Reasons not to vote for John John.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 08 Jul 2004 14:09

With all the Bush bashing going on, I felt it was important for democracy to have a fair John John bashing session as well.

It will be more productive to keep this a reason not to vote for Kerry thread, rather than a debate over issues. Someone else can start that thread.

1.) Kerry has vowed to make an amendment guaranteeing illegals citizenship, as long as they are not breaking any laws and are working in the United States. Both of these conditions break the law and are both felonies. So basically he is saying come on in break some laws I need your votes.

2.) Both Kerry and Edwards have bashed each other on opposing issues. Issues that are both important and many in number. If they can't agree, how can they lead?

3.) Kerry has no plans for Iraq.

4.) The democratic party is blocking Ralph Nadar from the ballots in every state. Last election Nadar was on 43 of 50 ballots. He is a lock for at least 7 this go around, but has not been able to secure any due to blocks in place by the democratic party.

5.) Edwards is too young to be a VP of an entire nation. Not to say he wouldn't do great, just that he lacks experience as a leader.

Feel free to add your comments.

lightningbolt · Post by **lightningbolt** » 08 Jul 2004 14:19

Kerry has no plans for anything!

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 08 Jul 2004 14:29

kerry loves terrorists

He is the next mao

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 08 Jul 2004 16:18

I think this is a good idea for a thread. An informed electorate can make better decisions. That said, I don`t think Damon`s arguments are very persuasive at all.

FlexThis wrote:
1.) Kerry has vowed to make an amendment guaranteeing illegals citizenship, as long as they are not breaking any laws and are working in the United States. Both of these conditions break the law and are both felonies. So basically he is saying come on in break some laws I need your votes.

OK, first off: a President can`t make an amendment. Congress has to pass it. Last I checked, Congress is controlled by the Republicans. Second: Illegal aliens cannot vote, so even if Kerry proposed this, how will it get him votes?
Thirdly: didn`t HighDemonSlayer mention that Bush supported this same measure?

FlexThis wrote: 2.) Both Kerry and Edwards have bashed each other on opposing issues. Issues that are both important and many in number. If they can't agree, how can they lead?

Every single President-VP ticket which was the product of a primary battle can claim the same thing. Reagan-Bush anybody? Remember the term `voodoo economics`? That was during the 1980 Republican primaries, where George Bush Senior was criticizing Reagan`s economic proposals as ridiculous. Yep, when Reagan got the Presidential Nomination from the Republican Party, he signed on Bush Sr as his VP.

Seriously man, the list of VPs and Pres. candidates who disagreed with each other in primaries is huge, and has generally had no impact on how government went.

FlexThis wrote: 3.) Kerry has no plans for Iraq.

1. This is a false statement.
2. `no plans` couldn`t possibly be any worse than Bush`s `current plans.`

FlexThis wrote: 5.) Edwards is too young to be a VP of an entire nation. Not to say he wouldn't do great, just that he lacks experience as a leader.
.

JFK was pretty young and did a decent job. And as for `inexperienced leaders,` it`s hard to imagine a leader with less experience than George W. Bush. Seriously, before he was President how many years of public service did he have under his belt? One term as governor of Texas.

Honestly, I think that this thread has potential, but only if it raises valid arguments.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 08 Jul 2004 19:12

[quote="C-Fan"]2. `no plans` couldn`t possibly be any worse than Bush`s `current plans.` quote]

how about no plans for terrorists, and then we get attacked and I DIE. I think thats worse than taking oil from Iraq.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 08 Jul 2004 19:12

Woah!! Ken's back! That's awesome - props Ken

There were some good reasons at democracy now - although they aren't reasons why you should vote for Bush either.

Kerry and Edwards are both pro war.

They both support the death penalty.

They are both in favour of the PATRIOT act.

They are both in favour of corporate globalization.

Since Bush is also in favour of all those things the only solution is to move to Australia where you can have real freedom and play footbag with me all the time

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 09 Jul 2004 07:18

It will be more productive to keep this a reason not to vote for Kerry thread, rather than a debate over issues. Someone else can start that thread.

Thanks for reading my ENTIRE post before slamming me to the mat.

OK, first off: a President can`t make an amendment. Congress has to pass it. Last I checked, Congress is controlled by the Republicans. Second: Illegal aliens cannot vote, so even if Kerry proposed this, how will it get him votes?
Thirdly: didn`t HighDemonSlayer mention that Bush supported this same measure?

Yes, but we are not talking about Bush in this thread

(I roll my eyes cause I care). And I didn't make the statement, Kerry did. Gray Davis former governor of CA tried the same thing and got kicked out of office.

Every single President-VP ticket which was the product of a primary battle can claim the same thing. Reagan-Bush anybody? Remember the term `voodoo economics`? That was during the 1980 Republican primaries, where George Bush Senior was criticizing Reagan`s economic proposals as ridiculous. Yep, when Reagan got the Presidential Nomination from the Republican Party, he signed on Bush Sr as his VP.

Seriously man, the list of VPs and Pres. candidates who disagreed with each other in primaries is huge, and has generally had no impact on how government went.

Except that you just mentioned Voo-doo ecomonmics being a bi-product of a mis-matched presidency, so you disproved your own point. Had Reagan's views been closer to those of his VP, things might have been different - just speculating.

1. This is a false statement.
2. `no plans` couldn`t possibly be any worse than Bush`s `current plans.`

He has made no public statements regarding plans for Iraq. Seeing as we spent 87 billion to be there, I would like to know what his plans are before I had him the keys to the Nation. That's all.

JFK was pretty young and did a decent job. And as for `inexperienced leaders,` it`s hard to imagine a leader with less experience than George W. Bush. Seriously, before he was President how many years of public service did he have under his belt? One term as governor of Texas.

Once again, this is not a Bush bashing thread, we have one of those already. This is a John John bashing thread. Please re-read the note clearly typed in my first post.

Secondly. JFK is dead and never had a chance to prove himself. I am from NC and am familar with John Edwards and his views, and they are a little immature and more along the lines of wishful thinking with concerns to the middle and lower class.

Since Bush is also in favour of all those things the only solution is to move to Australia where you can have real freedom and play footbag with me all the time

I agree!

As a side note to Ken: I am only playing Goldberg with your arguments. I felt inspired by his email chain to footbag.com and thought I'd try out my Goldberg in this thread seeing as how you broke my rules right off the bat.

THAT'S ALL I EVER WANTED... -Goldberg

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 09 Jul 2004 07:57

Check this shit from his actuallo voting record.

They're not Bush tax cuts, they're Democrat tax cuts.

Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on FY99 tax cuts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)

VOTE LIBERTARIAN

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 09 Jul 2004 08:05

Kerry made this statement on national TV. Obviously we know what he meant, but that's not how it came out. Below are 3 statements with comas added for clarity:

If John Edwards and I are elected healthcare in this country will be a right not a privilege for the wealthy.

How I heard it and how it was said:

If John Edwards and I are elected, healthcare in this country will be a right not a privilege, for the wealthy. (He paused for applause before adding for the wealthy to the end of his statement, making it sound as if only the wealthy will benefit)

How it was meant by Kerry:

If John Edwards and I are elected, healthcare in this country will be a right, not a privilege for the wealthy.

I guess punctuation is important in this instance.

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 09 Jul 2004 14:08

what do wealthty need health care 4? i need healthcare damn it!!!!!! me poor

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 09 Jul 2004 14:10

illegal immigrants need healthcare!! thats what john kerry wants

COMMUNIST

sorry

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 11 Jul 2004 09:19

actually i was stoned during my earlier reply. fuck health care i'll make my own way and so should everyone else nobody should have to pay for anyone else unless they want to thats what charity is for..

R U callin me a communist or Kerry? cause Kerry is but certainly not I...

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 11 Jul 2004 18:47

420FootBager wrote:R U callin me a communist or Kerry? cause Kerry is but certainly not I...

Ahahah, I think you had enough trouble trying to say he was a socialist, but a communist? That's just funny dude.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 11 Jul 2004 19:22

kerry

mao

anyone else notice the resemblance

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 11 Jul 2004 19:40

Hey check out this awesome article I found
http://collectdolls.about.com/library/w ... 20100a.htm

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 11 Jul 2004 21:35

420FootBager wrote:VOTE LIBERTARIAN

<sarcasm>Because free market-capitalism is whatever everybody wants and needs... </sarcasm>

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Jul 2004 00:39

420FootBager wrote:actually i was stoned during my earlier reply. fuck health care i'll make my own way and so should everyone else nobody should have to pay for anyone else unless they want to thats what charity is for..

R U callin me a communist or Kerry? cause Kerry is but certainly not I...

I understood two things from this post.

1. You are heartless and don't care about other people so long as you are ok. Personally I am not heartless and think everybody should have access to free medical services. It's obvious from the places in the world where this happens that it not only means everybody has a higher standard of living but that they are more productive - creating a better economy as well.

2. You have a very limited idea of what the word "communist" means and the history of "communism." It is plainly obvious that Kerry is not a communist. Communists would probably find that suggestiong offensive and would make every effort to distance themselves from Kerry.

I'm amazed that Matt is comparing Mao to Kerry, even if he isn't completely serious. The more I read about American politics the harder I find it to see the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. The most obvious person to compare Kerry with is Bush, although Kerry doesn't seem to say stupid things all the time.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 12 Jul 2004 05:38

Jeremy you are absolutly right. Our "choices" are no choices at all. What should we do?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 12 Jul 2004 06:40

This thread has some legs, and I can support or pose a few valid arguments.

Immigration( C-Fan was correct, hey we're on the same page for once!):

Yes, Bush does support a scheme that is bad for the American people, and it is absolutely doomed to fail in delivering votes for himself.

I know so few details of Kerry's proposals (when they exist), but his proposal, or his party's, will undoubtably offer MORE than anything a Republican could proposal.

Because:
"Why vote for a fake liberal when you can vote for the real thing?"

Lack of experience:

"(.......)The very thought of John Edwards and John Kerry- two of the richest , most liberal politicians in the Senate, possibly sitting in the White House with absolutely no foreign policy experience whatsoever - should be sending chills up your spine this very moment."

--Doug Schmitz

-n

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 12 Jul 2004 09:25

Jeremy wrote:
I'm amazed that Matt is comparing Mao to Kerry, even if he isn't completely serious.

you know me jeremy

The most obvious person to compare Kerry with is Bush, although Kerry doesn't seem to say stupid things all the time.

Kerry doesn't say ANYTHING.

modified

Reasons not to vote for John John.

Reasons not to vote for John John.

Re: Reasons not to vote for John John.

Re: Reasons not to vote for John John.