.
AND FOR GOD SAKES CLOSE THE BORDERS!!!!
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: As far as your criticism about not bringing articles to the table. I have a hard time using "articles" from internet sites, and papers, and magazines as "good research" because unfortunatly in todays society they are also filled with mostly oppinion and speculation because if they were actually mostly facts and info they would be so boring noone would read them.
Well I largely disagree with this statement. If someone completely (or even partially) ignores the media as a whole, I would say there is no way they can gain any meaningfull detailed info about issues and topics. I read papers dubbed "liberal" and "conservative". If you don't use the media, and certain media, not McPapers, how can you possible intake enough info to get details about issues. I focus on media that has the guts to write a 5page story on a issue (I hold off on a lot of stuff to post here cause you guys wouldn't read it due to length). If you really want me to add papers that DETAIL research I will, You wont read them, but I will. I've typically tried to find something the summarizes a issue well as far as I'm concerned, with supported science, and some proposed implication of that. The implication, you don't have to buy into.
Again, mabey I'll learn to keep my mouth shut. But I shudder to think that the next 7.5 month are going to be nothing but Anti-Kerry, Kerry-Hating propaganda. I don't think he's as bad as Chad says he is. I think its totally inconsistent that you blast Kerrys private education, and tout Bush's. I have a tough time believing that ANY Democratic candidate would of got a "fair & objective" chance on this here website.
Oh, and
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: Its tough for a President with the orator skills of a 5th grader to verbally abuse anyone beyond calling them a poopy pants.
posted
BOON: I agree with you, I don't think that "libby's" in general will have a lot of good points for supporting Kerry. It will typically be more akin to me, they just want Bush gone (although I don't believe I'm a "BUSH HATER" I'm just not happy with the job he's done).
But re: my point about not knowing your enemy, I've said this before. You guys act like all liberals have the same agenda. I don't for the most part see this in conversations with my more liberal friends anc co-workers.
My analysis of the two parties: The Dems, and liberals, are the Party of billion different activists/agendas. They have no definable platform from one politician to the next. Hundreds of factions, they're this nebulous mass of moderates, conservative souther dems, extremists of all types, racial based groups, sexual orientation based groups, etc, etc, and on, and on. I don't think the DEMs have a definable ideology, I don't think Liberals have a definable ideology (well its tough to define without some hugh inconsistencies, and the true Liberal ideology is flawed at its root core). However, I also think the Dems tend to draw certain types of people who are more "progressive moderates", people who want to put aside ideology, and work to fix problems, give something a shot, if it works great, if it doesn't work try something else, and keep modern societies progression moving forward.
Now contrast this with my conservative friends, family, and co-workers. MUCH MUCH MORE Ideologicaly aligned. Much more consistent thoughts, opionions and beliefs among Conservatives and the GOP. Only one major faction within the GOP, the Religious Right. Sometimes more informed about specific issues, specifically ones they become impassioned about because of their ideology. However on a political level, I see less inovation, less thinking outside the box (don't get me wrong, there are some very Progressive Conservatives out there, just more rare, too much party pressure to stay withing the ideology). I feel there are fewer rouges within the GOP than in the DNC. I see people who become somewhat boxed in by their ideology. I feel that many positions of conservatives don't account for the reality of the modern world.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: As I have said before - my top two issues currently are: 1)War on Terror 2)Economy
Oh, so being a 1 issue voter is being too focused, but being a TWO issue voter is really looking at the big picture
(War on Terror, shouldn't really count either as you won't always get to vote on that as a issue. So your really a one issue voter?..... Hmmmm guess that makes you a liberal via Chads definition )
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow joe you absolutly leave all logic behind when arguing.
I call liberals 1 issue voters. And all of a sudden all one issue voters are liberals. Do we need to go through the whol logical basis that this is bs? By drawing circles and such?
Further, i did not say that i do not READ the articles and follow and pay attention to media. I just chose not use them as "factual information" in most cases to support my own oppinions. And it is Because of how badly you must filter informatino from the sources we are talking about.
I swear to god, i know i spell badly when typing fast but do you even read my posts and do they even read as i have written them?!?!?!?!? Is there to much whitout on your screen or something????
I didnt blast kerry's education, I just said he was rich and acted spoiled and condicending. WTF does that have to do with his private or public education!!?!?!?!
And may suprise you to learn im not just a "vote for everything with an R next to it!" person i would love to see more choices on the ballot. But the dems offer me nothing but more social burden because I actually chose to make money instead of getting handouts. When I say they offer me nothing it means that they simply offer me nothing in the way of a stance or a plan right now than to say that the country is going to shit. They give me no new or good ideas, they only wish to tear the constitution to pieces and redistribute wealth how they see fit. As i said it is the lesser of two evils for me too.
Well i dont see it. Our buisness has so much work we will be working overtime into 2005! And i do not see all the bad that the budget cuts have caused in minnesota.
They simply offer me nothing so I do not see why they deserve my vote.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[notworthy]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[throwup]](graemlins/throwup.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/jpshakehead.gif)
![[fight]](graemlins/fight.gif)
