messybuu messybuu

Benefits of a Kerry Victory

▼

Benefits of a Kerry Victory

I won't move to Canada even if Kerry wins.

from JoeUser Forums

I'm afraid John F. Kerry will win the presidential election tomorrow. However, even the victory of a terrible candidate brings with it benefits to the nation, so if he wins tomorrow night, I won't kill myself or move to Canada as Democrat threaten to do if Bush wins again. Instead, I'll swear for a few minutes and then laugh it off as I acknowledge the positive aspects of a Kerry victory:

  1. The populace will no longer see Heinz Corporation as a ketchup company, but as a corrupt multinational corporation stealing resources from third world countries.
  2. The euphoria of the Democrats will fade and give way to the biggest disillusionment ever to suffer the Democrat Party, parallel with the shame a girl would feel with sleeping with a creep to make her ex-boyfriend jealous.
  3. Whiney Democrats won't have excuses to bitch anymore.
  4. A Republican victory will be inevitable in 2008.
  5. Michael Moore will fade into obscurity.

It is possible the next four years will turn out well, but it won't be because of Kerry, who intends to damage the nation with his idiotic plans, such as reviving the economy with a tax increase (Although Democrats believe that more taxes lead to a stronger economy, citing Clinton's success, they completely fail to acknowledge the dot-com boom of the nineties because they either failed Economics in high school were baked then).

If Kerry wins, I'll accept it and not demand infinite recounts twisted to my favor, because besides ethics, I'll know he won't win another election, unless the Republican Party goes Democrat and elects some terrible Kerry-like candidate for 2008 since Republicans aren't as likely to settle with the lesser of two evils as Democrats are due to their higher standards and realization that the President doesn't have control over the entire nation.

politics
20,101 views 49 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: joe_black - 11/2/2004 1:25:41 PM
I am sure you don't have to care a rats ass about what non americansthink. I do agree. But whAT I suggest is that b'cos of bush's foreign policy you people willnever againbe able to sleepinpeace


Again this shows what you don't know about americans. Sleep in peace? Let em BRING it on! We'll rock their world. And they will rue the day they thought of it.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, Kerry will not pass tax increases or new spending as you claim


First don't insult my intelligence. Should he (Kerry) win, I hope you're still around in a year or two so I can have the displeasure of hearing your explanation as to why he DID raise taxes across the board. To make good on all his rather vague promises, he's gonna have to....otherwise - his math is wrong.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have said in many of by bloggs that Kerry can not start new spending programs (health Care) or change the tax laws without congress. Since the GOP will never allow such changes, taxes and new spending will not change much if at all. Only as a form of compermise will any such changes take place. The Big issue is not to make the tax cuts on for the wealthy permanent! We can not afford that!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #29 By: COL Gene - 11/2/2004 6:57:43 PM
I have said in many of by bloggs that Kerry can not start new spending programs (health Care) or change the tax laws without congress. Since the GOP will never allow such changes, taxes and new spending will not change much if at all. Only as a form of compermise will any such changes take place. The Big issue is not to make the tax cuts on for the wealthy permanent! We can not afford that!


So in other words all the reasons that people are using to vote for Kerry will not happen?
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Vox Populi (Anonymous) - 11/2/2004 10:33:49 AM
The inevitable result of Kerry's tax increases, mandatory student service (draft) and health policies would be rationaing of health care, increased unemployment, increased deficits and lower economic growth. Add to this the impact of allowing the UN to dictate our policies on the environment and timidity in foreign affairs, and it'll be Jimmy Carter all over again. I see 7 to 8% unemployment under a Kerry administration.

I pledge, if Kerry is elected, to hold his feet to the fire, criticize his every move, and give him 4 years of the hell that the left has unleashed on Bush.

Bush got one tenth or the hatred aimed at him that Clinton did from day one of his Presidency. Even before Monicagate, the right was frothing at the mouth about Clinton.The Republicans started the ride to lowball the President and now cry foul when it works against them. So far all the right has done is to counter Kerry with scare tactics. Is it just blind ignorance that 75% of Bush supporters still believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected. They bury their head in the sand about the deficit and pretend that Bush had even a semblence of a plan in Iraq more than the Iraqis would throw flowers at our liberating troops.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
People are voting for Kerry because of the failure of Bush and his policies. Bush had the advantage of getting his policies inacted into law because the conservatives controlled Congress. Problem is his policies did not benefit the middle income American or the Poor. The debt he is creating will come home to cause problems for all Americans in the form of large increases in the interest we will be required to pay off the top of our tax revenue. Add the way the Iraq War was conducted and you have a President that got his way and most Ameruicans do not like what they see. Many of my friends, who are moderate Republicans, do not like the Bush policies but many of them just can not vore for a Democrat. I feel the long term interest of the majority of Americans is more important then party loyalty!

If the GOP was like it was before 1980, I would have supported a Republican. The GOP has been captured by the conservatives who are just as NUTS as the Liberals!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
People will protest the war as much as they like, but they still see war as a strength. It is a strange and stupid aspect of many voters. They forget that if Bush weren't President in the first place there wouldn't be a war, and without Bush winning, there won't be another silly war launched.


Interesting opinion, but just that. I don't think there's much science or logic behind that opinion, however.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I won't move to Canada even if Kerry wins."

Don't forget 60 % of canadians are anti bush, and 70% in Quebec, not a good place for a republican to be...
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please don't come to Canada. We want your money, not you. Both of those go doubly for republicans. Besides, its really freakin' cold up here, and the only hotels you are likely to find are just Igloos with bear skin beds. If you do come, be advised that there is no "inalienable" right to bear arms here, so don't bring your gun. If you do bring a gun, please stay at least 30 meters away from my, and any one elses's children, at all times. In fact, do so anyway...if there is going to be anything as interesting as a terrorist attack in Canada, its going to be directed on an American tourist.

Do buy as much lumber, electricity and salmon as you want! And if you come to Quebec, please don't say anything bad about French people (its for your own good, they hate Americans, but love American TV and generally know pretty decent English from this), but do buy some maple syrup. O, and we have beer that, get this, tastes like beer!!! And it has alcohol in it!!! Which you will need to keep out the desperately cold winds and to keep you entertained in this boring and flagrantly communist country.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Benefits of a Kerry Victory. NONE!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have to agree with you that Kerry would not make for a better America, so it is a good thing that he did not win. I would also like to state that you left out the fact that he wanted to send more American troops over to Iraq so that the ones there could come home. Not that that is a bad idea, but I know that we do not have enough troops to do that. So he would have had to reinstate the draft. Which that is what he was threatening for Bush to do. So I agree that Bush is the far better choice for the presidency.
Aloha
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply #23 By: joe_black - 11/2/2004 3:30:27 PM
As I said I amnot an American hell I'm not even a white, But I have always dreamt of coming one day to USA. My dad had worked in Berkley University as a scientist for a year and he always drilled into me that it's the place for liberty and freedom and for people who want to do something with thier life. But the US I see now is vastly different thanx to Bush. When he starts acting like barbarians as like al-quaeda as in keeping prisoners in Guantanomo Bay and invading Iraq..... Let me ask you mate supposing US was ruled by a dictator and suddenly Germany or France invades ur country to free you people of him will you tolerate an foreign invasion? Bush talks of freedomfor Iraqis and in the same breath talks of imprisoning people without trials, Does not that look uncouthed and barbaric? Of all the people in this world US was the last country expected to act like this. I say this again Bush might be a good human being but he does not know shit about running a superpower, better he remains a local sheriff in Texas and give him a gun pleaseeeeeeeeeee.


joe:
First of all, YELLING for the full duration of your response shows great imaturity. The fact that you "are not even white" has nothing to do with anything but thanks for your oh-so-enlighting explanition of your color.
Ive read all of your responses and it seems very clear, to me, that you are bordering on actually threating us, or the US.
Life, freedom, and liberty are not at all different under Bush, nor any other president. Your father seems to be a very intelligent man, unfortunatly you didn't seem to inherit that.
Oh yes, America is as barbaric as Al-queada.......I agree with you, we always go around BEHEADING people, drag them naked behind speeding trucks down the street and we ALWAYS go out to intentionaly kill as many innocents as possable.
Yeah, the prisoners in the Bay, its so dumb of us to lock up people who belong to or are affilated with terrorist groups, especially the one that sucker punched our country.
We absolutly NEVER should have invaded Iraq. Leave the dictator to torture his people. Let the UN make utterly empty threats. Let other countries, who offer NOTHING, to dictate what we do. And we certinaly shoul've allowd the corrupt actions of the UN, France, Germany, and Russia continue, DESPITE the sanctions that they all agreed to.
, if the US was ruled by a dictator, even though we would NEVER allow that to happen, hell yes I would be happy if ANY nation came to our aid.
Finnaly I agree that Bush doesn't know "shit" about running a country. Yes he has done so for four years, and will for another four. But I imagine someone of YOUR caliber would know what to do with the multitude of issues this country is facing.
You said the word "mate" that, perhaps, makes you English, Austrialian, Irish ( I hope to hell not Irish, as that would be insulting to ME)
Stay where you are.

I responded to your last post because no one else did, I know why, they were so disgusted by your childish, unintelligent responses and threats, that there is no reason to waste time on a person like you. I did, because I have nothing but time.
Disagree, ok, dissent, ok, threaten, NO.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Messy Buu
Sorry that my last respnse was completly off topic but i felt it was worth it.
Other benifits of a Kerry victory would've been;
a. A Commander In Chief who dishonored and disrespected his fellow service members.
b. A President who changes his position on issues with the wind.
c. A President who claims to be what he is not.
d. A President who was willing to allow OUR soldiers to be under the direct command of a foriegn power.
e. A President who would, most likely, allow our service memebers be subject to an international court system.
Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
A President who changes his position on issues with the wind.


This is by far the most funny. You want to criticize Kerry for changing his positions to fit the facts? You want to support a person who changes the facts to fit his positions? To me it is like a football game. You plan before the game but go into half time losing. Do you make halftime adjustments and admit that your pregame strategy did not work or do you tell your team that you are really winning and that no adjustments are needed. For if you make an adjustment, you will show weakness and encourage the other team.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #41 By: Brownsnout - 11/4/2004 1:43:16 PM
A President who changes his position on issues with the wind.


This is by far the most funny. You want to criticize Kerry for changing his positions to fit the facts? You want to support a person who changes the facts to fit his positions? To me it is like a football game. You plan before the game but go into half time losing. Do you make halftime adjustments and admit that your pregame strategy did not work or do you tell your team that you are really winning and that no adjustments are needed. For if you make an adjustment, you will show weakness and encourage the other team.


Are you saying Bush does? Please illuminate us!
Reply #42 from PolMach Forums Top
Are you saying Bush does? Please illuminate us!


I will give you the most telling one. There is a group of international scientist who have studied global warming for many years. I am talking about total PHD geeks dedicating their lives towards global warming research. A very long awaited report from them came out at the beginning of the bush Presidency showing that global warming happens and it negatively affects the world. What did bush do? He put together a group of hand selected scientists who did a six week study and came to the opposite conclusion. Final result for bush - "there are conflicting reports"

On privitization of social security he put together a group of people to study it who had their minds made up before the began researching it.

And the one that will burn you up........That everything in IRAQ is going well and that we are right on schedule. (Please don't counter with a list of things that are going well in Iraq, we accept that there are portions of the country that are not in complete chaos)

This is a quick list - I'm sure other bush skeptics who have been paying attention can think up many many more.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me it is like a football game. You plan before the game but go into half time losing. Do you make halftime adjustments and admit that your pregame strategy did not work or do you tell your team that you are really winning and that no adjustments are needed


Make a plan and make halftime adjustments...........ok. But mulitple times, on multiple occasions, on multiple issues, in the SAME "game"( i.e the elections) gimme a break.
as for the global warming issue. It is an issue true, but the fact is that there ARE conflicting reports, not just the "bush report".
I had to do a study on that issue for school and there are many facets to that issue and one of the most interesting thing is that, the world is really in the very early stages of an ice age....an ICE age, and that the couple of degree temperture chagnges that have occured, an increase in temperature, over a short period of time ( and continue to climb and fall) are standard changes when viewed from an historical weather pattern platform, especially at the begining or end of either an ice age or "tropical" age.
Know what you are talking about or be prepared to back it up, I'll tell you this, I am and if you want to have a discussion about that issue then, as Bush said "Bring 'em on" .......well of course it would be Bring IT on but whatever.
Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
On privitization of social security he put together a group of people to study it who had their minds made up before the began researching it.


To that I refer you to the Cato Institute who says Privatization of Social Security is the only way to save the system from bankrupting the nation.

Link

Unless you believe the Cato Institute is biased in their findings and decisions.

Plinko!!
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Cato Institute......nope. About as unbiased as you can get I'd say.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #43 By: Brownsnout - 11/4/2004 2:50:53 PM
Are you saying Bush does? Please illuminate us!


I will give you the most telling one. There is a group of international scientist who have studied global warming for many years. I am talking about total PHD geeks dedicating their lives towards global warming research. A very long awaited report from them came out at the beginning of the bush Presidency showing that global warming happens and it negatively affects the world. What did bush do? He put together a group of hand selected scientists who did a six week study and came to the opposite conclusion. Final result for bush - "there are conflicting reports"

On privitization of social security he put together a group of people to study it who had their minds made up before the began researching it.


First and foremost. There are just as many mainstream scientists that refute global warming. And the ones I'm reffering to weren't on his panel. Privatization of social security. It needs to happen! Right now you pay into SS your WHOLE working life. If you die before you get to collect guess what? Your wife ain't going to get what you paid in. And neither will your kids. That means the $14 per $100 that they get will go to someone else. With privatization, your family will get it all. Which would you prefer?
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well said drmiler, and as for me......well I would prefer that my family recive the money that I put in and not just let it all go to waste. Even though I don't feel that someone else getting it is a waste per-se, but nevertheless I would like my family to have it, kind of like life insurance in a way.
Reply #48 from PolMach Forums Top
The reason that privatization of social security is not done is for two reasons. First off, those who are close to or at retirement will fear that without the current influx of money, they will not get what they paid into the system. The problem with this theory is that those who are nowhere close to retirement will probably not see a cent of the money because our elected officials have been raiding the system for quite sometime. The second problem is that without social security in place, what happens when we have those who fail to save for retirement going on welfare? We are transferring one entitlement for another, and the new welfare grannies might turn out to be more expensive than the one in place.

Clearly privatization would allow Americans to have more in their pockets come retirement. The money put in a simple IRA would bring about much more than what the current system brings for the same investment. A new system would be voluntary as those close to retirement probably would do better to stay on the current program. However what could not be voluntary is that the same money put into social security now would need to be either invested in the private programs that become available, or stay with the current social security system. Because Congress has been stealing from the program for years, they would need to guarentee the funding for those who remain with social security.

The increase of investement caused by privatization would be a great boon to the economy.