Another Day Another Position
Find a Conversation
Another Day Another Position
| Mon, 09-06-2004 - 7:08pm |
Only 57 more to go. :~0
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040906/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc&printer=1
Renee ~~~

Pages
Oh no, wait, I forgot, Communism was eliminated by Ronald Reagan........ooops, wrong again..... ;-)
The man has the consistency of quicksand.
~mark~
The "deal" Kerry approved through his vote was the use of force in Iraq. He approved it then, and claims that he would vote the same again. He helped "make the deal", and is now trying his level best to wiggle out of it while still giving the impression that he stands by his decision.
He can't have it both ways any more than Bush can. That's why I have such a problem with him... even when he's wrong, or screws up, at least Bush stands by his decisions, his convictions. Kerry refuses to do so, instead trying to rationalize his swaying every way possible in even the slightest of political breezes.
~mark~
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/87billion.wmv
At the end, when it says to ask yourself if the troops have gotten their body armour yet? That would be NO.......
People can rationalize it (just like Kerry) all they want, the basic facts of the matter are that...
A: Kerry did vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq;
B: He has stated that he would still vote the same even knowing what we think we know now about the situation in Iraq;
C: He now claims that it was the wrong war in the wrong place which he authorized the use of force in regards to;
D: He voted against the funding necessary in regards to that use of force, after voting to authorize the use of force itself.
Now, that can be twisted and spun all sorts of interesting directions, but at their very base those are the facts of the matters under discussion. He's still Kerry, still telling people what they want to hear in spite of the contradictory nature of his statements.
~mark~
Kerry said that if his bill didn't pass, it would be IRRESPPONSIBLE for any senator to vote against the Republican bill.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=3497.116
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
We are willing to foot the bill, and run the budget at a deficit the same way we have during every other war. The problem w,ith your assertion that we need to raise taxes in order to pay for a war is that historically higher taxes have meant job losses, meaning shrinking tax base, meaning LESS, not MORE revenue. Causing a deeper wartime recession would hardly be fiscally responsible.
< Now this debt will be on the shoulders of our children......I have two, how about you?>
I have three, and people will try to scare me into taking more of my money the same way they tried to scare my parents into taking more of their money-luckily Reagan held the line on taxes and their dire predictions that I would be paying off my parents'deficit proved false, as the normal ebbs and flows of the economy (when not screwed up by the government halting economic growth in its tracks with tax increases) have always taken care of deficits, and always will.
In 1930-31, taxes were brought down to 16% by the Republicans (only on the rich, who were the only ones paying taxes then). Then the Great Depression occurred, the collapse of the economy.....FDR came in and eventually got the tax rate raised to 91%. This is what financed WWII, got people out of soup kitchens, no more phony promises about "a chicken in every pot", etc. So WWII was financed by raising the taxes on the ultra-rich, brought the U.S. out of the Depression and into the financial stability of the 1950s.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johnson200407140956.asp
Pages