John Kerry for President!!!!!

“C'mon, rosey!

I feel safer!

Remember: Happiness, is a warm, newly approved, high cap mag, AK-47!”

“I saw that article. It was posted on TT back in June.”

“9/24/2004

"ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.

ZAHN: How so?

MUSHARRAF: Well, because it has aroused actions of the Muslims more. It's aroused certain sentiments of the Muslim world, and then the responses, the latest phenomena of explosives, more frequent for bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous.

ZAHN: Was it a mistake to have gone to war with Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world.

ZAHN: Even members of President Bush's party are saying that the United States is in trouble in Iraq and it's possible the United States won't win the war in Iraq. Is that the way you see it?

MUSHARRAF: Well, when you enter operations, you can go wrong in your calculations. That always is a possibility in any operation. "”

“Laqtis, let me restate my point:

It is not necessary to ask UN permission before we go to war. It is illogical and hypocritical for John Kerry, violin, Buddha, roseymonster, you, and others to use it as an example to bash Bush.


There are many reasons to disagree with Bush, but some folks are just rabidly foaming at the mouth with any and every illogical and hypocritical excuse. Many neo-libs have jumped on Kerry’s bandwagon. He criticizes Bush for acting without UN permission.

Many neo-libs think the UN is a great example of world cooperation. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you think that the UN will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat by passing endless resolutions?”

“The UN is a shield. It gives the veneer of world support so that U.S. action is more acceptable to the indigenous populations.

It also can serve as the fall guy when things go bad. They take over. The U.S. leaves and the UN takes the fall, saving American face.

Sure, it's corrupt. It's unwieldy. But Bush was stupid to close off that option at the very beginning.

But let's be realistic. The Iraq war would have been a bad idea even with UN support.”

“I had to speak up...

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." - John Kerry 12/15/03”

“Sorry, this may be more fitting...

"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03”

“Neither of those statements disputes the idea that invading Iraq was a #&%!$head decision.

Any president who follows Bush will be handcuffed to Bush's invasion decision. If Kerry opposes the war, he will have no options after the election.

I would rather have Kerry be responsible and lose the election than go onto some crackhead, knee-jerk let's-end-this-war rant and win with zero policy options.”

“Those ellipses are always a dead giveaway of a wingnut con job.

Here are Kerry's exact comments in context:

[...]
Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.
[...]”

“Sounds like a wise and seasoned staeman to me.

Wish he'd been President the last 4 years. Our goose wouldn't be so nearly cooked now.”

“Everybody is wrong except for Bush.”

“So in context - We need to do this, but if we're not able to do it under ideal conditions, then we shouldn't do it. Yes, I'm John Kerry and I love to play both sides when I'm not the one who's responsible for the decision.

I don't need this numbskull to be my President.”

“staeman statesman


Too late Bison, you #&%!$ing voted for one.”

“"Everybody is wrong except for Bush."

Pot/kettle alert!! LOL!”

“ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.”

“"Laqtis, let me restate my point:

It is not necessary to ask UN permission before we go to war. It is illogical and hypocritical for John Kerry, violin, Buddha, roseymonster, you, and others to use it as an example to bash Bush....."


Maybe, but i will point out that one of the reasons we are saying that we went in *now*, was not really because of WMD, it was that he was in violation of UN resolutions, was a bad person and slaughtered his own people 'insert yadda, yadda here'.

Granted, this is correct; however, it is a known fact that these issues were secondary to the WMD threat that was played up. It is still my feeling that if anything, Saddam committed crimes of the most seriuos nature, against the enviroment and that alone was good enough for me to go in there, but again, this wasa secondary issue to the WMD issue. Were I feel it is an over statement in regards to being hyprocritical is that we were not attacked by Iraq first. We were attacked by an organization that was being sponsered by Afghani, which we are trying, albeit halfed-assed, to take care of. I see this as:

1. One sovern nation attacking another sovern nation in which neither attacked first, thus the pre-emptive stickies

2. We hold Saddam up for being a bad guy for breaking the resolutions, yet we do not follow the rules set by the UN ourselves.

Now, don't take this as being a full-blown (no pun intended) support of the UN. I do realie that they have failed in the past, yippidty, yippidty. I also understand that during recent hardcore military action, we have in the past been able to share some of the costs with other countries. It is my feeling that during a time of ressesion and war, it is bad domestic and economic policy to cut taxs and fight a war on our own at the same time.


"There are many reasons to disagree with Bush, but some folks are just rabidly foaming at the mouth with any and every illogical and hypocritical excuse. Many neo-libs have jumped on Kerry’s bandwagon. He criticizes Bush for acting without UN permission.;...."

And this is going to happen, because not every Dem is real happy about proping Kerry up there to take on W. If anything, Kerry might be one of the weakest candidates the Dems have put up there since Doo Doo cock ass. Well, through Gorp up there too. That being said, it is fruitless for the Dems to come across as being divided on this subject, as it would sink them. So, blind bandwagon hopping happens, just like it's happening on the other side. The Christian hardcore faction of the Right is not really pleased with the *big tent* platform the Repubs are shuckin, but they go along with it for the common good of getting their Pastor in Chief elected.



"Many neo-libs think the UN is a great example of world cooperation. How did you arrive at that conclusion?....."

I don't recall making this comment; however, I might have alluded to teh good things the UN has done in the past to further ther agenda. Is the UN the answer? Obivously that question is in its present form, no. But I ask, what can the world gain by us underminding it in public like we do? Why not take hold of the situation and fight for changes? Why not make an effort to prop them up as a legit IGO? Are you willing to pay with you tax dollars, the full blunt of this situation? Do you also think that the world might see what W stands for and doesn't like it? I don;t know, but i do remember the grumbling around the world before the 2000 election about the possiblity of Bush being President. W became out leader with one strike against him from the world street. He did nothing to reasure them that he wasn't an idiot, rather, provedthem correct.


"Do you think that the UN will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat by passing endless resolutions?......."


Honestly, I think that time has long passed. By the begining of next year, we will now have two new nuclear countries to admit into the club, out of the three *Axis of Evil*. The other, Iraq, had no WMD, rather, a big old serving of *egg on the face*. While we have dicked around with Iraq, Iran and N. Korea have operated freely, without threat, their pursiut of WMD and have aquired them! How about that, go figure.


In closing, arc, I state thayt I observe your distain for the UN and I duly note it, yet I still have not heard aything from you about your thought on how this thing should be played, which is dissappointing at a couple of levels. I feel that you can shed some light from another angle that some of us might not have concidered. Also, please remember that I'm not trying to blow the UN at all, but show that in order for an IGO to be successful, everyone needs to play by the same rule book and that none of the players should claim foul when the rules might be put to them, then take their equipment and go home. That kind of stuff might be acceptable on the playground, but it has no place on the world stage. In essesnce, piss or get off the pot and don't ask someone to clean up the toilet after you pissed all over the place.”

“While we have dicked around with Iraq, Iran and N. Korea have operated freely, without threat, their pursiut of WMD and have aquired them!

You may have a point about N. Korea, but Iran? Hah! They're backed into a corner. We thwarted their plans to garner major influence in Iraq. They're playing the nuclear card as a desperate last hope of leveraging influence in the future of Iraqi politics. And while it's certainly a concern, it's not a likely scenario. Neither the U.S. nor Israel will tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran knows this, and it's helpless to stop any actions taken against them. It's merely brinksmanship.

Probably the more tangible threat is Iran and al Qaeda teaming up, assuming they can get past their mutual animus.”

“"They're backed into a corner....."


and this is just the situation that I'm concerned about. If Israel does a pre-emptive on Iran, the gates of hell are going to open up. Brinksmanship? Maybe. Provocation? Most likley. There are very few avenues for Israel to fly through in order to get to Iran, one of which would be to fly over Iraq. If permitted, this would more than enough to take action against the US forces in Iraq, via any means nessesary. Again, it will because of Israel that we will be dragged into yet another situation. Really and honestly (and this is not an endorsement of Iran), is it just because they are Muslim that we are afraid to let them have nukes, or that they might pound Israel? Who determines at what level a country becomes enough of a a threat to where a pre-emptive must take place? Is it as long as you include every possible situation? Couldn't we say these things about almost every country out there?”

“Voter registration is up 250% in democratic leaning counties in Ohio, and 30% in republican leaning counties.

Remember, these newly registerd folks are not participating in polls.”

“It's not going to go that far. Iran isn't suicidal.”

“Healchcare costs rose over 36% over the past 3 years.

I thought privatization creates competition, which drives down the price, isn't that how it's supposed to work GWB?”

“You forgot the litigation factor. Every tried paying professional liability premiums? I do, it's not fun.”

“How much have your liablility premiums increased over the past 3 years?”

“"It's not going to go that far. Iran isn't suicidal....."



Iran wouldn't strike any US/Israeli forces if one of it's nuke plants gets bombed? Are you aware of the concerns Iran has over the sale of a bunch of bunker-buster bombs from the US to Israel to take place ASAP? If used, I see it has though we proved the means in which to make a strike by Israel possible, much like *if* Saddam had sold his *WMD* to Syria, let's say.

Same thing?”

“It looks like 25-30%. Now, what percentage of professional liability insurance is of the whole insurance cost?”

“Off hand I couldn't tell you a percentage. I can find out though. The late 70's they were about 10% of gross revenue. They dipped through the 80's and steadily increased through the mid to late 90's.

Folks like John Edwards drive up cost. There should be accountability for drug producers and health providers, but the current system is too extreme. The current legal climate is to sue everyone involved whether they had anything to do with the problem or not. It's typically 10k plus just to get dropped from something you had nothing to do with. I'm speaking to the construction industry. I figure it's much worse various medical fields. OBGYN's insurance is out of sight. Oncologist insurance is very minimal. What are you going to do, sue the doc that's treating you for a terminal illness?”

“I heard on the radio this morning that the government delivers Medicare twice to three times more efficiently than private insurance companies. While we legitimately attempt to streamline government, let's use it where it can serve us best. In other words, no knee-jerk giving away public services to private enterprise.”

“Medicare is not 2 or 3 times more efficient than private insurance.”

“"Folks like John Edwards drive up cost."

#&%!$ty service, corporate errors and policies that allow for life changing errors drive up the cost.”

“You forgot to list collective bargaining agreements.”

“BB - those things do drive up cost too. Talk to anyone involved with a medical field and they'll tell you the same.

NoProb - yep, that adds tons of cost too. An example is to look at construction cost data for Northern cities versus Southern ones. A huge part is cost of living. Another huge part are the unions.”

“Show me the data. Bring it on! I'll bet the non-union increases and bonuses contribute much more to the increase than the union's 3-4% raises every year.”

“I guess it kinda depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?”

“"Folks like John Edwards drive up cost......"

DH - I do not profess to know excatly every case the Mr. Edwards has been involved in; however, I did work in the legal evidence field for about 2 1/2 years, some moons ago. While Mr. Edwards is a high profile target for this statement, it smacks of politcal -ness and therefore can not be taken seriously. I'm sure that you don't mean every lawyer out there, yet you are citing that everyone *like* Mr. Edwards is to blame?

Let me give you a personal example:

My oldest son two years ago went *under the knife* for a simple proceedure, tubes put into his ears and his adnoids taken out. They didn't believe the weight we had given them, as he loks a little bigger than he weighs. The proceedure started at 7:20am and was to last only 30 mins, tops, we were told. By 10:30 am, I'm looking for someone (after being told by the doctor at 9:30am that he was going to check on him and in fact came back to tell us that it was taking a litle longer for him to come out of anasetic (sp?) and that he was fine). 11:30 am rolls around and I'm thinking the worst, demanding at the desk that I speak with someone. 12:30 pm rolls around and a hospital offical and another nurse come out and ask us to step into a room on the side. I'm concerned and pissed at this time. The person at gave him the anastectic (sp?) then came into the room and gave us his line of bull. What had happened was that he gave my son too much and they *pushed the fluids* into him. Long story even longer, my son almost died because of this man's poor judgement. Nothing has affected me more, even my father dying in my arms, than to see my little 1 and 1/2 year old, hooked up to machines and seeing the look of "Ooooooh, crap" in the eyes of all 8 hospital people standing around him. Lucky for us, he got through it, with no brain damage, or any other damage for that matter.

Now, could we have sued? You betcha. This person showed a matter of fact additude when explaining his error to us, like it was not his fault, which it was. Did I sue? Nope, I was just happy enough to get my son outta there and be on our way. Was this a disservice? Absolutly! By us not sueing, we sent a message that his error, though an awful thing, went without being punished. It might have also showed that SOB that people are not like cars and should be treated as humans.

I have personaly wittnessed some attourneys out there that are trying to make a quick buck, but I think that every job field has these kinda of people. Also, remember that this has been going on for a very long time (law suits against doctors) and only now are we getting more expensive healthcare? The majority of lawsuits are settled and never see the court room, yet I find it very ironic that now that we allow drug companies to advertise on TV, health care has jumped up at the rate it has. This, is nothing more than a fleecing of the American public and the pasty is the trial lawyer.

PS - I'm not trying to single ya out, DH. Your post just provided the avenue for mine.”

“I'm glad your son is ok. There is nothing worse than seeing a sick kid in the hospital.

I had a cardiologist that didn't want to see my son a 2nd time because he was convinced that he didn't have what my pediatrician suspected he had. Very rare disease. The ped insists that he sees us on a Mon morning. We go in before office hours, hear a speech about how he didn't have what the ped says he has, puts Reece on the ultrasound table, 5 minutes later says "Mom, Dad, look at this, here are 1, 2, 3 aneurisms on his left descending coronary artery (widow maker arter)" We freaked. This guy is considered the best in the country as far as ped cardiologist goes. If he hadn't seen it my son would have likely died of a heart attack at the age of 4. On the one hand, he didn't want to see him. On the other, if the best damn guy in the country can't figure it out, who can? We are forever thankful for our pediatrician who stood up to the experts. He's no slouch himself as the ex-head intern at Vandy. To this day, in bedtime prayers, we say, Thank you for Dr.xxxx. I'm a little teary typing this, actually.

I'm not saying all lawyers are that way. There is a time and place for lawsuits.

Let me give you an example from my field. Eng and Archs won't design condos anymore unless they are teamed with the owner and he buys the prof liability insurance. The reason is that condos (I'm talking about the big ones in coastal areas) are big enough for class action and typically don't maintain their buildings. Attorneys, lots of attorneys, went around the the home owner groups and bascially said, you haven't kept up your building, how about we get our forensic folks (whore A&E folks) to come in and evaluate your building. They nit-pick it, sue the A, E, and GC, win some money and they get a fee and the home owner group gets big money. This is a nation wide issue.

BB - All I have is $/sf costs for different cities across the country for the same building type. It's an aid for GC's to cost out buildings. It wasn't a challenge, I don't have time for them. It was merely the numbers I come across.”

“Wow, the liberal propaganda is reaching maximum density (pun intended) in here today.

Drink up Useful Idiots!


”

“Yep, understandable, DH. I too am glad that your little is safe. I'm sure that both of us and really al of us, could cite situations where the *syetem*, what ever that system is in question at the time, where it fails. I do not believe that anything that happens in this world can be pointed to only one thing, yet many things. Just like in this situation. Where lawsuits have made things, like the building you create/work on safer, there are people out there designing structures that are not safe. Unfortunatly, people who do design safe structures have to pay for others mistakes, juts like the lawyers. Are medical rates up just because the lawyers sue? No, but I'm sure it plays a role in it. I tend to believe that situations are not as cut and dried as some would like us to believe they are.


How about this type of *solution*. Seeing as it's all doctors that pay incresed insurance costs for poor practices, wy not set up an organization where the doctors help police themselves? Or, maybe set up a tiered system to where you pay more if you've been sued more? As easy as it seems, maybe that would be just too easy, as the insurance companies would loose out in that system as well, as tehy are in the cat-bird seat in all of this.”

“"Healchcare costs rose over 36% over the past 3 years."
- Buddha Bear
09:40:18 AM

I guess that sucks if you realize that the average worker only saw their pay increase by 12.4 percent over the same time and the number of Americans spending more than a quarter of their income on medical costs climbed from 11.6 million in 2000 to 14.3 million this year, but I call that typical lib negativism.

The good news is that CEO compensation in the insurance industry rose an average of 15% from 2002 to 2003 alone.

Why do you hate America and capitalism so Buddha Bear?”

“That system exists. Insurance rates are directly tied to what goes out.

The things that wind up in most codes are due to natural events, ie, hurricanes and earthquakes. No lawsuit needed, the academics jump on that stuff quick.

I guess your first paragraph is what sums up my biggest problem with the left in general and lots of folks I know in particular. Say something goes bad and it's just one of those things that happens. All of the sudden there are rules put in place to counteract the one freak event from ever happening again, yet it effects dozens of other situations that have no relation. Rule upon rule upon rule just doesn't make sense, yet it happens every day. I realize both sides of the fence do this everyday, it's human nature. It just seems to me that folks on the left do this more than folks on the right.”

“My brother in law is a pharmaceutical sales rep. I love yanking his chain about how the drug industry is ruining healthcare for the indigent.

It seems like there is an obvious divide, but the folks on the bad side of the divide have better health care than at any time in human history. There is tons of work to be done and lots of folks really get screwed by the system, no doubt, but the care is improving. That's not some sort of excuse for the right, just an observation.

I just reread all that an should clarify. I'm not saying someone who makes minimum wage has better healthcare than a millionaire did 20 years ago, I'm saying he has better healthcare than that same minimum wage worker did 20 years ago. No, I don't have numbers to back that up, but I suspect it's true.”

“I am just thinking a loud here:

Ok we went after saddam because of the horrible way he treated his countries people, but we haven't gone after Recep Erdogan and his country for the inhumane laws in which they live by...(eg.death penalty for homosexuality)??!!
Believe me there were far worse things happening in Turkey than there was in Iraq a year and a half ago!!!
Until we protect all the people of this country, with laws and civil rights, should we really have the right to judge countries that have yet to make it as far?
America has to accept the fact that this is what we have grown to be, and that we have no right to force our way of life and our beliefs upon other learning/growing nations and countries.”

“Interesting angle, angii. So, in fact, are you asking for America to be consistant within her own boarders before we ask others to do that same?

How do you feel that civil rights are not given to all? Isn't everyone that is a citizen within America covered by our Constitution and Bill of rights?

I do agree that we should be more careful about how we throw our weight around this world. That, in part, is one reason for terrorism against us in the first place.”

“Actually Laqtis their are people who are not protected, and as we all know bush wants to ammend the constitution. Several times a bill has tried to pass that would protect all of us from "hate crimes" but it fails to pass because of the call for protection of homosexuals. And now with Homeland Security and all the new "law" agencies arrupting because of Sept.11th what civil rights are really left?”

“You get the same civil rights no matter what you screw.”

“...as we all know bush wants to ammend the constitution...

We all know nothing of the kind. If you believe that he wants to amend the constitution, fine. But please don't try to pass your feeble opinion of as something "we all know".

As for hate crimes, would some one please explain why a crime that is motivated by hate is worse than one that is motivated by something else (greed for instance). That just doesn't make since.”

“then why is it that i do not get to claim my partner, we've been together now 20 years. and what about our children, how come i have to pay a lawyer to make sure my estate will go to my partner and not my sister and brother first, how come i can be fired and not have the right to sue, home come i wouldn't automatically get my children if my partner was to die suddenly, if I have all the same rights as you, you must also be gay.”

“OMG NoProb he said it in his speech at the Convention !!!??? where have you been ??”

“I'm against amending the constitution. This is an issue that should be left to the states to decide.”

“angii, If I select a partner of the same sex the rules are the same for both of us. If you select a partner of the opposite sex the rules are the same for both of us.

If you do not want to claim your partner after 20 years maybe you should dump them.”

““Bush was stupid to close off that option at the very beginning.”

reformed lurker


I disagree that he closed “…off that option.” You saw all of the resolutions that the UN passed. You saw how many Saddam ignored. The UN did the same in Bosnia, it did the same with N. Korea, and it is doing the same with Iran. I believe that Bush got tired of dealing with that do-nothing bureaucracy, just like Clinton did in Bosnia. Just a quick check of motives, lurker. Did you feel as strongly against Clinton’s ignoring the UN as you did Bush’s?

What Clinton (and Bush senior) did was to form a coalition of countries outside of the UN. I criticize the Bush administration for not doing a better job of coalition building outside of the UN.



Geez, laqtis, I can’t find anything to disagree with in your post. I may be able to tell my perspective about a few things, but give me some time here. One thing I am absolutely sure of: If you really want a F#$KED-UP mess, put me in charge. I know next to nothing about foreign diplomacy and its intricacies, and I have no access to the information necessary to make these kinds of decisions. Me expounding on how bad Bush’s decisions were, and what would be a better choice, would be an exercise in arrogant demagoguery.

Bush’s plan was obviously to create a stable democracy in the Middle East. Iraq is a great country to try it in. They have an educated populace with a large middle-class. A stable democracy in the Middle East has been in the US’s interest for many years. Whether you agree with it or not, it was a bold progressive move, rather than the “conservative” stance of status quo. Whether a stable democracy in Iraq is achievable, only time will tell.”