John Kerry, why him? Share with me

Again, that has nothing to do with how he does his job and maybe that liberal deserved it.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

Yoda, you're a smart guy. Keep thinking the way you do. It's the most sensible.

You can vote forever you like naturally but I think you're gonna be surprised when Edward's debates Cheney. Edward's is a great lawyer. But Cheney is a debate smart attack-dog. I don't think anyone in the administration or Kerry's proposed administration knows as much about Politics as Cheney. I'm gonna sit back and watch Cheney chew Edward's apart.

FDR? You mean the same President that got bullied by Stalin and let him take over a third of Europe? I'm not saying FDR wasn't a good President because he was but I think you're talking in an imaginary time-frame spectrum that is way out of perspective. Remember, we've only been in Iraq for a little more than a year. I think you under-estimate how much Bush has done and what Bush has done. I think it's great you've obtained all this knowledge on Presidents but, I think you're really biased against bush. And you can't use relativism here. Maybe Teddy would've used a larger force but I doubt it because he lived then and we live now. It's not the same world and being President isn't the same job. For example, (now that this has turned into a debate) the reason why our force is so small is because of Clinton understandebly. He governed in a peace-time. Consequently (and IMO foolishly) he cut the army's budget to invest economically. And when you cut the mobile force to say, 300,000 from 1,250,000, changing it back doesn't happen overnight. I don't really see any of your real points that scream "He's the lowest ranked President ever" I think his economic policies and trade policies are superb for a Republican and aren't filled with all that Socialist Hog-wash either. And you say Teddy wouldn't have spent time with Iraq and maybe so but it's unfitting in my opinion to discredit his decision and not be sympathetic to him and his families history. For two reasons, 1. His dad never finished the job so he feels obligated to do that which is fine because I was pissed George Senior pulled an FDR. 2. And given your intelligence, you're aware that Saddamn tried to assasinate Bush Senior. Doesn't that mean anything to your thinking? I think that's a pretty heavy amount of weight on his shoulders. And plus, about Syria and Iran and Saudie Arabia, you don't know what he's planning to do next. Like all Presidents that are measured from what they've done, Bush isn't done yet, so don't judge him so pre-maturely and try to have an little more of an open mind. I started this thread so I could benefit from open opinions about the Democrats but like always, this has turned into Bush bashing and iI'm sick of hearing it because frankly, I have a feeling Bush is NOT going to go down as just another president but a leader to be remembered by.

I don't mean to be rude, really I don't. So, I'll say this in the nicest way I know how.

I stopped reading your reply after I read your first 3 sentences. Why? Because anyone who thinks Theodore Roosevelt is the same person as FDR, isn't credible as far as politics go. I hope the rest of your response isn't as bad, though I won't bother reading it. Open a history book sometime and read it.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

Ok I do apologize for my above post, it seems a bit harsh, I know.

FDR was dead by the time Stalin went on to form the Soviet Block. I'm sure you knew that, and you were just trying to be inflammatory. FDR had to team up with Stalin in order to defeat a more immediate threat in Fascism. The Soviets, like them or not, were Instrumental in our victory in WWII, as I'm also sure you knew. My question is if you knew this Why would you make such a statement? It seems to lack the common sense that you use in many of your post. I must conclude that this was simply a malicous post made in anger. While I seldom agree with you, I do repect your level of debate. That statement was just plan wrong.

__________________
Justice will be served/ And the battle will rage/ This big dog will fight/ When you rattle his cage/ And you’ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A./ Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass/ It`s the American way.
Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue - Toby Keith

Now as far as Kerry goes, he is nothing more than an empty shirt. He talks a good as far as bashing Bush's policies go, but hasn't yet offered any real alternative. Dean would no doubt lose against Bush, but at least he knew what he wanted, and how he wanted to get there. He would have at least given liberals somebody to fight for instead of against. I'm not sure who I want to win least Bush or Kerry. This is a sad, sad election.

Not to mention the fact that he confused Teddy Roosevelt with FDR....

Actually he didn't confuse them..he flat out didn't know that teddy and FDR are two different people.

Well, first of all business regulations aren't oppressive when they create a healthier climate on the market for most companies, not only the biggest ones. And we allready have oligopoly on the media market and the goal for each and every one of these conglomerats is to alone own the market = monopoly. Bush's politics have made it possible for these conglomerats to become fully vertically integrated, which is totally unhealthy for the business, and something that is typically conservative politics. Politics that you support and at the same time talk about how anti free trade John Edwards is, which of course is absurd.

I'm primarily talking about ideology here, not every single statement or action that Bush is responsible for.

It's really not that hard. Conservatism like communism is about control and they are not that different from each other regarding business politics. While liberals and social liberals promote politics that, in short, create tough but healthy competition which in the end favour both producer and consumer (society), conservatism is about creating a few gigantic corporations that control everything, and preferably with executives with tight connections to the conservative party, in this case, the republicans.

It is interesting to see how similar right wing and left wing politics become the further from each other they get. It's no coincidence that the nazis/fascists and the communists worked together to defeat the liberals and social democrats in the '30:s.


Yes, which has nothing to do with anti free trade. Just as I thought you were just using his concern for american workers to make it sound like he is anti globalization.

Outsourcing means closing companies on american ground because it is cheaper to move them to 3rd world countries where labour is cheap and you don't have to worry about uncomfortable laws designed to protect the workers. The result is more unemployed americans, underpaid workers in the 3rd world country, an industry in the 3rd world country that still is not able to establish themselves on the global market thanks to ANTI FREE TRADE conservative politics and, finally, richer executives on the american outsorcing company. Why is that good for "all of us"?

To be concerned with american jobs you call being "anti free trade"?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

While I can say that I'm not totally on board with all of Bush's economic policy, I think he has this one right. With outsourcing all parties involved are helped out. It is an issue of competitive advantage. I think the mistake many people make is to state american jobs are lost, and forigen workers are underpaid. In many cases, workers, while making less than their american couterparts, make more than fair wages in their own countries. This grows their national economy's and eventually grows the standard of living. Onm the home front, we benefit in many ways. First, the cost of goods and services decreases. People like to complain about losing jobs, until they can't afford a plane ticket, or a new computer. Second, we are able to "specialize" and produce goods and services that we have an advantage at. I'm not sure if you know it but Japan is outsourcing to the US right now. As to the point of 3rd world countries not being able to establish themselves, I simply point to the "Asian Tigers" of the 80's now have some of the fastest growing economies in the world. In the long-run outsourcing really does help everyone.

You're being somewhat vague. Which liberal business regulations "create a healthier climate on the market," and which of Bush's politics have encouraged the opposite? And what do you mean by "fully vertically integrated"?

You're speaking in generalities, but I've been repeatedly asking for specifics. Without specifics, there's no way for anyone to contend with what you're saying. Once you make a claim supported by evidence that can be either proven or disproven, then we can have a discussion about whether or not what you're saying is true.


But you can only determine ideology through statements and actions. So if someone has an ideology, you should be able to point to specific instances of it, either through what Bush has said, or else through what Bush has done.


Huh? Conservatism isn't unlike Communism? I don't know what kind of definition the word "conservative" has, to you, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the meaning of the word as I've come to know it.

Where I come from, conservatives are generally pushing for freer, more open markets; the exact opposite of Communism. American liberals, on the other hand, are often the ones who think that constant government intereference is necessary. Seems to me that the party in favor of increased governmental regulations is the one far more concerned with control.


This, I most definitely agree with.


He is. He wants to actively discourage global employment because he naively believes that the free market approach works within America, but not worldwide.


And what happens when it continues? The more demand there is for "cheap labor," the quicker it stops being cheap. The market, if left wide open, eventually balances itself out.

Imagine if you could only get Germany's fine automobiles if you were German, or if you could only get French food if you lived in France. The world's a better place because of trade; it makes the best products in the world available to people all over the world, regardless of where they live. You used to only hear the best singers in your town; now we can all enjoy the best singers in the world.

This is clearly a very good thing, yet when it comes to jobs, people throw reason out the window, and start getting emotional. But, economically, there's no difference between sharing jobs, and sharing products. Do you want to keep your job over a cheaper, better worker somewhere else? Okay, then the price of the products you make is going to be a bit higher for everyone else. Most economists acknowledge that there's no active difference between the two, but that doesn't stop people like Kerry and Edwards from preying on worried Americans with warnings about how they're going to ship all the American jobs overseas.


No. To discourage open hiring across borders, I call being "anti free trade."

Sort of, I read it too fast.



This insults my intelligence. You stated something you don't know and not only that, it's hard to argue I didn't know they were two different people when Teddy's name begins with a T and Franklin's begins with an F. Yes, that was a worthless post excluding that I stated my argument in it. I must've read it too fast or something because I thought for some reason you mentioned both of 'em. That was just one of those posts and I appreciate you pointing out my error.

On the note of FDR and Stalin. I was pretty sure FDR was still alive when Stalin began taking over Eastern Europe. My source on that issue (my dad [tell me about it; he does that a lot]) is undeniably uncredible. I thought it was correct because he did after all live through the event but it's still my fault. So once again, thatnks for pointing that out because I hate running into people that have opinions based on a mix of events, innacuracies or of things that just didn't happen at all, all together. So once again, my apologies for the innacuracies and I'll try not to do that again. My appreciations.

That was one of Clinton's ideas. My biggest concearn in that was letting those filthy japs build their cars here. People tell me it creates jobs. Maybe but it also puts American car manufacturers in less need of workers. This then makes the Japanese economy stonger because many of those Americans will change to a Japanese car company. Also, as we all know, the profit all goes back to japan. And not only that, forget about Japan letting us build American cars in their country, they won't even let us sell them there. Some joke huh. And Clinton thought that was a fair deal. I will never buy a new japanese car. Never. It's a shame because I really like Nissans. But I won't support another country within my own that steals American's jobs. Oh, but I'll still never buy a Ford. Even though they say new cars are all more or less the same in quality and lasting value, Ford is a name I cannot trust. Their subsidiaries, maybe, but not Ford.

Good debate here. Yoda, I'm on your side. You've stated things identical to things I've debated before.

Yoda, you have my applause and are worthy of the title "Yoda"

::applauds::

First of all, I appreciate your support, but please watch what you say. "Filthy Japs"? That's over the line.

As for the rest: it doesn't really matter if they're making a profit off of it, because they're giving us a fine product. Their cars are world-class, which is why we buy them. What we lose in jobs we gain in affordable, higher-quality automobiles. It's a trade-off, and a good one.

The fact is, Japan simply might be better than us at building cars. But we're better at other things: those are the things we should be doing. There will always be people who insist on clinging to a dying industry, but you don't stop using lightbulbs because a handful of candlemakers will be put out of business. The people harmed by changes like this are those who attach themselves to a profession or industry, and are unwilling to change if the need arises. It sounds harsh, but the alternative is to stifle innovation and discourage technological progression. I think the choice is clear.

That's a pretty untruthful, unpatriotic thing to say. This is not an advancement in technology over the other like you said using the lightbulbs verses the candle example. That doesn't apply here and just to let you in on a little something Yoda, my dear friend, the stats are showing that new cars put out now are quality-wise pretty much the same. And if the Japs have such an edge over your own country, how come they don't let us sell our cars in their country, huh? And how come the two top-selling cars worldwide are American. It's anti-Amercan to buy Japanese cars in this country and is an insult the hard-working people in this economy struggling to keep people from buying those cracker-boxes. And not to mention that we are the ones who come out with all the innovations. Not the japs. It is the Japs who copycat our style and advertise their cars in the american fashion. They even go as far as to cover up that their cars are of a Japanese origin. Don't underestimate what America can do. Have pride in your country and have faith in it. I will never buy a Japanese car and Sony can kiss my ass. All their stuff's foundation is American. So how dare you talk about technological progression.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

krack, watch the way you word things, take it from someone who knows.

Krackalackalacking is not for real, don't you get it?

If it weren't for other countries' innovations, you'd still be walking to work instead of driving. If it werent for hard working people who are non-american then you wouldn't have alot of things. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being an arrogant little prick.