My final thread on John Kerry, I promise. Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

This is a formal challenge to all who plan on voting for John Kerry. I know this is going to be hard, because it's a 12 minute documentary created by the Republican National Committee, and I understand that that's an immediate turn-off. But just follow me on this.

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Go there and watch the documentary. What's special about this documentary is that it's Kerry's words over time, on not only this Iraq war but the last as well, taken directly from newscasts. There's a clip of Howard Dean and some news footage from various stations, but it's almost exclusively Kerry talking. It follows his stances from 1998, as one of the only men in the Senate urging a war on Iraq, to 2004, where he considers himself an "anti-war candidate," and a possible (almost certain) motive for his policy reversal.

So my challenge is to watch this video. Its hard to consider yourself fully informed about your candidate without understanding where he's voting and why, and this gives very interesting information about his thought process and voting records through the years.

Now, I know there are lots of reasons to vote for Kerry. You like what he'll do with the economy, you like paying taxes, you like an unpredictable government, you think he might actually do this health care thing like he says he will. But if you honestly think he's a good man to run our foreign policy, watch this, and then tell me why you think that. And if you can still wave your "UnBush 2004" sign and tell me he's our best option for commander-in-chief, then there's nothing else I can say to change your mind on the fact that this man is a complete idiot when it comes to foreign policy.

And that, my debate colleagues, will be my final topic on John F. Kerry.

[mechwarrior1989]

Yeah, and they also have some of the worst human rights infringements, and some of the most horrendous population crises on the face of the planet.

Yes, the human rights infringements that happened during the 70's. Oh my. And the US treated African Americans badly before and after the civil war. Are we going to get into a debate about that? We could say that the US has some of the worst human rights infringements as well.

Yes, population crises, when let's see China population 1.3 billion compared to India 1.2 billion. India is about oh I dunno 1.5 times smaller than China. China which is also lossening restrictions on their one child laws, why? Because there is no population crises. Your arguments are pointless.


ComradeRed has done his research and his arguments are much better than your BS pieces of sh!t. Though I should add that your arguments would be valid had you had stated them some 30 years ago. Have a nice day!

If you will notice, all the rich countries today are Westernized [fairly] capitalist democracies [more or less]. Even in other parts of the world, the richest countries are places like Japan, South Korea, Bahrain, etc. -- all of those places got rich not by 9% economic growth a year, but by a slower sustained rate supported by a fairly high degree of capitalism and the rule of law.

Japan is only developed because the US felt sorry for them after bombing two cities with nuclear bombs and thus sent billions in aid to them. Just so you know, richest country in the world is the United Arab Emarites (spelt wrong of course). South Korea is rich because the US sent billions in aid to them during and after the Korean war because they wanted to fight the North Koreans and try and stop Communism.

China has not reseved (spelled wrong of course) aid from the US in the form that Japan and South Korea have. China merely has trading relations with the US. That's about it. Besides buying goods from China, the US doesn't send any other money over there.

Then mail Bush a check. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. Nobody's stopping you. Don't want to? Then I guess you aren't willing to pay higher taxes after all -- you are just willing to force others to pay higher taxes.

How dumb do you think I am? Sending money to Bush. He'd probably turn around and try and use the money I send him to fund some other BS plan to increase his PR. But more likely he'd pocket it and go and buy some crack. What if everyone pays higher taxes? I really wouldn't mind if millionaires paid more taxes do you? Think about it, the tax cut didn't give a set amount of cash to everyone it gave a percentage according to what you pay each year. What do the poor get? Somewhere around $50. Woohoo! $50! What do the rich get? $1,000's. See the difference. Who'd the tax cut help? Oh yea the wealthy.

The Soviet Union in the early 1930s had the fastest growth rate of any country in history. But now they're toast. Why? Because they couldn't sustain it -- because their economic growth was based on fiat -- much like China's today, only to a much greater extent. Moreover China has no income tax and only a low-rate corporate tax ... but I thought you wanted MORE taxes?

You forgot to mention that they have no sales tax, thought I'd point it out to you. But you also fail to mention that China has a completely Capitalist Economy except for a few State owned monopolies, eg. China Mobile and China Unicom. The Soviet Economy was FAR from capitalist. They were trying to crush capitalism but found that that was bad for the economy and allowed some.

Actually, most supporters of Bush in the economic community shied away because HE RAISED SPENDING -- Bush raised spending more than any other President since FDR ... Of course the deficit is going to go up.

The tax cuts themselves aren't bad, it's just when you cut taxes AND raise spending at thes ame time that math doesn't work out.

He raised spending while decreasing the revenue the government was taking in, tax cut. But the fact that he made the tax cut effective for 10 YEARS while trying to help stablize the economy is moronic. Much like using a bazooka to kill a fly.