John Kerry Timeline

[UrbanPancake]

But, TurnipCowcake says the tax cuts only helped the rich. Woo Hoo! Now I'm rich. I read it on the Internet, so it must be true. How in the world is Scarey Kerry going to improve the economy? We currently have single digit unemployment rates and interest rates.

300 dollars is nothing. You know what I did with my tax cut? I put it in the bank and saved it. It didn't even go back into the economy.(no goods were purchased with my money) I would rather have lower college costs for my children, and lower health care costs for my family. That would be a real savings, and the savings from these two things alone would boost my consumer morale, and encourage me to spend more on manufactured goods. But instead I get a whopping 300 dollars. Big deal. That is nothing in today's market.

 

[ylexot]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Case closed. That was Osama.

That just shows your extremely narrow view of the "War on Terror" (I'm sure you hate it being called a war...actually, so do I). The struggle against terrorism is not about getting Osama. That's only part of it. It's not about 9/11. That's only part of it. The "war" is about eliminating any and all that will use terror as a weapon against us. It is also against those that support those tactics.

 

[PrchJrkr]

I won't quote you out of respect for those that have you on iggy, but any tax relief is welcomed in a single income home. Good for you for saving, but that IS putting it back into the economy. Do you think your money just sits in the bank waiting for you? We used ours to get new tires for my wife's van, which would have to have waited.

 

[PrchJrkr]

That just shows your extremely narrow view of the "War on Terror" (I'm sure you hate it being called a war...actually, so do I). The struggle against terrorism is not about getting Osama. That's only part of it. It's not about 9/11. That's only part of it. The "war" is about eliminating any and all that will use terror as a weapon against us. It is also against those that support those tactics.

Amen to that. I appreciate the fact that the terrorists are being confronted on other shores by trained solders.
Let me see, who was at the helm when the terrorists had time to organize and strenghten

 

[UrbanPancake]

I won't quote you out of respect for those that have you on iggy, but any tax relief is welcomed in a single income home. Good for you for saving, but that IS putting it back into the economy. Do you think your money just sits in the bank waiting for you? We used ours to get new tires for my wife's van, which would have to have waited.

But you know what I think, a savings of a couple of thousand in college expenses, not including the interest I would save, would be a bigger help if you ask me. A couple of thousand dollars could be spent on a greater number of manufactured goods then $300 could ever buy. Don't even get me started on the savings in healthcare.......

 

[Aimhigh2000]

View

I actually have a very broad view of the fight against terrorism. We had Saddam in check, true, we did not know exactly where he was, however, we knew what was going on and where at all times. We had enough eyes in space looking down, that we could track just about anything. When I mentioned ignoring a country, he implied that 9/11 happened because of that. IMO, I simply think Bush is too focused on Iraq. Terrorists are in other countries, and probably setting up good camps. If Bush actually was hunting down terrorists besides focusing on one country, I could support him. But his lack of vision gives me lack of confidence in him. And Saddam didn't use terror against us. He knew darn well that we would come in if he made any stupid decision or allowed anything to come from his country. Saddam was evil, but not stupid. I mean, we trained him at the FLI at Lackland AFB. Saddam was fine as long as he was contained within his borders. With the Southern and Northern No-Fly Zones, we could have kept him in check for years. Much as we do Castro.

 

[SamSpade]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Case closed. That was Osama.

And Mark Chapman didn't shoot Bobby Kennedy. That was Sirhan Sirhan.

Why are people still so tunnel-visioned, they can't see that al-Qaeda is not the ONLY TERRORIST threat in the world? Do they all have to conspire *together* before they form a threat?

 

[PrchJrkr]

UrbanPancake...

I agree with you on something. I think healthcare costs are too high, but I also see a major factor in that to be malpractice lawsuits. We need tort reform. College costs are also outrageous. I lost all respect for institutes of higher education when I was required to purchase a book by my professor's friend, that we used for one paragraph of information. That to me is extortion.

 

[ylexot]

I actually have a very broad view of the fight against terrorism. We had Saddam in check, true, we did not know exactly where he was, however, we knew what was going on and where at all times. We had enough eyes in space looking down, that we could track just about anything.

Haven't you read anything about the missing explosives? Somehow we couldn't track that...

 

[ylexot]

But you know what I think, a savings of a couple of thousand in college expenses, not including the interest I would save, would be a bigger help if you ask me. A couple of thousand dollars could be spent on a greater number of manufactured goods then $300 could ever buy. Don't even get me started on the savings in healthcare.......

Here's the problem with government entitlements...the government is extremely inefficient. You want $1000 in entitlements? Get ready to spend a lot more than $1000 in taxes. I'd rather keep the money to spend it the way I want/need to.

How many people without health insurance have cable and internet access?

 

[SamSpade]

I actually have a very broad view of the fight against terrorism. We had Saddam in check, true, we did not know exactly where he was, however, we knew what was going on and where at all times.

Well apparently NOT, if several of the world's intelligence agencies including our own concluded he had WMD's. After the inspectors were booted out, we had very little to work with.

Terrorists are in other countries, and probably setting up good camps..

Except * IRAQ*, of course. Why do people believe the entire Middle East and Central Asia is brimming with terrorists, but somehow, Iraq was free of them? The 9/11 report did make it clear that there WAS extensive connection between Iraq and several terrorist groups, several of them, for domestic purposes (against the Kurds). He made NO effort to hide the fact that he was bankrolling Palestinian suicide bombers.

If Bush actually was hunting down terrorists besides focusing on one country, I could support him.

He has been. Iraq is just one theater in the war on terror. The other locales just don't make interesting news. I've heard one report that a terrorist threat is confronted on average of one every other day. A big one was the attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge some time ago.

Remember, it's not just terrorists themselves who pose the threat to us; it's any nation that supports them. You can only do so much without the support of a whole country.

But his lack of vision gives me lack of confidence in him. And Saddam didn't use terror against us. He knew darn well that we would come in if he made any stupid decision or allowed anything to come from his country. Saddam was evil, but not stupid.

Actually those closest to him believe he has been seriously delusional for the last dozen years or so. It happens to despots, like Stalin. He admitted he did not expect the US to invade the first time, and the Russians told him we would NOT invade this time - it would be just like Clinton in '98 - a few cruise missiles and a lot of saber rattling.

Saddam was fine as long as he was contained within his borders.

Well that's just it, isn't it? Terrorism provides the perfect means to strike without a viable miliary. And he was doing that, all the while repeating his threats.

With the Southern and Northern No-Fly Zones, we could have kept him in check for years. Much as we do Castro.

Those No Fly Zones - where he wasn't supposed to be SHOOTING at us, but did repeatedly - would have done NOTHING to repel the use of terror.

 

[Aimhigh2000]

Lemme See,

I know there are more terror organizations other than Al-Queda. It seems that the Bush Administration has the tunnel vision on that one. I mean, the Islamic Jihad did not just disappear like a fart in the wind. It just seems that when anything happens, the news and politicians instantly blame "Al-Queda". As far as the missing explosives, I don't blame that one on Bush. From what I have heard, we (The US) found them, and we didn't keep watch on them. Once something is found, they reconstitute satellites to other areas. I blame the ground commander for that one, if he is responsible. I have not read enough on that issue yet. I do believe that Iraq was not tied to 9/11. Like I said, Saddam was crazy, not stupid.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The problem with people that believe the government should spend the governments money to provide for them is they have lost sight of two very important things. The government does not have any money of its own; it is ours. And there is nothing anywhere in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to pass any law or use any money for any entitlement program. Every penny that is collected and spent on unconstitutional programs is illegally collected and spent.

 

[SamSpade]

I know there are more terror organizations other than Al-Queda. It seems that the Bush Administration has the tunnel vision on that one.

Did Libya just take y'all by surprise? That was largely with the assistance of the United States and Britain. For lack of a better phrase, a lotta sh!t goes down that doesn't make the news.

Granted, we probably won't be hunting down the PKK, as they do not currently threaten us. But there's a lot being done by this government.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Granted, we probably won't be hunting down the PKK, as they do not currently threaten us. But there's a lot being done by this government.

Hmmmm....so why did we go after Saddam? He didn't pose a threat either. Hypocrit!!!!!!!

 

[Penn]

I liked this article from Charles Krauthhammer. Admittedly he appears to lean more towards conservatives, but here he points out the "evolution" of John Kerrys' thinking.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041029.shtml
Of note, he examines Kerry's thoughts about how we won the conflict over the Taliban, the methods used, and the "outsourcing of combatants".

His statements for and against our tactics speak volumes about his honesty, integrity, and his ability - or inability to assume the role of commander-in-chief.

 

[Ken King]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Case closed. That was Osama.
I never said I was in Riyadh. I was in Al Kharj (where Prince Sultan Air Base is) a year after I left the AOR the first time. And I believe you to be the dweeb ya old fart. Get with the program. Congress did not believe in the use of force. They narrowly passed the resolution to do so. As far as the oil, um Haliburton = Cheney = Bush Family. They are trying to exploit the oil there just as they are trying to in Africa. Pull your head out and examine the real world. People in other countries hate our government more now than ever because of your beloved Bush. At least I am not blind. And if you check, I believe you will see that I am not that big a fan of Kerry either. I just think he will at least be more diplomatic about how we do things. And my experience? Combat/Pararescue. I have been places you probably have never heard of. Nuff said.

I forgot that you do not read to comprehend, I never said anything about Iraq having a tie to 9/11, only that they (under Hussein) would have liked to do something similar (actually worse) and that by doing nothing we allow for that possibility to be repeated.

And where is Al Kharj - 50 miles south east of Riyadh right? So you were a PJ, great, excellent field of endeavor. You still haven’t said when and where you came under fire. You did note that for my experience I provided the when, where, and what unit I was with, provide the same if you will?

“Congress did not believe in the use of force”? Well it was certainly included in HJR 114 that became PL107-243, so they must have believed in it or it would have looked like the measure passed during Clinton’s tenure that did not have the specific use of force authorization. Narrowly passed the legislation? House vote = 296-133, Senate vote = 77-23, is that narrow for you, it seems overwhelming to me so much so that it could have withstood a veto.

I find it funny that you have bought into the “oil” and Halliburton argument when nothing in the enactment of Congress is related to that. It is all about our protection and after being slammed on 9/11 we, or should I say many, have come to realize that the world isn’t the same anymore.

So you have been places I have never heard of, fine, I can probably say the same. What does it prove? At least I named when and where I have been and you have only provided one location, Al Kharj. BTW were you in Grenada as you alluded to earlier because I certainly don’t remember being briefed on a Cub Scout operation.

 

[UrbanPancake]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but it's interesting. (I was never eva, eva, eva in the military)

 

[Ken King]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but it's interesting. (I was never eva, eva, eva in the military)

It shows.

 

[UrbanPancake]

That I don't have any military experience? I don't. I'm not going to say I do when I don't. So when y'all are talking about form 185 and blah blah blah, I really have no idea what your saying. So bite me.