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.

[*CrackedRearView*]

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! 

LMAO!!!

In 1949 the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) gave the Chinese some hope for a battle against human rights violations, and now, 50+ years later, we still see:

Horrid treatment of non-violent offenders in prison.


China now has more than 1.2 billion people; the largest population in the world--one-fifth of the total, and every year the country adds another 12 million.

However, China only has 7% of the world's arable land and fresh water, 3% of the forests and only 2% of the oil. And although China's landmass is roughly the same size as the United States, it has 4.5 times the population. In addition, China's enormous population is unevenly distributed, with 94% living in the southeastern part of the country. (In the United States, this distribution would translate to nearly 1 billion people living east of the Mississippi River).

India has a little over 1 billion people, but the main differences are:

1.) The population is more evenly spread out.
2.) India has the iron ore, bauxite, copper, petroleum, and enough coal to last for 120 years. They could stay afloat should they come to rely on these resources. China, on the other hand, contains very rocky, unarable soil, and lacks in mineral resources.

And about their economic growth, this is from the University of Pittsburgh:

China exaggerated its economic growth, prof's research shows
While neighboring countries have struggled to recover from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, China has been claiming economic growth rates of 7 percent or better in recent years.
But a Pitt economics professor says those claims are exaggerated -- so much so, that China's growth since 1997 may have been only 40 percent of official rates.

Thomas G. Rawski has been making headlines internationally with his published findings that official measures of provincial and national growth have succumbed to jiabao fukuafeng (a wind of falsification and embellishment).

"My research convinces me that it is entirely possible that the Chinese economy actually contracted by about 2 percent in 1998, when the government was reporting an increase in GDP [Gross Domestic Product] of 7.8 percent," said Rawski. "A similar contraction may have occurred during 1999."

Chinese reports of 7-8 percent growth during the last two years "probably are exaggerated, too," but closer to reality than the official numbers from the late 1990s, Rawski said.

Examining publicly available sources such as The China Statistical Yearbook ("the skeptic's bible," he calls it) and Chinese press reports, Rawski detected trends that contradict claims of economic growth: declining energy consumption, sluggish retail sales, falling incomes in rural areas, and a steep decline in employment growth. Rawski also questions how farm output could have increased during 1997-98 in all but one province (as the government reported) despite floods that ranked among China's worst natural disasters of the 20th century.

"The year that I studied most closely was 1998. And, to me, the single most convincing element [contradicting growth claims] was civilian airline traffic," Rawski said.

"We know that, in China, income inequality is large and expanding rapidly. So, whatever income growth was in 1998, rich peoples' incomes would have gone up faster, and rich people are more likely to travel by airplane. On top of that, there was a price war in China's airlines industry in 1998. Fares were routinely discounted by 30-40 percent.

"So, you would expect passenger traffic to have gone up pretty significantly, for three reasons: incomes reportedly went up, incomes among the higher-paid segment of the population would have gone up even more and there was this huge reduction in ticket prices. But, in fact, civilian airline traffic increased by only 2.4 percent. That just doesn't fit with an overall GDP growth of 7.8 percent."

I'm quite flattered, you used the word "sh!t" in less than four words describing my arguments.

I've never had such ludicrous mud slung at me before! I think I like it!