Slashdot Mirror

Depending on your point of view he either made a smart political calculation or cynically pissed on your rights during his ride to the White House

I'm opting for pissed on my rights since it really doesn't seem like that smart of a political calculation. Now instead of being called weak on national security he's being called a flip-flopper. Of course we all know that being called that has NEVER cost anyone an election.....

From Kerry's Blog: http://www.johnkerry.com/blog
JK: "A good healthy discussion was interrupted"
by Rick Albertson on September 18th, 2007

Senator Kerry made the following statement in response to the arrest of a student at the University of Florida:

        In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.

        I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

        I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

        I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

        I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

Yeah, but at least now when I surf while hungry, I don't end up sick to my stomach. ;)

that every link I make is a contribution to a campaign? Where can you honestly draw the line? From what it looks like, this is a contribution.

Fought Global Terrorism. John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia.

But who really wants the endorsment of an outfit that gave us Jayson Blair, and harped on Bush IIs National Guard "service" while completely ignoring the fact that Kerry never released all his records - and if you think Kerry did release all his records, answer me why Kerry's discharge that he did release is dated from the Jimmy Carter years - 1978 to be exact. One wonders why that could be... Of course, Kerry didn't release the records on that.

And that's not a story for the NY Times? Why not?

A few clarifications:

There are two draft bills, not one.

S.B. 89 has never gotten out of committee, so Democrats could never have voted for it.

H.R 163 was defeated 402-2, so even if both "for" votes were cast by Democrats, that's about 1% of all the mules in the House. To say "it was Democrats who voted for it" is misleading.

John Kerry's plan didn't call for mandatory military service. Instead, it provided incentives like college tuition. Republicans were quick to mischaracterize the term "national service", even though much of the plan was simply meant to increase volunteerism. Read more.

Oops... here is the link http://www.johnkerry.com/forms/electiondayreport.p hp

...but I find it a little surprising that there is no mention of a concession over at JohnKerry.com. There is also no denial of a concession, so maybe it's just lazy Kerry people figuring that their work is done now.

Although I realize that neither candidate is ideal, there is one overwhelming reason to vote for Kerry in this election.

The real issue, as far as our national security is concerned, is a crippling dependence on foreign oil. Being a finite and economically extremely important resource, competition over oil is a point of conflict on a world scale. With China finally entering the scene, this competition will inevidably get worse.

Of the two candidates, only one supports putting money into a national project toward becoming independent of forgein (especially middle eastern) oil. Given an effort reminiscent of the drive to the moon, or the manhattan project, this goal is not as impossible as it may seem. The groundwork has already been laid with great advances in nuclear power plants (a 60 year old technology that we have allowed to go by the wayside due to early failures) as well as hydrogen fuel. If our best and brightest were faced with the task of developing these and new technologies, the return would be immense.

Imagine, we would no longer have such a vested interest in meddling in the affairs of the middle east. Today, it is necessary because without their oil our economy would be crushed under its own weight. Not needing their oil, we would need nothing else from the region. As unfortunate of an analogy as it may be, the Middle East could be treated in much the same way as we treat Africa, that is, given little to no attention. Not only that, but the returns as far as technology and job creation would be just what our country needs. We would produce new fields and job opportunities that will never exist otherwise. We would have a head start into the next phase of economic evolution.

Now, Im not foolish enough to think that Kerry will deliver a Kennedyesque speech starting this grand project, but he will at least get us moving in the right direction. Check out the Energy Independence section of his campaign site to see the Talking-Point versions of his ideas.

The alternative is an Oil Man who has shown no interest in changing the losing path our country is following. Instead, he started a war that may leave one of the worlds richest oil reserves up for grabs. Leave Iraq? Impossible. That would be like handing our energy needs directly to Iran, who, incidentally, already once tried to take it by force.

When you go to the polls today, please try to see past the partisan veils that have been strategically hung by attack ads and political pundits on FOX, CNN, etal. Hopefully you've done your own research, and can come to a rational decision based on facts gleaned from a wide array of sources with a whole spectrum of biases (unbiased sources simply don't exist).


Tryba

The parent's "published plan" link doesn't work for me.

The official link with the plan appears to be:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/p lan.html

I don't see any mention of a draft here. It looks instead like a quite reasonable exchange of military/public service for college financial aid incentives.

• Kerry refuses to unseal his military records. Bush has fully released his even though they raise questions about the tenacity of his service.
• Kerry is running for CIC (just to be clear)
• Kerry's service was over in 1972
• Kerry didn't receive an honorable discharge until 1978. Regulations require him to be discharged within 3 years. Not getting a discharge by 1975 is against regs. We haven't seen a pre-1978 discharge of any kind
• Kerry's honorable discharge as provided by his campaign.
• The discharge cites two US Code sections, both Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163.
• Section 1162 refers to the power of the President to discharge an officer. So this section tells us where the discharge originated. We have reason to believe Carter was ammenable to doing favors for Kerry - remember Carter pardoned Peter Yarrow (of Peter Paul and Mary fame), Godfather to John Kerry's daughter, for his statuatory rape of a 14 year-old girl.
• Section 1163 is more interesting. Section 1163 allows for discharge in one of the following scenarios:
  • Court Martial or a Board of Officers review
  • AWOL or Criminally Imprisoned officers
  • an Officer who is separated from the services "for cause"
• One of these scenarios has to be true.
• When Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1985 he had the Navy reissue him certificates for his metals.
• This is highly unusual as what's typically done is to just pull the existing records from the personnel file and reissue the metals
• Said metal records would be rescinded from the personnel file upon a dishonorable or undesirable discharge

First, the website. There are specific plans located on the right side of every "Issues" page. For example, http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdffor the economy.

Second, CNN, in this case, is quoting directly from State Department figures, supported by sources at Stanford and Princeton. The state department figures are compiled by "the CIA and the Terrorist Threat Information Center, which includes officials from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA." I hope you agree that *they* do not have any anti-government bias.

In regards to the issue of Kerry being supported by Osama; Osama is evil, but he is not an idiot. Only an idiot would believe that the endorsement of a presidential candidate by the most wanted criminal in the world would help that politician's cause. If he truly is endorsing Kerry, then it's not so that Kerry can win, and by defeating him you are playing right into terrorists' hands.

Finally, to insult the credibility of CNN and in the same breath to quote the New York Post seems somewhat absurd, what with Mr. Murdoch's decided Republican tilt.

• Bardnik
• Bush
• Cobb
• Kerry
• Nader

the teorrists are running scared at another Bush administration

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since terrorist attacks have actually increased (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell. terror/) over the past years to a 21-year high.

And if you want specifics regarding Kerry's campaign, I suggest you visit his website (http://www.johnkerry.com/). There you will find a 9-page economic plan and a number of information pieces about his security policies. Kerry's "lack of concrete policies" is simply another Bush myth.

Take a look at this article about Kerry's official position on space. Or better yet, see what Kerry's web site says about NASA.

General outlines:
- More NASA funding for research
- More balanced priorities (read: less spending for operations, less human spaceflight, more research)
- Probably no Human Moon/Mars program -- he claims Bush can't pay for it either, which I agree with.
- More aeronautics R&D
- Continued international cooperation
- NASA management reforms

So in short, it seems Kerry endorses more science, more R&D, and less Buck Rogers. While I like the Buck Rogers stuff, I have to agree that unless we're going to do it in a radically different manner, we've reached a dead end with Shuttle and ISS. I would rather park Shuttle and halt development of ISS, instead of spending another $50B to complete construction. I've posted comments to this effect on many occasions... so I won't bore you with it again.

The war is not meant to be won....

Please.

Bush says we're going to "win the war on terror".

The Bush-haters talk about how it's not possible to win a war against a noun.

Then Bush admits on a the Today show that he doesn't think you can actually completely "win" a war on "terror", but that we can certainly do a good job making many regions unfriendly to terrorists.

Then the Bush-haters - the same ones who said we can't win - go apeshit because Bush says just that.

The Kerry has even harsher rhetoric about how we are going to find, hunt down, and kill all of the terrorists, that we CAN AND WILL *win* the war on "terror", that we should be fighting and winning against Al Qaeda in all sixty nations they're operating in, and that he wants to greatly expand the US military, and talks about terror in terms that would require an even greater escalation than anything we've seen under Bush (unless, of course, he's egregiously lying).[1]

And those same Bush-haters apparently have no problem with this head-spinning contradiction.

Please, explain this to me, because I can't fucking keep up.

[1] http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_20 04_0924.html

There is still some reference to it; mandatory has been removed.

The reality of it is a simple redirect page shouldn't have any errors, and a simple "splash" page shouldn't have 33.

And for those wondering, his actual index page at www.johnkerry.com/index.html brings back 46 errors when fed through the HTML validator.

a simple "splash" page shouldn't have 33.

Indeed. BTW, his actual index page at www.johnkerry.com/index.html brings back 46 errors on the HTML validator.

Bush(www.georgewbush.com): 303 errors.

Kerry(www.johnkerry.com): 2 errors.

Nader(www.votenader.org): unable to validate.

Badnarik(badnarik.org): 13 errors.

Cobb(www.votecobb.org): 217 errors.

spineless coward that might be even more accurate....

Personally I think a google bomb is in order, who's up for it? flip flopper

Not that Kerry isn't a tool, but that kind of statement is just BS. Here's a sampling of propaganda from his campaign site:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafat's isolation.

I am committed to seeing the end to the Castro regime, which I have long condemned for its flagrant human rights abuse and political oppression.

Kerry will use military force to kill terrorists and destroy their networks.

Sounds like he's really pro-communist, pro-terrorist, pro-palestinian. right. Sure it's campaign fodder, but there is no way in hell any of the three people you just mentioned have any love for Kerry.
I'll give you that Arafat probably wants to see Kerry elected, as Bush has embraced Sharon like no other US leader. Maybe even Castro, though I don't see why - he doesn't have any better history dealing with Democrats than with Republicans. I'd bet Zarqawi (who is not a "world leader" by the way, just a two-bit terrorist the Bush administration has hyped up to all hell) wants Bush to win so he can get more recruits.

Anyway, the Mullahs in Iran have endorsed Bush. Guess they recognize their own kind when they see it.

Not that Kerry isn't a tool, but that kind of statement is just BS. Here's a sampling of propaganda from his campaign site:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafat's isolation.

I am committed to seeing the end to the Castro regime, which I have long condemned for its flagrant human rights abuse and political oppression.

Kerry will use military force to kill terrorists and destroy their networks.

Sounds like he's really pro-communist, pro-terrorist, pro-palestinian. right. Sure it's campaign fodder, but there is no way in hell any of the three people you just mentioned have any love for Kerry.
I'll give you that Arafat probably wants to see Kerry elected, as Bush has embraced Sharon like no other US leader. Maybe even Castro, though I don't see why - he doesn't have any better history dealing with Democrats than with Republicans. I'd bet Zarqawi (who is not a "world leader" by the way, just a two-bit terrorist the Bush administration has hyped up to all hell) wants Bush to win so he can get more recruits.

Anyway, the Mullahs in Iran have endorsed Bush. Guess they recognize their own kind when they see it.

Not that Kerry isn't a tool, but that kind of statement is just BS. Here's a sampling of propaganda from his campaign site:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafat's isolation.

I am committed to seeing the end to the Castro regime, which I have long condemned for its flagrant human rights abuse and political oppression.

Kerry will use military force to kill terrorists and destroy their networks.

Sounds like he's really pro-communist, pro-terrorist, pro-palestinian. right. Sure it's campaign fodder, but there is no way in hell any of the three people you just mentioned have any love for Kerry.
I'll give you that Arafat probably wants to see Kerry elected, as Bush has embraced Sharon like no other US leader. Maybe even Castro, though I don't see why - he doesn't have any better history dealing with Democrats than with Republicans. I'd bet Zarqawi (who is not a "world leader" by the way, just a two-bit terrorist the Bush administration has hyped up to all hell) wants Bush to win so he can get more recruits.

Anyway, the Mullahs in Iran have endorsed Bush. Guess they recognize their own kind when they see it.

Well, then, treat it like a business transaction. Since his product is unavailable, try another like this one or this one. I'm sure Nader and Kerry would appreciate your business.

In a time where 537 votes makes ALL the difference, the ten-thousand plus Americans overseas certainly do not consider themselves a statistically negligible group. Your feelings may vary.

Granted, it's primarily Republicans that are fighting to ensure that not all the votes counted, as they did in 2000 when they argued before the Supreme Court that racially marginalized populations don't deserve to have their votes counted (being too brown, and all), but it's not at all inconceivable that someone overseas might not know how to vote and might need to find out how to vote. While they can, of course, search for the information on Google and check out cached pages and do a reverse DNS over IP doubleback-traceroute off a proxy server in Malaysia to get to the information they need, chances are they are not as computer savvy as your average slashbot (though certainly more worldly, as you've pointed out). In fact, there is undoubtedly someone out there that can only guess at where they might go, and it certainly seems to the layperson that the candidates that want your vote might have information on how to vote on their webpages. Guessing http://www.georgewbush.com/ is a lot easier than guessing http://www.eac.gov/register_vote_forms.asp.

Of course, if people overseas can't get to the cesspool of lies that is georgewbush.com, they're more likely to go to the mildly festering swamp of lies and revealing truths at http://www.johnkerry.com/, or preferably the amusing and admirable http://www.georgewbush.org/. Either way, it's a step in the right direction (or at least shorter strides in the wrong one).

I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.

Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.

The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.

And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.

Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.

Those are some of my reasons.

Things I disagree with Bush on:

1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.

In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.

Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.

Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:

1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.

2. Why the hell does he try to pret

Or vote Badnarik - he's a libertarian, so no way in hell he's going to implement anything government-run.

Your post is just pure karlrovery, kid.

In case you're reading this, I've got another random thing for you, from this week's issue of TIME magazine. 54% of 18-24 year olds believe that Bush will institute a draft if re-elected (compared to 4% for Kerry) because of the ridiculous draft rumor that's been going around. And yes, it is ridiculous, because it's based in lies (that the government increased the Selective Service Administration's budget by "28 million dollars" when it has in fact not been increased, and its entire budget is only 26 million; or that a defendamerica.mil web page for "How you can help" - one of many - gave people information for volunteering on local draft boards, a capability that the United States has maintained since Vietnam...and NO, they didn't sit "vacant for years" as the chain email states). Or that it was a "secret administration effort" when in reality it was introduced in the House and Senate by all liberal politicians to make a (questionable) point about disproportionate minority percentages in the military.

Then, sites like stopthedraftnow.com trumpet "WE WON" when it was the Republicans who actually forced the vote on the bill to kill the incredibly stupid rumors, and now say "NOW IT'S ON TO THE SENATE", when in fact the Senate has already decided to never vote on this bill, or hear any more discussion about it. Even funnier is that more Republicans than Democrats support the idea of an exclusively all-volunteer military, and there is a Republican-sponsored bill to get rid of the Military Selective Service System altogether.

Not to mention that Kerry's rhetoric about INCREASING troop levels in Iraq by up to *two fold*, increasing the size of the regular Army, and insisting we should be "fighting and winning" against Al Qaeda in *all 60 nations they're operating in* actually means that, if anything, we're closer to the need for a draft under Kerry (IF his rhetoric is true) than we would be under Bush!

My point? It goes both ways. If 54% of supposedly informed college-aged kids think that there is going to be *a fucking draft* under Bush, compared to *4%* under Kerry, when Kerry is actually advocating what would require the greatest escalation of our forces since probably World War II, we've got just as big of a problem as 44% of people thinking some of the hijackers were Iraqis.

And the supposedly non-partisan "Rock the Vote" campaign has been running full page ads showing a kid with long hair getting his head shaved with the caption: "GO TO COLLEGE or GO TO WAR: YOUR CHOICE". The implication is obvious.

You're absolutely right. The Kerry/Edwards campaign really ought to explain their plan in detail somewhere....

Yeah, Kerry keeps repeating the simple outlines of his plan, though somehow the media (and many opponents) keep ignoring it, and claiming he has none. As I (not a part of the Kerry campaign or his policy staff) understand it:

1> Accept that we are still at war
2> Add enough properly supplied troops to the level necessary for tactical victories, and control the entire country (not just the parts on camera)
3> Bring our allies back to help, like in 1990, when it cost us only about $5B (instead of the $200B so far this time) and we all bore the casualties. That will also remove lots of recruiting propaganda about "Iraq vs. America". Our allies include, first and foremost, Iraqis.
4> Rebuild infrastructure to keep Iraqis vested interest in peace, rather than keeping them with nothing to lose

Their plan is detailed more at their website.

You'll hear Bush (and company) say that Kerry has no plan, that his plan is wrong, and that his plan is the same as theirs, depending on which audience Karl Rove thinks is listening. Bush obviously has no plan - the man himself has never had a plan, other than to stay close to his father - and is just hoping to keep the game rigged long enough to keep his job through the election, so he can forget about it for awhile, work on some other ripoffs. Kerry is making his own decisions, and needs to close the book successfully on Iraq, like Clinton did on the Bush Sr deficit and recession, to get reelected in 2008. Let's get someone in there with accountability. Enough of this media hero worship claptrap about "better character": they're both in the "compromise business" (politics); I want the guy who can get caught and stopped when he does wrong. Kerry is much more accountable, while Bush is incapable of even admitting he's ever made even a single mistake. He doesn't know how. Let's give him a few decades to figure out who screwed up his reelection, where he can't hurt anyone any more.

Thanks to the net, as an American am acutely aware of some heinous problems with our government and our economy. The worst of the dangers (govt spin pro-war 1984-style, Patriot Act, outsourcing, horrific public education system) are largely ignored or spinfully reported by mainstream media and these crooks, but I can see for myself online. Hopefully there is a trend here towards more awareness, even though so much is still hidden from us.

What the Chinese govt seems to understand, and what I fear most for their subjects, is that sniffing, blocking, filtering, and controlling the Internet is the most important means of keeping power from the people in the future. How will they do it? Is it possible? I fear that it IS possible. If you control all the fiber coming into the country, and you control everything published inside the country, then you can just keep on governing the old-fashioned way.

It's a good size for the shorter European men[1], but like so many other Americans, I'm a a few inches over size feet (about 1.95m), and I'm already sick of so many things, especially cars, being designed with only quote-unquote average height people in mind. I could never ride in, let alone drive, one of these clown cars.

Another European import fails to account for demographic differences, and will go nowhere (but with great milage).

---
1. Dutch excepted, of course.

I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem
so that I don't have to worry about that so much.
The President has had nearly a term in office since the Sept. 11th outrage.
If you think the degree to which he has removed the
terrorist problem is acceptable then you should vote
for him.
If, however, you believe that during his term he
should have been able to utterly destroy Al Quida
then I'd like to suggest an alternative
Al Quida is still in existence.
Q.E.D.

I wasn't aware that he tried to get a deferment, if its true, I hate to point this out to you but its just one more case where he hasn't been straight with people, because he tells everyone he eagerly volunteered for Vietnam in order to serve his country. Flip-flop.

As soon as he had the nomination he nailed he turned back in to himself, a wishy washy centrist trying to offend no one, which is what the pundits told him to do to win the general election, he was neither for or against Iraq, nor for or against the Patriot Act, and his first policy initiative was a tax cut for big business. Unlike many people in America, it seems, I have a pretty good memory for political BS.

I don't recall him saying anything about the Patriot act, maybe he has I just missed it.

He believes some provisions of the Patriot Act - like the money laundering provisions - must be made stronger. Others - like the library and "sneak-and-peek" search provisions - must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America.

It appears to me that you are looking for Black and White answers, served to you on a silver platter, with a side of chips. Congradulations, despite what you think, you are typical.

I wasn't aware that he tried to get a deferment, if its true, I hate to point this out to you but its just one more case where he hasn't been straight with people, because he tells everyone he eagerly volunteered for Vietnam in order to serve his country. Flip-flop.

As soon as he had the nomination he nailed he turned back in to himself, a wishy washy centrist trying to offend no one, which is what the pundits told him to do to win the general election, he was neither for or against Iraq, nor for or against the Patriot Act, and his first policy initiative was a tax cut for big business. Unlike many people in America, it seems, I have a pretty good memory for political BS.

I don't recall him saying anything about the Patriot act, maybe he has I just missed it.

He believes some provisions of the Patriot Act - like the money laundering provisions - must be made stronger. Others - like the library and "sneak-and-peek" search provisions - must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America.

It appears to me that you are looking for Black and White answers, served to you on a silver platter, with a side of chips. Congradulations, despite what you think, you are typical.

Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web [site] in another post.

You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?

I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)

To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan:
The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states

Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism.

March 2002:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)

So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them?
Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.

Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm

Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web [site] in another post.

You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?

I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)

To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan:
The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states

Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism.

March 2002:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)

So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them?
Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.

Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.

Interesting you should say that... I went to the website Senator Kerry mentioned at the debate the other night and it had a lot of interesting information about national security and the economy. Maybe you should check it out and get yourself informed.

Am I the only person who thought Senator Kerry did an excellent job of addressing a primary concern of many young Americans in his closing statement: what kind of world am I going to be handing to my children?

I see John Kerry's biggest strength in his abilities as a diplomat and communicator - two areas where George W. Bush has failed miserably. The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails.

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.

Interesting you should say that... I went to the website Senator Kerry mentioned at the debate the other night and it had a lot of interesting information about national security and the economy. Maybe you should check it out and get yourself informed.

Am I the only person who thought Senator Kerry did an excellent job of addressing a primary concern of many young Americans in his closing statement: what kind of world am I going to be handing to my children?

I see John Kerry's biggest strength in his abilities as a diplomat and communicator - two areas where George W. Bush has failed miserably. The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails.

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.

Interesting you should say that... I went to the website Senator Kerry mentioned at the debate the other night and it had a lot of interesting information about national security and the economy. Maybe you should check it out and get yourself informed.

Am I the only person who thought Senator Kerry did an excellent job of addressing a primary concern of many young Americans in his closing statement: what kind of world am I going to be handing to my children?

I see John Kerry's biggest strength in his abilities as a diplomat and communicator - two areas where George W. Bush has failed miserably. The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails.

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.

Interesting you should say that... I went to the website Senator Kerry mentioned at the debate the other night and it had a lot of interesting information about national security and the economy. Maybe you should check it out and get yourself informed.

Am I the only person who thought Senator Kerry did an excellent job of addressing a primary concern of many young Americans in his closing statement: what kind of world am I going to be handing to my children?

I see John Kerry's biggest strength in his abilities as a diplomat and communicator - two areas where George W. Bush has failed miserably. The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails.

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete.

I've seen this sentiment stated in almost exactly this way probably hundreds of times, and I'm not sure I understand it. Inevitably, the author never presents evidence of said "nebulous lists". He ignores the fairly clear formualtion of policies on the campaign platform page for the candidate.
Further:
By definition, this argument must ignore any presented evidence of clearly formulated policy (because it's too complex). It is, besides, impossible to present an intelligent alternative because someone will raise the ad hominem issue of the other candidate appearing unintelligent; then the issues are lost in the partisan discussion. (This is an incredible clever move on Mr. Bush's part; he's pulled it off with much more panache than ex-President Ford).

The issue will be continually distorted by these ad hominem attacks - "he really is that stupid!" - "flip-flopper!" - "liar!" - which ignore the first question we sought to answer, that of policy.

==

As to the issue of "the same information, the same decision, etc. etc." - really? Was John Kerry also privy to the intelligence this article discusses, about the useless tubes? I honestly don't know; I'd love to find out.
Even so - even if Bush's favorite phrase out of that whole debate a few nights ago ("same information, same conclusion!" - my favorite is still the "he forgot Poland" classic) - then it's at the very least a vote against Ashcroft.

Kerry voted against Kyoto? Gee, that's pretty amazing considering the Kyoto protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

Kerry had some problems with that version of the protocol but he definitely recognizes that we have to do something about global warming. That's why he has authored legislation to cut down on greenhouse gases.

Here's a quote from him on Kyoto:

"Bush's abrupt and unilateral decision to abandon discussions with the world community on climate change was early evidence of this Administration's misguided approach to dealing with the community of nations. Dropping out of international implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was foolhardy then, and it is even more obviously foolhardy today."

And here's some info on his legislative efforts regarding global warming:

Compare Kerry and Bush's environmental policies
Kerry and Bush sharply divided on response to global warming

Excerpt from the Seattle Times article:

"Kerry, like Bush, opposed American participation in the current Kyoto treaty. In 1999, he joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that stated that the United States should not ratify the treaty unless China and other rapidly developing countries were also required to reduce greenhouse gases.

But Kerry, who has called pollution a "mortal threat" to the climate, wants to reopen the Kyoto negotiations to refashion an agreement acceptable to the United States.

And even without U.S. participation in the treaty, Kerry has backed mandatory efforts to control carbon dioxide.

His most high-profile effort was a 2002 bill that he and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., submitted to the Senate to force automakers to improve automobile efficiency.

The bill would have required that average fuel economy for autos sold in the U.S. to rise from 24 mpg to 36 mpg by 2015. Lower fuel consumption would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

That bill was opposed by the U.S. automotive industry and automotive unions, which argued that the target was too extreme. It failed to pass the Senate.

Kerry also supports at least modest federal caps on U.S. emissions of greenhouses gases, such as the caps contained in legislation submitted to the Senate last year by McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

That bill seeks to ensure that the overall U.S. emissions in 2010 would be no higher than the overall levels back in 2000.

Can't you do both ( step one, step two) like the late Earl Warren ?

There wont be "rebuttals" in this "debate". The rules disallow it.
Personally, I'll be watching the coverage at Free Market News, which will include rebuttals of the "major" candidate's points- just not by either of them.

Evidence, please? For the last 12 years I've lived within 10 miles of Fenway Park. Most of the people I associate with are Red Sox fans. The vast majority also support Kerry. For your information, Massachusetts, ground zero of Red Sox Nation, supports Kerry over Bush by 64% to 27% according to electoral-vote.com. VT, CT and RI are also Kerry states, while ME and NH are swings. It's clear that New England, Red Sox Nation, is Kerry country. Gee, that one was like shooting fish in a barrel!

They will swear beyond *reasonable* doubt, as many of them have done.

Not in a court of law! No case has been tried, despite the fact that the Bush administration is hotter to find the CBS "forger" than it is to find the Nigerian Yellowcake forger. Swearing in a blog is a little different, you'll have to admit. For now, until we get more info on the CBS docs, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Whoops, no. Reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt.

Got me.

And faxes can cause the same effect.

Moving glyphs on the same line up and down? Bull. Show me or retract.

I was using hyperbole. The point was that Kerry has not even run significantly on his own Senate record, so of course the criticisms of Kerry will be primarily about what he has *said*.

Well, I criticised you on what you had said. You said, with emphasis, "he hasn't done anything." Admit it, you were dead wrong. Why don't you check out that link comparing Kerry's legislative accomplishments to Cheneys'. Yeah, I know it's a waste of time giving you links, but what the heck.

Read the other reply I just wrote --> but the fact is that Kerry doesn't have much of a record in the Senate. If he did, he would run on his record in the Senate,

Says you, but you're not running the Kerry campaign. You've found them guilty of making different choices than you would. Big deal. It fails to address my point, which is that you seem to be getting all your info from anti-Kerry sources, and that makes you seem ignorant. Again, I'm not saying you are ignorant; just that your lack of knowledge of the Kerry point of view lead you astray.

You have the same problem understanding conjunctions as the other respondent.

Ooh, I love this one. It appears that what the other respondant and I did here was to take your words out of context and use them to make you appear to be some kind of idiot. But hey, the whole Bush Cheney campaign is based on exactly that approach! They did it in 2000, they're doing it now. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Karl Rove -- I learned everything I know watching him! Oh boy, that was fun! (OK, truth be told, I parsed your sentence without ever seeing the interpretation you intended. I see what you mean now, but it was an ambiguous sentence with a primrose path.)

That is absolutely false, and you should be embarrassed. From May 2003 debate: ...

You clearly didn't follow the link I provided. The debate comments you cited are consistent with Kerry's senate floor stand:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options," Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

But As I said before, I don't have any problem with people changing their minds occasionally. As I said before, I often take it as a sign of common sense. You and the GOP on the other hand take it as a major flaw. Given your stand changing one's mind, how do you explain this

Looking at Kerry's own site, he fail to do much of anything in regards to opposing the Patriot Act. Check this link http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0525b_a.pdf
For those not wanting to open the PDF file, the top line states "Kerry Wants to Keep 95 Percent of Patriot Act and Strengthen the Rest".

As to the Skeletor reference, both Kerry and Bush are members of Yale's Skull & Bones society.