#3: Kerry's Record? > French Connection?

THREAD BEGAN: September 17th, 2004
After JAY brought Senator Kerry's recent voting record to the table...

JAY
I was hoping to get a response to my last e-mail. The Kerry voting record e-mail. What does your silence mean? It draws a strong inference that you have nothing to say. I picture all you democrats/liberals w/ your jaw dropped w/ a little drool dripping from your mouth. If that's the case, how can you vote for a guy that can't fulfill his responsibilities or fulfill his duties as a citizen of the United States? "It is our duty to vote and educate ourselves on political issues" (Bob). He never voted on issues as a senator and he jumps around on issues like it's his job. This guy was on the Bush bandwagon when the decisions were being made and now he claims things were handled poorly. Responses please. Chuck, where you at? I just finished reading an article on MSNBC (FOX published a similar article as well) which addressed the WMD issue. I am going to cut and paste the gist of the story, add some commentary, and then post a question I'd like you all to respond to. Article: Report: Iraq had no WMD, only intentions U.S. weapons inspector says regime had small R&D program In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons. Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay’s October findings. He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons? I think so. I wouldn't call it a preemptive strike if this report is accurate. Would we have to wait until he actually completed his stock pile of WMD's or until he used them? If it is coined a "preemptive strike" then the United States government acts in a preemptive manner on a daily basis prosecuting criminals. It's called conspiracy to commit a crime. Would you call conspiracy to commit a crime a preemptive strike on criminals? I wouldn't. I see a strong analogy in Iraq. I have plenty more to add, but I'll wait until I hear some of your responses. That's if you have the balls. Still waiting for the Kerry voting record response, which I know I won't get b/c you got nothing byatches.

CHUCK
Jay, I think i sent an email addressing Kerry's Senate Record: I assume you would like to discuss Kerry's 'liberal' record from then 1980's. And to speak of his record would draw a contrast to Bush. Here is the biggest contrast I have: WHILE KERRY WAS VOTING IN THE SENATE, BUSH WAS A DRUG ABUSING ALCOHOLIC. Maybe Kerry wanted to raise taxes or cut military spending. BUT HE WAS SERVING HIS COUNTRY!!!! AGAIN!!!! Bush was abusing drugs and alcohol, and trading Sammy Sosa. So whatever Kerry voted, his past shows a greater past then Bush. Disagree? Regarding the WMD/is Iraq a threat email, I dont have much to add: IRAQ WAS NOT A THREAT. There is no point in arguing such. Yes, iraq didnt like us, but they had no weapons, and no plans, and terrorist ties larger then every other middle east nation. Disagree?

BEN
jay - i would give Kerry a break on not voting - it happens to everyone who runs for President. they cant be 2 places at once. bush wasnt really running texas when he was running for President. kerry will be back voting in the senate in a couple of months. there has been a reason for the silence on this issue from our distinguished panel. no one knows. Kerry deep down is aginst the war - but he cant / wont come out and say it. He wanted to vote against it when the time came, i believe, but he didnt want to do the politically unpopular thing. He knew he was going to run for President, so he couldnt be seen voting against the war - even though he voted against the 1991 war. fine. thats how it works. every politican does something like that - bush included. kerry then votes against the 87 billion final bill for troop funding (yes i know he voted for other versions) but when push came to shove, he voted against the 87 billion because Howard Dean did - and he was desparate to catch up to him. thats a tough vote to overcome - tough to explain to the avergae person you dont want to spend money on body armor for the US Troops you sent into war. he keeps changing his positions - it is actually incredible. if he from day 1 had said i am against this war and stayed with that, he would have gotten alot more respect - i think from both sides. i follow things pretty close, and i seriously dont know where he stands on this issue then he says a couple of weeks ago, he would have voted for the war still - knowing evrything he knows now - then says a week later it is "the wrong war at the wrong time." he would be a hell of a lot better off if he just picked a side and stuck with it.

KYLE
Jay,I appreciate your imagery as you paint the picture of us Liberals reacting with a prolonged jaw drop and a puddle of drool to your question about whether Iraq was a threat and why John Kerry voted the way he did. My reaction was more of a yawn to this tired argument. The analogy I like to use with the war in Iraq is the following: Jay tells Kyle that he wants to build a house. Kyle tells Jay to go ahead and build the house. Jay builds the house. The house that Jay builds is a shitty house that is really expensive. Rather than taking responsibility for a poor design, bad construction, and an inability to control costs Jay says, "Kyle, you gave me the authority to build the house and now you are against it because it turned out to be a piece of shit? First you were for the house and now you are against it. You flip-flopper." Bush told the Congress that he wanted to go to war. Congress, including John Kerry, told Bush to go ahead and go to war. Bush went to war. The war that Bush has been executing has been shitty and really expensive. Rather than taking responsibility for poor planning, bad execution, and an inability to control costs Bush says, "Kerry, you gave me the authority to go to war and now you are against how I used that authority. First you were for the war and now you are against it. You flip-flopper" Iraq is not about John Kerry voting to go to war. Jay built a shitty house. Bush is overseeing a shitty war. It is about how the war has been run poorly by President Bush and not John Kerry's voting record. I have plenty more to add, but I'll wait until I hear some of your responses. That's if you have the balls.

SAMMY
Is it just me or does Bush seem like a kid with a credit card. His spending has gone long overlooked and is getting quite out of hand. Yes, he has a war that is taking up a lot of spending. Although, even before the war he was spending like crazy. Remember in 2001 when we had a surplus of money. He chose to take that money and give it back to the people. A noble thing to do, except when their is a national debt that still is getting out of hand. And to think he was the one that gave us this surplus, coming into office after Clinton. Makes one think, but not to get on that subject. Bush's spending in the past years has grown way out of hand. Since Clinton, Domestic discretionary spending has increased 25% according to the White House's own budget reports. Although, Bush states " If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of Pres. Clinton, discretionary spending was up 5%, and mine has steadily declined over the years." This is a blatant lie, not the first by our beloved president. Actually discretionary is up 31%. But, Bush could have been confused. Imagine That!! If he meant domestic discretionary, which is SS, Medicare, Pentagon, Education, etc. that is only up 25%. The facts are when Clinton left spending was at 1.86 trillion, now it is at 2.31 trillion. I know much of this is due to the terrorism factor, which no one can deny. But when does it stop. This past year was the nations worst deficit year ever. $374 billion!! This year it is expected to hit over 500 billion!! It's hard to believe that every company Bush started went bankrupt. On a side note. To say Kerry is a flip-flopper is not just. Even Keeler seems to be giving Kerry a break. But has anyone thought about Bush being a flip-flopper, or maybe just a push over. It seems to me when the pressure is put on Bush he will change his stance easily. Some examples of this are when he opposed federalizing airport security workers and then changed his mind later. He also resisted extending unemployment benefits then reversed his opinion when poverty levels hit an all new high under his presidency. Though decision. Should have paid more attention to jobs at home then exporting them to other countries. He also was against prescription drug benefits under Medicare and now he favors this. And he also came out against a new Cabinet agency to direct Homeland Security and then proposed his own huge new cabinet to direct homeland security. Kerry is a flip flopper? Should have thought of yourself Bush. And to comment on Chuck's email. Kudos! Love It.

BEN
i didnt say Kerry wasnt a flip-flopper, i just said he cant be expected to vote while running for President..........but i did say both Bush and Kerry both change positions, but Kerry has done so more

JAY
Alright, I'm going to try and reply (where necessary) to the last 6 e-mails I recieved. John: You state "when the pressure is put on Bush he will change his stance easily." Commenting that bush changes his stance quite often. Chuck's e-mail stated ", that is the problem with Bush, he never changes his mind." That is text book contradiction, isn't it? Reminds me how the democrats are running their campaign, all over the place. What gets me about John's quote is "pressure" and "change stance easily." Don't you think there is extraordinary pressure on Bush right now concerning the war in Iraq. What is Bush's response, "Stay the course." Now I agree w/ Chuck here. Staying the course is not quite doing it. We need to intensify our stance by sending in more troops and working on coalition building. Of course that is easy to say. To do is a different story. It's not like Bush isn't or hasn't attempted to add to our coalition. Bush may have changed his mind on other issues as president, but that's what a president does. He implements, with aid of his personnel, the best plan and if it appears to be failing he remedies the situation. To do otherwise is simply stupid. Chuck, you heavily rely on the fact that Kerry was so active in the 80's while bush was boozing it up. I concede the fact that Kerry's distant past is more impressive than Bush's, but should that be our focus? Should we rely on his record in the 80's. I believe pegged pants and Aqua Net had a good record in the 80's and look what happened to them. I think it's more important to focus on the more recent history which reveals a shitty record. His voting record sucks. Keeler says we should cut him a break since Kerry knew he was going to run for president. I think that's bullshit. He has a duty as a senator just as we have a duty as citizens to vote and he failed. If Kerry knew he was running for president he should have impressed us by taking strong stances on those issues and voted (but he didn't). That kind of reminds me of his strong stances now. He's like a clock; flip flop flip flop flip flop. Chuck then states, "Kerry would not have gone to war after the weapons inspectors said there was no WMD, and when there was absolutely no world support aside from UK . Kerry would have listened to military experts and sent the necessary 300,000 troops needed to win the peace. This is another crock of shit. You can't say what you would have done. You say what you actually have done. Kerry voted for the war. Then he voted against the reconstruction issue. If Kerry gets away w/ it then let me try; I would have dove in the deep end, I would have turned and walked away when those OSU fuckers approached, I would have peed before I passed out. See, it doesn't work. Would have and did are different. Chuck, did you read my last e-mails explaining the Inspectors report? You don't think there were plans? If there were plans, does that constitute a threat large enough to invade?

CHUCK
Jay, You asked me to talk about Kerry's record. I did. I explained its superiority, on one level. Now you are going to claim his record sucks, because of 2 votes on Iraq. That is absurd. You want to talk about his senate record, but then boil down 20 years into 2 votes. The rest of his record is what it is. He has some loyal and bold democratic stances (i.e., opposes the death penalty, wants greater gun control, wants to increase health benefits, etc). So basically, you dont want to talk about Kerry's senate record. You want to talk about the 2 votes on the Iraq war. Fine, but just know that 2 votes that on their face seem inconsistent do not define a 20 year senate record. (especially in the face of sammartano properly pointing out many of president bushs inconsistencies) THEN YOU REALLY LOSE ME, JAY. Refering to Kerry's handling of the war, You Proclaim:You can't say what you would have done I wish I saved all these emails. THE ONLY REASON I SAID WHAT KERRY WOULD HAVE DONE WAS BECAUSE YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME "WHAT WOULD KERRY HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY". So I answered. I assume that you just forgot because these emails go on forever, but I was simply answering to one of you desperate pleas: "What would Kerry have done differently?" And what Kerry would have done differently is exactly what I said. Finally, I did read your email of the weapons report. PLANS? Maybe. I dont care. We went to war because of WMD's....and imminent threat. PLANS are not what we went to war. IRAN IS BUILDING. N KOREA HAS. Again, we have some other countries to attack, i guess. Of course plans are not enough. If you are so ready to go to war, you better get all of you friends and go down with them to the recruiter and sign up, because we have to go to Iran and N Korea. Maybe those fucking idiot Bush daughters could join the military. They are the perfect age, and we need help. Instead of hosting drinking party's throughout NYC, maybe they could serve the nation for a just cause.....plus if they dont slow down on the drinking, they could end up like their alcoholic dad.

BOB
NO MORE SUGAR COATING
Jay, you've been askin and askin...what do I have to say about Kerry's voting record? As Chuck pointed out, 2 Iraq votes don’t make up a 20 year voting record. But the Republicans have a point...what the fuck was this guy doing voting for the war if he thought it was abad idea. Let me start by addressing the 2 Iraq votes. You might be surprised by the response: I think Kerry's vote to authorize force in Iraq is simply unforgivable! I know that it will drive a stake in Chuck's big heart, but it is my honest-to-God opinion. Let me explain: I remember back in October of 2002, when Bush asked Congress to give him an unconstitutional*, blank-check to kick terrorist ass... *The Constitution is very clear: Only Congress has the right ot declare war. This right can't be given or signed over or lent for the weekend to anybody. Period. And I don't want to argue about semantics. Some people say, "This isn’t a war, this is a 'conflict'" Bull honky. I don't care if you call it an intervention a conflict or a field day...sending 130,000 troops to invade another country and overthrow a government is something that our forefathers would have put in the war catagory. What happened? In a major victory for the White House, the Senate voted 77-23 in favor of the resolution! CNN summarizes the resolution as follows, •"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." • The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution. In other words...Long live King George!! And where were the DEMS: In the Senate, 29 voted for the measure and 21 were against. (All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.) So the majority of the Party was right there in the war march behind Bush. Not everybody went along quietly though... One ballsy DEM: Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Also, Dennis Kucinich, from good-old Ohio stood up and protested. Dean also spoke out at the time and wasn’t affraid to call a spade a spade. Then the war turned to shit and suddenly every Democrate sounded like a Dean-Machine. We (myself included) were so worried about losing to Bush again that we overlooked this pathetic war vote and chose our guy based solely on 'ELECT-ABILITY' We abaondon the only candidate (besides Kucinich) who stood up against the war when it was unpopular. And why?...Cause Dean made a scene at a pep-rally, like Jay doing a tuck-under when the rest of the party was still on their 3rd beer. Now 'Mr Electable' is behind in the polls and that damn war vote looks like it might be the death of him. I am deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Bush is an idiot. The guy was born with ten silver spoons in his mouth. He surfed through life like a Tight-End through an Ivy League School. Throw in some DUIs and 'alleged' cocaine use. No wonder Nugent likes the guy so much! We chose this life-long loser as our President (kind of)! And what did he do, he screwed up again! (I think that the official party line is that he made great, stead-fast decisions based on poor intelligence) Its not just the war though. Bush hit an all time new low when he changed his re-election campaign strategy to: exploit the poor souls who died in the towers to make swing voters teary-eyed. It honestly makes me sick. I am not happy about my options this November 2nd. But the choice is clear: Bush needs to go.

JAY
Since you guys seem to be taking what I said out of context AGAIN, I had to cut and paste this. I was never referring to his Iraq votes. HE VOTED ON THOSE. I was referring to this: What a leader? [Voting history for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts attatched] Good analogy, and I'm not being sarcastic. However, what would Kerry do to remedy the situation. Let me guess what your rersponse will be. "He's going to build on the coalition, and send reinforcements." It's easy to say what he WILL do, but how is he going to do it? I havn't heard that yet. Do you think Bush is attempting to add to our coalition? A week ago Kerry's campaign was attempting to bash Bush stating he was going to wait until the election was over to deploy more troops. What's wrong with sending more troops? I'm unsure, but isn't that what Kerry plans to do.We both have strong stances and nobody is swaying. Until fresh arguments are made, I think I'm done for now. I'm sick of repeating myself as you probably are as well. My final decision will be made after the debates.

ZELIN
I think I may have just sent this like nine times Upon my return to the great swing state of Ohio, I have been very intrigued by the type of opinions people reveal regarding this election. Yes, living out in San Francisco was like one big liberal fest, enough to make Nugent take out an M16 and even myself, a little sick. So, I was excited to return to my great homeland, and discover what the heart of America thinks, the real Americans. Well, they are fucking idiots. I am going to site various examples and most likely sound elitist (some would say Democratic) to provide some examples of how our nation is brainwhashed. First: People who support Bush. I have found, through talking to people and examining Ford trucks, that most people who support Bush, come from two camps: 1) Rich people: They are fucking scared about Kerry openly rolling back the taxes, and shit who can blaim them. The good ol' Rich usually support republicans and I can't blaim them this time around 2) Ignorant people with absolutely no world view and understanding of the global universe. Now, I realize this is a little harsh and generalized, but I agree with this assumption. Most people who have never left our nation and do not think on a "global" basis, will support Bush on the drop of a dime. Similar to our own president's lack of international experience, most Americans believe that we are manifested to lead the world no matter who we piss off, and quit frankly could not give a shit what other nations think. And, I am sure many of you are reading this and think, rock & roll, let's kick everybody's ass, but, is that really a way to live in this world? One more thing, many people are quick to attack the liberal agenda without even understanding what is stands for. Viscione told me the other night that he hates Al Franken because he is to liberal. I quickly realized that he has never read any of his books or even listened to his arguments. Actually, most of his book is spent countering Right Wing bullshit and he doesn't make much of a case to advance the liberal agenda. Okay, now, so what is the liberal agenda we are all talking about. Well, here are few reasons to support Kerry and not just because he is not Bush: 1) Taxes: Why are the richest people in our country, getting the largest tax cuts? Sure, simple economics says, give the wealthiest people more money, and they will trickle it down into the rest of the country. But, doesn't seem to be working. Why don't all the rich fuckers give up a little bit of their millions and let the rest of the nation have a go. 2) IRAQ: Okay, Kerry has said one thing, then the next. But, this is also the Republicans way to shoot down anything that comes out of his mouth. A recent study was completed, showing that Bush has changed his position 23 times on Iraq, depending on what is going on in Fallujah or some fucking town, or how close we are to the election. 3) Social Issues and Human Rights: Wake up, conservative homophobes who are just trying to cover up their own sexuality. This fucking country is made up of lots of different types of people. Don't deny someone the right to have benefits, since they like it in the ass. Overall, this election will be close as hell and may different types of voters emerge. I really just find it amazing that a lying fuck like Bush, has been able to convince the nation that he is protecting us and we are better off with him and the rest of his white collar retards. Actually, I am quite impressed that the Republican party has been able to convince America that he is our man after his ridiculous four years in office. God Bless America, and god bless all you heartless ignorant pricks who support Bush.

CHUCK
Bob, I completely stand by your point. I basically agree w/ everything, but the fact is, is that Kerry, however spineless, had to vote for the war to be a viable candidate (in his opinion). And he was probably right. I was really upset he voted for the war, and never considered voting for him in the primaries. but now, I have come to grips with it all. Kerry is the only option. and i think a true anti-war candidate would be losing badly to Bush, anyways. That is a ridiculous point. He is running for president. Bob Dole did the same. Bush did the same in Texas. Bush is also spending most of his time campaigning now. Kerry has come back and voted for votes where he could be a deciding vote. Otherwise, he has been campaigning for president. Which is completely normal and acceptable Maybe if Bush didnt smear Kerry w/ so much misleading garbage, maybe he would not need to campaign so much and have more time. But when you have to defend the thousands of right-wing AM talk smear, the swift boat veterans, and openly misleading and juvenile ads, Kerry needs to be out there campaigning. Criticizing his failure to vote while campaigning doesnt make any sense. Great stuff Zelin.

BOB
Hey y'all I have a non-Iraq related question: I keep reading that: "The Trade Defecit is sky-rocketing" "The Budget Defecit is sky-rocketing" I took Econ in college and i understand the textbook definitions of these terms. What I don't understand is exactly why these big defecits are dangerous...what are the ramifications? Should we be worried or are these just doomsday scenarios? Somebody fill me in.... I would appreciate a response from anyone, but I am really looking forward to one from Nugent (seeing as how he's an Ivy League graduate) It will be a good learning opportunity for us state-school kids.

ZELIN
Everyone check out this link. Another great conspiracy theory, but it is interesting http://rpmayer.com/xpentagon.swf I did go to a state school, but think I can help a bit with Bob's previous question. The US is now borrowing money from other countries, the countries we trade with, to help pay off outstanding loans we have due to overzelous spending.We continue to borrow more money and it is compounded at an interest rate, so our debt continues to balloon. This massive debt is kind of being ingnored and will be left with us and our children.Many economists are worried/concerned how we are going to cover this massive debt that we have with other nations escpecially as countries look to make more purchases elshwere (China/India).That is my two cents. Please educate us all, Nugent.

CHUCK
The problem is, especially with rising interest rates, is that you are just paying off the debt. At this level of debt, about 20 cents of every tax dollar goes to paying the debt. That is a waste of money. (that could go to fund things education)Then there is a problem w/ so much debt that the banks start raising the interest on us. Then we could be paying up to 50 cents on the dollar. Okay, but here is my theory on the real possibility. The republicans want these huge deficits. Bush was the human to ever cut taxes during a war...in the history of civilization. Then they spend billions on iraq, millions on a scandalous medicare bill, and continue to give the enron types crazy corporate tax breaks and no oversight. So this all spells huge deficits. Here is what comes next: The Republicans will one day look around and say: "this spending is out of hand." That's when President Bush #3 (Jeb) says "we have to stop all this spending." Thats when they scare everyone into agreeing with them. Thats when they eliminate medicare. Thats when they eliminate Social Security. Thats when they roll back all environmental regulation. Thats when they eliminate child tax credits. Okay so you get my point. So thats my take. They can be bad ecomically, but not devastating. But my theory is that these Bushies are going to scare america into eliminating all federal programs.

ZELIN
Chuck, your theories are interesting, but I would hope that Jeb doesn't become the 3rd President. Although, his daughter Barbara might not be so bad. She is kind of hot.

BEN
i have to take up the recent emails that have described republicans or people that vote for bush as "fucking idiots" because i dont consider myself one. or the only reasons someone would be a republican....first there are a lot more issues than jobs and iraq. for instance, I agree with Bush and the republicans on gay marriage, judicial nominations, and abortion. getting conservative judges appointed is my #1 issue.....and my biggest fear is if kerry wins bush never gets a Supreme Court nominee. i dont think gay people should be married......thats just my opinion. i dont think anyone who disagrees is a "fucking idiot." when it comes to a vote, it fails in state after state. so i am not a minoirty (which is not to say i am right or wrong) its just a personal opinion. i know people who are pro-abortion....i disagree with them, but i dont hold it against them. bob, i was glad to see someone that supports kerry finally acknowledge his iraq vote problem. because it is one.....one he cant explain away. espically the 87 billion...after saying a week earlier that no senator with a consious could vote against it - but he did it. and i am glad to see you admit that you are voting for him just because you dont like bush, because thats honesty at least. no one liked kerry in the primaries, people were just under the false impression he was the "most electable". he still could win for sure, but he was not the most electable democrat. i dont think dean was either, though. having been in vietnam doesnt mean you should automatically be president. giving a convention speech that was like " i was born in the west wing of the hospital, i went to vietnam, now vote for me for president" wasnt good enough for some people. but bob, to say bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.....so what. thats not his fault. everyone on this mailing list is better off than the vast majority of americans, went to better schools than most people, and we shouldnt be ashamed of it - we should be thankful that we were so fourtante. by the way, of bush, cheney, kerry, and edwards, bush has the smallest current net worth. and bush exploited sept 11? i dont buy it - its a huge part of the election.....just last week kerry gave a speech with sept 11 widows behind him.....i dont care. that seems fine to me.....it is central in the campaign. zelin - yeah i would fit your "never left the country" group. i think in a pre-sept 11 world, you might be right. but now i think we have to do wahts best for us - no matter who is president. if kerry says we need to invade iran because.......i will support him and our country. the north korea problem started when clinton and co. trsuted them because they "promised." that didnt work out too well, as we all have found out. i do believe we are the greatest country and it is our duty to lead the world, like we did after WW2. if kerry actually thinks by him being elected france and germany are going to join a war that kerry himself said was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place" he is the one living in a "fantasy land" not Bush. i dont see why people who disagree with you all or Kerry are automatically wrong. no one really knows.....but right now, i guess a majority of americans are morons because polls show things leaning bush, myself included bob nice blog....debates should be fun to watch

CHUCK
Keeler, you have your legitimate points in defense of bush. But most of americans dont agree with the things bush has done. thats why people are idiots.
1. They think tax cuts for the rich are wrong...especially in times of war....and think they failed to improve job creation
2. They want national health care.
3. A majority think Iraq was a mistake.
4. A majority are outraged by soaring deficits, college tuition, and energy dependence.
5. A majority want stem cell, and support abortion (but are opposed to gay marriage)
So those are all Bush points. So you might say, 'thats how bad Kerry is.' No.
I think the fact that a majority of americans disagree with everything bush has done, and STILL support him, shows they are fucking idiots. To vote for someone that opposes everything you want, would make you a fucking idiot.
Now, you have your arguments. and you are not an idiot, because you make informed decisions on your cause. but these other people, are fucking idiots.
I saw a new poll that where 50% said "someone else deserves to be president". Everyone knows bush is a failure. but these fucking idiots have bought into bush's scaring americans into following him, a bunch of lying vietnam veterans, and bush's own lying commericials

ZELIN
Hewitt, send me the link to the blog.
Ben, good to hear from you. First off, I guess I could apologize for the tone of my last email. I have just become a little frustrated with the conversations I have been having at home and am still not convinced of real reasons to keep W. in office. Believe me, I have been trying to listen and understand where the other side is coming from, and I just don't get it.
Regarding social issues, we simply have completely opposite viewpoints on this matter. I really do not see what is wrong with allowing homosexuals marriage, and why a woman should not have the right to choose. But, I respect your opinion and the millions of others who agree with you.
Regarding Iraq and a more "worldly-view". This topic is especially sensitive to me. Maybe it is because I have spent a significant amount of time outside the U.S. and have seen firsthand what real people (not terrorists) think about Bush and our nation's actions. You say that you would support our president no matter what. If he told us we needed to invade Iran, North Korea, Nugent's home arsenal, you would stand in line and salute. Okay, but back to Iraq. What about the grounds we invaded on? What about the fact there are no WMDs? What about the fact that there was no imminent threat that Bush convinced the American people of? Still supporting? Still saluting? I am not.
Yes, America does have a responsibility as the world superpower to solve world conflict and take action where action is needed. Each American voter has a WORLD responsibility much greater than a citizen of Italy, France, Russia, China. More specifically, the outcome of their vote has a much larger effect on the globe than anyone else. And, most voters don't realize that, or care when they vote. And, if we have an obligation to help out where help is needed and foster peace when necessary, then let's get on a plane right now and go to Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chechnya, the Philippines, Columbia.
Stand up and salute.
Having to much fun with this at the moment.
To back Chuck's points. Many of these voters who are voting for Bush, but don't support his policices or accomplishements, are voting for him for one reason. Yours and my favorite guy...Jesus. Last weeks SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/19/MNGK28REMK1.DTL) interviewed families the the far South (Canton, OH). One particular family was poor, the husband had lost his job, but they supported Bush because he is a man of God. These sentimens are even stronger in the South.
Now, call me crazy or one-sided, but that is fucking ridiculous. As great as Jesus may be, he is not solving the problem in Iraq or elminating our huge trade deficit.
Or, maybe I am just bitter since I am going to hell with the rest of the Hebrews anyways.

JAY
Chuck, I want the numbers on your "all americans want" propoganda. Where are you getting this from? I bet it's CBS.
In response to this "Each American voter has a WORLD responsibility much greater than a citizen of Italy, France, Russia, China." Why don't you respond to Kerry's absent votes. You know, the stats I e-mailed earlier. And if the excuse is "he's to busy campaigning", then I'm not voting b/c of coaching and exams. He's got a duty to vote right? Much greater than senators of Italy, France, Russia, China? What if he's president and he's bombarded w' issues, do we let him pass on certain things?
that jesus thing is just as stupid as me saying that the only reason people are voting for kerry is that they are gay, tree hugging college students whose views are skewed by their liberal, protesting college professors who instead of working in the real world hide behind our education system bitching at everything.

ZELIN
Jay, your analogies suck and have no relevance
I don't comparing a liberal educated American to some poor fat Southerner who has no idea what is going on with each candidate and the election. I am sure I will hear back from all the poor fat Southerners on this mailing list arguing my point, but just don't think you can compare Jesus lovin' good ol' boys to Akron law school students who go to a class, take down notes, and enter their teachers opinions on a blog.

BOB
Jay, You are really stuck on this "Kerry isn't voting right now" thing.
I thought Chuck already explained the situation quite clearly.
(Check the old posts)
It would be a great point if Kerry was say...sleeping or getting high instead of going to vote, but he's not. He is campaigning to beat George Bush in the coming Election. This is his highest duty to his party, the American people and the world.
Your analogy is way off. Coaching basketball is not quite the same level of national responsibility as accepting a parties nomination and campaigning to be the next President of the United States. (Although Dan Lockshin might argue otherwise)

JAY
i may have misunderstood what you were saying. i am not trying to compare anything. what it appears you are trying to say is that there is a stereotype of bush voters as being "poor fat southerners." i think that is unfair to say considering me and the other right wingers have college educations. my point was that if you are going to place a stereotype on the right, then i will place one on the left as being gay, tree hugging college students whose views are skewed by their liberal, protesting college professors who instead of working in the real world hide behind our education system bitching at everything. its's not true, but you attacked 1st. by the way, at least 75% of the screaming left wingers that won't shut up in my classes are gay. but who cares. my point is that the jesus thing was stupid. most of those poor fat southerners are probably dying defending this country or have kids dying defending this country while we are getting educations, debating, and protesting.
i'm not stuck on this issue. i will stop asking once someone responds intelligently instead of stating that bush drug thing. does campaigning for president trumps issues that affect the american public? you can't do both?

KYLE
Jay, In response to your criticism of Kerry's time spent campaining for the Presidency.The entire House of Represnetatives and 26 Senators are running for re-election this year and out of Washington. They are all doing the exact same thing. Your criticism of Kerry missing important business while he campaigns is more applicable to the leader of the free world than it is to a Senator.

ZELIN
Jay, stereotypes aside. I was trying to point out that there is a large population of voters in this nation who support Bush for his religious devotion and beliefs. They may not agree with some of his policies, but revel in the fact that he is a man of faith. I feel that he has been able to use his genuine devotion to Jesus, to swing voters who are in dire economic situations. Furthermore, lots of those poor southerners who are fighting have joined America's greatest welfare system and are in Iraq now. I do respect them and what they are doing, but I bet some of them are there since they couldn't get a job.
But, according to our stereotypes and the blog members, here is a summary of our winning team:
Kutucheif, Kozelka, Hewitt, Sammartano and myself are gay tree huggers with a good amount of education behind us.
Jay, Keeler, and Nugent are fat poor Southernners with a strong love of the almighty.
Viscione and Maney are bi-curious and live in the Midwest (pretty accurate)

JAY
the argument "everyone does it" doesn't seem to be a strong argument, but if that's all you have what are you going to do? i still believe a duty to vote trumps. when you are the leader of th u.s. you are bombarded with multiple issue. i guess you have to be talented at multitasking. are you saying he cant multitask?

MANEY
zelin u have it figured out. I now have it figured out too. Midwest is right. the reason I am bi curious simply because i now know u r gay and all these women u have slept with is simply a cover and i am now sure u r gay. u lived in sf hmmm???? always make gay jokes, heck u even talk gay. i am curious because i have always wanted to know if that statistic that 1 out of 3 of one's friends is gay. U fit the ticket perfect. hey look how left i am. I do not care that u r gay. I know secretly u wish me and Dan were too. I am so happy for you and I will always respect you!!!!! My gay friend..

JAY
Bob, remember when i used to argue that a possible reason for France's reluctance to join the coalition was b/c of the billions they had tied up in contracts w/ iraq and a war would be detrimental to their financial interests. Here's an article i just read, French Bank Targeted in Oil-for-Food Scam; Congressional investigators examining "a semitrailer truck load" of subpoenaed documents are trying to determine whether lax monitoring at a French bank that held more than $60 billion for the U.N. oil-for-food program (search) facilitated illicit business deals by the former Iraqi government, officials told The Associated Press. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133696,00.html.
Dont you think it's a little shady that France (and Russia) had large financial incentives not to go to war? What would you think if these allegations turn out to be true? I have a feeling that this oil-for-food scam may reveal possible reasons why the u.n. refused approval as well. As of now it's merely speculation, but we'll find out. Anybody have any input on this topic. To read more about it go here and click on the relevant links: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133484,00.html
Click here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993610/ and go to the candidate comparisons on the issues. Once I get home I'll pick one and start rambling and then maybe we can bicker and bitch about something else; like homos getting married.

ZELIN
Jay, I agree with you (yeah, I said it) and believe that there were quite possibly strong financial incentives for France/Russia to keep out of the war. On the flipside, there quite possibly are strong financial incentives for the U.S. to go to war. That is something to consider as well as massive reconstruction contracts are divvied up.

JAY
if we have financial incentives by going to war, why does chuck place heavy emphasis on the cost of the war? don't give me that bullshit that chaney will gain b/c the contracts benefit that company he was/is involved w/. the idea of regime change in iraq did not originate w/ GW. in 1998 Bill Clinton signed an executive order that stated the US's official policy goal was regime change in iraq.
bob, you respond the "maney jokes" e-mail and not mine. mine was specifically addressed to you. what's up w/ that

BOB
Well Jay, I was getting around to responding, but I had to do some reading.
Listen, those news clippings were alegations, but for the sake of arguement lets assume that they are right on. Well, I think I said a long time ago that I recognized that all of the Security Council Members were looking out for their own interests when deciding on Iraq.
Their interests include things like oil contracts and things like the thousands of anti-war protesters in the streets as well. We will never know which interest played the bigger role in French and Russian policy, but the deafening public outcry in Europe definately wasn't triggered because some oil contracts were in jeopardy.
It always seems funny to me though, that you are so certain that France and Russia were only thinkin about the oil contracts, while the U.S. was only thinkin about world peace. It seems idealistic to me.
(For the record: I think the inverse is equally idealistic, too)

CHUCK
THAT FOOD-FOR-OIL INVESTIGATION HAS GONE NOWHERE. And relies on the same intelligence of CHALBI (misspelled name)....the biggest liar ever.
Its just a nice story to make people like you feel better.
(maybe some thing will become of it, but so far nothing....but here is a story where something has come: Abu Ghrab: Rumsfeld authorized ways around Geneva Convetions)
FINANCIAL COSTS: GW said the war would pay for itself. He actually had the gaul/stupidity to claim the war would cost $2 Billion. Its cost 100 times more. That, if nothing else, is just another great example of Bush's consistent failure.
Secondly, the only people profitting are corporations that evade paying a fair share in taxes. AND YES HALLIBURTON IS GAINING!!!! AND YES, CHENEY HAS STOCK OPTIONS IN HALLIBURTON!!!! THESE ARE FACTS

BOB
Well Jay, I was getting around to responding, but I had to do some reading.
Listen, those news clippings were alegations, but for the sake of arguement lets assume that they are right on. Well, I think I said a long time ago that I recognized that all of the Security Council Members were looking out for their own interests when deciding on Iraq.
Their interests include things like oil contracts and things like the thousands of anti-war protesters in the streets as well. We will never know which interest played the bigger role in French and Russian policy, but the deafening public outcry in Europe definately wasn't triggered because some oil contracts were in jeopardy.
It always seems funny to me though, that you are so certain that France and Russia were only thinkin about the oil contracts, while the U.S. was only thinkin about world peace. It seems idealistic to me.
(For the record: I think the inverse is equally idealistic, too)

JAY
chuck, you won't even consider the possibility. that's the problem when someone is too far on either position. their views are so biased and skewed you can't have an intelligent discussion. keep blaming and bitching, that gets things done.
chuck, read bob's response to "french connection". it's a good response. what you tend to do is skip around the question and start into a little bitch fest. it's funny
z, actually what you liberals will do by protesting is boost the morale of the oppostion which results in more dead americans. it's true. i know in vietnem the opposition's morale was boosted when all the libs were protesting. i agree w/ freedom of speech and being able to protest against the government, but what do you do about that. i'm not saying to curb your criticism b/c it's necessary, but what do you do?

CHUCK
Jay, I do consider all possibilities. I believe i said in my email about food-for-oil that it was possible but there is no evidence currently. and other horrible exploitations are likely involved by many nations.
But I am going to be extremely doubtful of a story that relies on Ahmad Chalabi's intelligence, which is where the food-for-oil comes from. This man has been completely discredited (of course this liar was the guy heavily relied on by the white house for WMD claims).
If there was anyone else that had info on this story, then it may have legs. But there is no one.
Its ridiculous to insult my ability to be rational simply because I refuse to dignify a Chalabi story. I gladly consider many arguments, and then make points against them (i.e., i will consider the idea of preemption being necessary, and know that there are arguments to both sides, but then i will make arguments that support my view.....pretty simple).
And just because i have enough sense to exploit the gapping hole in this 'french connection' does not make me blinded. it actually makes me more sensible.

JAY
chuck, i can dig it. just trying to light a little fire under your ass. i was just asking what would you think if the allegations were true.
another fun fact relating to the oil-for-food scandal. i read this,
"In meetings on Capitol Hill, Paul Volcker “rejected requests from members of Congress for access to review documents and to interview United Nations officials being scrutinized by his panel,” reports the New York Times.[7] Congressional sources have confirmed that the Volcker Commission refuses to grant access to internal reports on the Oil-for-Food program produced by the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services and is unwilling to share documentation that it holds in Baghdad. It also refuses to guarantee that it will release documents relating to the Oil-for-Food program even after it has filed its final report. This hostile approach seriously undermines the credibility of the Independent Inquiry Committee."
The Volcker Commission’s refusal to share documentation with congressional investigators demonstrates arrogance and disrespect for Congress and the American public that helps fund the Commission through the United Nations. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible that something fishy is going on (chuck)?

CHUCK
Is there something fishy? Possibly. But if refusing to submit documents/files is the standard then Bush stinks pretty bad for about every inquiry into this administration
jay, i just wanted to make clear one thing. very likely that the french, germans, russians all had corrupt reasons for not giving more contemplation to going to war. just like the US had corrupt reasons for going to war. the world (especially realted to oil) is too interrelated, corrupt and selfish for all of these nations to act in a secretly corrupt manner. That said, those nations were right and we were wrong. the french, germans, etc, said there was no imminent threat (of WMD which was the reason presented to these nations) and we said there was an imminent threat. We were wrong. So there was likely other reasons involved for all decisions made...but they were right.
(not wanting to open the whole 'threat' debate again. there may have been a some nuanced threat, but there is no question that was the 'imminent threat' that we were talking about at the time)