With all the Bush basing that we've endured I'm wondering if there is a positive case for Kerry among his supporters?
Over to you...
OTB
Over to you...
OTB
The Case for Kerry
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
would love to see his DD214
Wonder why he won't make his records public.
his real power is he controls all the ketsup in the world
Wonder why he won't make his records public.
his real power is he controls all the ketsup in the world
Well, he knows how to pronounce nuclear.
Other than that, ummmm, errrr, did I mention that he knows how to pronounce nuclear?
Other than that, ummmm, errrr, did I mention that he knows how to pronounce nuclear?
Lesser of 2 evils
While Kerry might not be ideal, he would be better than Bush has been. The role of a Pres is to pick good advisors and be the communicator. Bush has failed on both accounts.
The world need a uniter, as the US does. GWB cannot unite - he is a divider. "you are with me or against me etc"
Kerry has actually been in the service of his country, not snorting coke and hanging out before failing his ANG security clearance. When he came back, he vowed to make his country better - did Bush do that?
Being in the Senate mean making deals and compromising. IT means building alliances, domestically and internationally.
A topic not raised in the election is the propsect that KErry and crew will have reduced incentive to create business opportunities for his family/friends like Bush. Carlyle and Vinnell are factors in why the US has bin LAden to deal with, instead of allowing regime change in Saudi which is long overdue. As long as the US elites, mostly Repub but some dems are on the take (even Powell did a big plane deal with Saudi) - Kerry is the better choice.
Kerry speaks many languages, can articulate a position, and has better standing to repair damage done internationally. The US needs someone with some capability.
Kerry will bring better advisors. Bush didnt put his best team forward. Imagine how diferent a world it would be right now if Baker and Scrowcroft had been in place? The dollar would be $0.10 higher probalby.
Kerry has his warts, the pandering to labour, "outsourcing of jobs etc - but the US would be safer cause hopefully he wont make such stupid foreign policy decisions which actually make Americans at hoome and abroad less safe as a result.
Although I lean Repub, I always find it hilarious that the Bushes both wanted to be education presidents, yet got very little done. Bush 41 may have been one of the best qualified pres to hold office, while #43 the worst. The results speak for themselves, #41's world was one that we should have had post Solviet break up, and he understood the Mid East and was fair to both sides. Kerry is the closest we can come to #41 - cause #43 is the opposite of his dad on so many levels.
While Kerry might not be ideal, he would be better than Bush has been. The role of a Pres is to pick good advisors and be the communicator. Bush has failed on both accounts.
The world need a uniter, as the US does. GWB cannot unite - he is a divider. "you are with me or against me etc"
Kerry has actually been in the service of his country, not snorting coke and hanging out before failing his ANG security clearance. When he came back, he vowed to make his country better - did Bush do that?
Being in the Senate mean making deals and compromising. IT means building alliances, domestically and internationally.
A topic not raised in the election is the propsect that KErry and crew will have reduced incentive to create business opportunities for his family/friends like Bush. Carlyle and Vinnell are factors in why the US has bin LAden to deal with, instead of allowing regime change in Saudi which is long overdue. As long as the US elites, mostly Repub but some dems are on the take (even Powell did a big plane deal with Saudi) - Kerry is the better choice.
Kerry speaks many languages, can articulate a position, and has better standing to repair damage done internationally. The US needs someone with some capability.
Kerry will bring better advisors. Bush didnt put his best team forward. Imagine how diferent a world it would be right now if Baker and Scrowcroft had been in place? The dollar would be $0.10 higher probalby.
Kerry has his warts, the pandering to labour, "outsourcing of jobs etc - but the US would be safer cause hopefully he wont make such stupid foreign policy decisions which actually make Americans at hoome and abroad less safe as a result.
Although I lean Repub, I always find it hilarious that the Bushes both wanted to be education presidents, yet got very little done. Bush 41 may have been one of the best qualified pres to hold office, while #43 the worst. The results speak for themselves, #41's world was one that we should have had post Solviet break up, and he understood the Mid East and was fair to both sides. Kerry is the closest we can come to #41 - cause #43 is the opposite of his dad on so many levels.
1. Kerry will begin trying to find a solution to the mess in Iraq.
2. Kerry will fight a smarter war on terror.
3. Kerry will bring the US back to the international table.
4. Kerry will begin to create a more equitable tax system.
5. Kerry will begin to create a more equitable health system.
6. Kerry will be more likely to enforce corporate regulation.
That's all I can muster right now. Personally, I side with The Economist: between betting on a man whose policies might be incoherent, and a man whose policies have been unquestionably incompetent - well, that's a no brainer, isn't it?
2. Kerry will fight a smarter war on terror.
3. Kerry will bring the US back to the international table.
4. Kerry will begin to create a more equitable tax system.
5. Kerry will begin to create a more equitable health system.
6. Kerry will be more likely to enforce corporate regulation.
That's all I can muster right now. Personally, I side with The Economist: between betting on a man whose policies might be incoherent, and a man whose policies have been unquestionably incompetent - well, that's a no brainer, isn't it?
lol Drunken,
I was referring to the 'slick, devious interloper & usurper', who came between the first and second chapters of the Bush Dynasty.
I was referring to the 'slick, devious interloper & usurper', who came between the first and second chapters of the Bush Dynasty.
http://www.moveonpac.org/content/pdfs/BUSH_WAR.pdf Try reading this article by former VP Al Gore.... very interesting
Yes he did promise that, the GST will go, but said it would only happen after annexing Canada......Cinema Face said:
