Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on December 15, 2002, 05:58:16 PM
-
Gore won't run in 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/gore/index.html)
Now 2004 just got interesting to me.
Let's see who can get him/herself nominated.
Will it be from the Pelosi side of the fence?
Or will reality set in?
This could be much better than last time.
-
Who knows, I might vote Democrat this time.
-
They'll prolly start by trashing John Kerry's war record..
He may have a mistress in his past.. reason he didn't run with Gore in 2k
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
They'll prolly start by trashing John Kerry's war record..
If "they" do, "they've" earned the right, given the crap floating around about GWB. It's a two-way street.
Seriously though, Tom Daschle aside, I would stop to consider anyone outside the Clinton circle, at least long enough to look up their voting record. Daschle just doesn't appear all that bright to me.
-
three Purple Hearts and Bronze and Silver Stars
Hard to trash a record like that.
Maybe we'll have a McCain - Kerry ticket??
-
If "they" do, "they've" earned the right, given the crap floating around about GWB. It's a two-way street.
Wasn't the GWB camp the point of origin of the, "McCain isn't quite right", after spending time in the Hanoi Hilton?
Sometimes, same party politics makes a two-way street a roundabout.
-
So you can bet the so called "conservatives" in Washington will try every smear tactic in the book.
Bio:
John Kerry was born on December 11, 1943 at Fitzsimmons Military Hospital in Denver, Colorado, where his father, Richard, who had volunteered to fly DC-3's in the Army Air Corps in World War II, was recovering from a bout with tuberculosis. Not long after Sen. Kerry's birth, his family returned home to Massachusetts.
A graduate of Yale University, John Kerry entered the Navy after graduation, becoming a Swift Boat officer, serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat.
By the time Senator Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he felt compelled to question decisions he believed were being made to protect those in positions of authority in Washington at the expense of the soldiers carrying on the fighting in Vietnam. Kerry was a co-founder of the Vietnam Veterans of
America and became a spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- Morley Safer would describe him as "a veteran whose articulate call to reason rather than anarchy seemed to bridge the call between the Abbie Hoffmans of the world and Mr. Agnew's so-called 'Silent Majority.'" In April, 1971, in testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he asked the question of his fellow citizens, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Sen. Claiborne Pell, (D-R.I.) thanked Kerry, then 27, for testifying before the committee, expressing his hope that Kerry "might one day be a colleague of in this body."
Fourteen years later, John Kerry would have the opportunity to fulfill those hopes - serving side by side with Sen. Pell as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But in the intervening years, he found different ways to fight for those things in which he believed. Time and again, Kerry fought to hold the political system accountable and to do what he believed was right. As a top prosecutor in Middlesex County, Kerry took on organized crime and put the Number Two mob boss in New England behind bars. He modernized the District Attorney's office, creating an innovative rape crisis crime unit, and as a lawyer in private practice he worked long and hard to prove the innocence of a man wrongly given a life sentence for a murder he did not commit.
In 1984, after winning election as Lieutenant Governor in 1982, Kerry ran and was elected to serve in the United States Senate, running the nation's first successful PAC-free Senate race and defeating a well-heeled Republican opponent buoyed by Ronald Reagan's reelection coattails. Like his predecessor, the irreplaceable Paul Tsongas, Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation for independence -- and reinforced it by making tough choices on difficult issues: breaking with many in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA; and insisting on accountability, investment, and excellence in public education.
Sen. Kerry was re-elected in 1990, and again in 1996, defeating the popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country. Now serving his third term, Kerry has worked to reform public education, address childrens' issues, strengthen the economy and encourage the growth of the high tech New Economy, protect the environment, and advance America's foreign policy interests around the globe.
Chimpys going down in 2004...and I don't mean on Unka Dick.. :cool:
-
Have been looking around, found an interesting site and not just for Kerry but he's there.
Make sure your Pop-up Stopper is ON first
John Kerry on SenateMatch (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry_SenateMatch.htm)
Seems to be based on how he voted on various bills rather than what the Media says about him.
Of course, there's a rating at the bottom that has to have a subjective formulation.
-
Kerry is one of the people I would consider voting for, but I would have to learn a great deal more first.
As to "Chimpey's goin' down"... well... the words "Jeb's gone" are still ringing in my ears. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If "they" do, "they've" earned the right, given the crap floating around about GWB. It's a two-way street.
Yeah, a draft dodging daddy's boy who skipped out of his last year of National Guard service because they started testing for drugs.
Boy, that sure is some "war" record.
:rolleyes:
And it was the Republicans who opened that door when Clinton ran in 1992, not the Democrats against Bush in 2000.
-
Thanks for the help in proving my point, Karnak. :D
-
Jeez, maybe could we talk about upcoming possibilities in a positive vein rather than rolling in the hog pen yet again?
You guys are close to making me do a "rolleyes" thingie in a thread.
I'm trying to be happy and positive that I may actually have a choice this time but I get this crawly feeling that nothing has changed in the bitterness department.
How about a fresh start and a fresh look?
-
"He started it!" ;)
I could vote Democrat if the right guy arrived. I dunno about Kerry, but he definitely isn't in the "no" column as of yet.
-
You definately cannot judge someone's politics by their war record.
Take Strom Thurmond for example.
1942-46 World War II; First US Army - American, European and Pacific Theaters. Landed in Normandy on D-Day with 82nd Airborne Division, awarded 5 Battle Stars. For his military service, earned 18 decorations, medals and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Belgian Order of the Crown, and French Croix de Guerre.
http://thurmond.senate.gov/pages/bio.htm
-
I guess his SNL debute didn't go over to well ???
shame, I was hoping goron would be the dems choice to lose the 2004 elections
whoever it is, hope they have their usual batch of clowns stumpin for him/her/it - clinton, sharpton, jesse, dashole, terry, etc ....
-
Eagler, I think you miss the possibility here...
The Dems may actually put a good candidate up. They do have some options. Not that I am unhappy with Bush Jr., but he wasn't my first choice. Let's see what the Dems come up with in the next year.
Anyway, I suppose if you are going to go straight ticket this is still good news. There will be enough viable Dem candidates to split the platform if things get ugly in the primaries- which they usually do. Gore sure did a number on Bradley.
-
I like Bradley too.
Kerry - McCain ticket?
-
How come none of you lib's are chanting "Hillary! Hillary!" ? :rolleyes:
-
everyone hates hillary.
i'm still astounded she got elected.
mccain was much funnier on SNL than gore.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How come none of you lib's are chanting "Hillary! Hillary!" ? :rolleyes:
Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Oh god please let it be Hillary!
-
How do kerry and bradley feel about gun control?
lazs
-
Neither Kerry nor Bradley think like you and I on gun control Laz. Kerry seems a tiny bit closer to us than Bradley.:(
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Eagler, I think you miss the possibility here...
The Dems may actually put a good candidate up. They do have some options. Not that I am unhappy with Bush Jr., but he wasn't my first choice. Let's see what the Dems come up with in the next year.
Anyway, I suppose if you are going to go straight ticket this is still good news. There will be enough viable Dem candidates to split the platform if things get ugly in the primaries- which they usually do. Gore sure did a number on Bradley.
I would vote for ANY republican before I voted for ANY dumbacrat
as I know the Republican would be surround by a capable support staff, same can't be said for the dummycrats
-
I hope you are not serious, Eagler.
-
Laaaaaaaaaawk Baaaaaaaaaaaaaawx
-
"Neither Kerry nor Bradley think like you and I on gun control Laz. Kerry seems a tiny bit closer to us than Bradley.
"
End of conversation.. gun control is about the only thing you can count on the candidates to actually tell the truth on... They all want to "help" us in every other damn issue and never stick to what they claim in the election but... on gun control... they can be counted on to stay with their election promises... so... I am a one issue voter..
I don't trust any candidate who doesn't trust me with a gun... I don't trust any candidate who is friegtened of citizens being armed.
lazs
-
Kerry just said he is running in 2004, and the next thing he said was "the republicans have a SECRET PLAN to raise taxes on the working poor and low income workers"....sounds like a real party line democrat to me.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"the republicans have a SECRET PLAN to raise taxes on the working poor and low income workers"....
(http://www.hollywood-costumes.com/austinpowers/assets/images/evilgrey.jpg)
-
Al Sharptan.
Dems need to find a throw away for 2004. Bush wins a second term.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Kerry just said he is running in 2004, and the next thing he said was "the republicans have a SECRET PLAN to raise taxes on the working poor and low income workers"....sounds like a real party line democrat to me.
If that's true, Kerry is no longer a contender in my book. You have a link to this?
-
From Kerry's official website.
"Washington, DC – Senator John Kerry responded to today's report in the Washington Post that the Bush Administration is planning new proposals that would "shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers". (Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, A3,12/6/02) Senator Kerry said, "I am stunned that at a time when low income working Americans are struggling to make ends meet, the Bush Administration is actually working to raise taxes on those who can least afford it. It is hard to believe that this Administration is so out of touch that they are considering increasing the tax burden on struggling workers while lobbying to secure huge, new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that the working poor don't pay enough in taxes. This is an insult to working Americans everywhere and flies in the face of American values of fundamental fairness. "
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=188841
-
Doesn't look like a "Secret" plan at all.
"New Tax Plan May Bring Shift In Burden
Poor Could Pay A Bigger Share
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A03
As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.
Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59577-2002Dec15.html
-
Thrawn-
The tax issue is rank-and-file party line. What I am more concerned about is the Oliver Stone-esque "Secret Plan" comment.
No, it isn't a shock to me that a Democrat would complain about those mean ol' Republicans that favor flat tax structures.
-
Total Income Tax Share (percentage of federal income tax collections paid by each group)
1999
Total 100%
Top 1% (> $ 293,415 AGI) 36.18%
Top 5% (> $ 120,846 ) 55.45%
Top 10% (> $ 87,682 ) 66.45%
Top 25% (> $ 52,965 ) 83.54%
Top 50% (>$ 26,415 ) 96%
Source: IRS
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 1999 & 1989 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)
-
from '89 to '99 the average tax rate is up 13% as is the total number of taxpayers (total increase of nearly 27%)
peace dividend my prettythang...do go crying for the top 1% - their fraction of the nation's income increased 37% '89 -'99, while the 2nd quatile's share droped 2.5%
-
Regardless of the income, explain to me the fundamental fairness of charging more because of higher income.
Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a school teacher, hardly in the upper tax brackets. Still, I have to admit taking more from the rich just because they make more is inherently... socialistic.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Gore won't run in 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/gore/index.html)
Now 2004 just got interesting to me.
Let's see who can get him/herself nominated.
Will it be from the Pelosi side of the fence?
Or will reality set in?
This could be much better than last time.
yup, 04 will be better for the democrats because Bush's economic team didnt dooo anyting. Vvvote GORE for the democrat party.
-
You guys are fooling yourselves.....
Gore will run in 2004. Its just like when he called Bush and conceded the election only to call back and say "NOT". That man just wont go away.....
I wish he would but oh well......
-
Originally posted by whgates3
peace dividend my prettythang...
[/b]
'89-'92 Who had the White House?
'93-'00 Who had the White House?
89-95 Who had the House of Representatives?
95-99 Who had the House of Representatives?
89-95 Who had the Senate?
95-99 Who had the Senate?
This tax/spending thing isn't a Democrat or Republican thing.. it's a politician thing.
do go crying for the top 1% - their fraction of the nation's income increased 37% '89 -'99, while the 2nd quatile's share droped 2.5% [/B]
So, you're against people making money if they're good at it? They should be punished?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Regardless of the income, explain to me the fundamental fairness of charging more because of higher income.
Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a school teacher, hardly in the upper tax brackets. Still, I have to admit taking more from the rich just because they make more is inherently... socialistic.
A flat tax essentially favors the rich and hurts the poor. (I am in favor of a flat tax system BTW)
10% of $20,000 is much more of a hardship to that person earning 20k than 10% of $1,000,000.
-
Kieran,
To make my position clear, I'd vote for a Republican that I agreed with, or seemed likely to do better for the country. I'm not locked into the Democratic candidate.
My priorities simply make it that much more likely that I'll vote Democrat, but it is hardly inconceivable that I would vote Republican.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A flat tax essentially favors the rich and hurts the poor. (I am in favor of a flat tax system BTW)
10% of $20,000 is much more of a hardship to that person earning 20k than 10% of $1,000,000.
"Favors"?
Indeed, in your example it's $2000 versus $100,000. Considering the tax system we have now, the millionaire would save a considerable sum of money under a flat tax.
However, how is this being "favored"? Aren't both citizens being treated as equals by the tax code under a flat tax?
Would seem that the flat tax offers the much desired but elusive "equality" that is so sought after in our society.
And a flat tax and be tweaked to shelter the lower income groups too.
To me, it's merely a fairness issue. In fact, I would be willing to pay more than I do now under a flat tax that was set up to shelter the lower income levels from any tax IF:
1. It was applied to all folks above a certain "low income exempt" level equally.
2. There were no loopholes or tax dodges.
3. There was greatly simplified calculations. Basically 5 minutes of figuring with a pocket calculator for any salaried or hourly worker.
-
most "flat tax' ideas have a cut off around 25-30k with no tax under that number
-
Originally posted by Toad
'89-'92 Who had the White House?
'93-'00 Who had the White House?
89-95 Who had the House of Representatives?
95-99 Who had the House of Representatives?
89-95 Who had the Senate?
95-99 Who had the Senate?
This tax/spending thing isn't a Democrat or Republican thing.. it's a politician thing.
that was what i was pointing out.
our government will continue to take as much $ as it can w/out revolt, stifling real wealth & Q of L increase for us.
this is the thing conservatives are supposed to be against.
as much as real GDP has increased over the years, shouldn't we all be able to survive on shorter work weeks by now? if the average dude could get by on 40 hrs/week in 1980, then that same guy should be able to get by on 20 hrs/week presently or work 40 hrs/week & live high on the horse, but that is not the case - still 40 hrs/week to scrape by, with little more to show for it except a slightly longer life expectancy working 40 hrs/week
So, you're against people making money if they're good at it? They should be punished?
most of the people who make lots of (get lots of) money dont create wealth. as anyone who has read adam smith knows, all wealth is created by labour. CEOs manipulating the stock market to increase the value of their options does not create wealth, it just transfers it....flat taxes would unemploy nearly 1,000,000 accountants - they have a lobby & lots of $ to bribe with - probably would never happen & even if it did, it would have to be more like 30% than 10 & its not really flat, as one group pays a hell of a lot more than others
personally, i'd like to see a real flat tax - everone pays an even share - for todays gov't about $20,000 per worker - you'd see plently of gov't spending cut real fast, or a lot of incumbents out (& real conservatives in) nearly as fast...of course everyone making less than $30,000/year would probably quit their job...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Who knows, I might vote Democrat this time.
you better vote the democrats in 04 or else (lol)
-
Originally posted by whgates3
everyone hates hillary.
i'm still astounded she got elected.
mccain was much funnier on SNL than gore.
i want hillary to be the vice president in 04
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
(http://www.hollywood-costumes.com/austinpowers/assets/images/evilgrey.jpg)
Bush jr's "statigery"
-
most of the people who make lots of (get lots of) money dont create wealth.
So you're proposing higher tax rates on anyone that is not actually "labor"?
:)
That's not the issue and I think you know it. There's going to have to be a tax system and the one we have now is absurd. It's isn't remotely fair to anyone and it's way too complex.
Time to scrap the whole thing and start over. I think a combo flat tax and national sales tax (or VAT) might be a way to even get some of the underground economy folks to chip in.
-
VAT would inhibit spending - bad for the economy - people would just buy most of their stuff mail/internet order from canada or black market. that type of tax is like a subsidy for organized crime.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hard to trash a record like that.
Maybe we'll have a McCain - Kerry ticket??
You wish:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
You wish:)
Your right....
Kerry - McCain :p
-
Regarding a flat tax or national sales tax, it will never happen.
A living breathing beast lives here, who's substance is that of lawyers and accountants and all that follows those two groups.
I agree that it would be better, it's just not going to happen.
-
You will never sell a conservative on redistribution of wealth. You will never get a liberal congressman or senator to vote flat tax, as it reduces their power base.
Status quo.
-
dont buy mccain's act.
hes as corrupt as the rest.
dont forget your S&L scandal history.
might as well elect neil bush
-
Blast from the past! :D
How much of this conversation holds true today?
Let's see, Kerry focuses his campaign around his war record, and the right exposes the truth...looks like 10bears and Weazel was sort of correct! :) They didn't see the smear tactics of F911 coming though! ;)
-
I sure never figured I'd be voting Libertarian this time.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hard to trash a record like that.
Maybe we'll have a McCain - Kerry ticket??
Boy howdy was I wrong!..
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Let's see, Kerry focuses his campaign around his war record, and the right exposes the truth
Truth in your world must be something different.
-
Then you truly won't mind the POW's telling what happened to them in Stolen Honor?
;)
-
I truly wouldn't mind if Sinclair offered Kerry 90 minutes of prime time to rebut the docudrama.
-
He invited Kerry to particpate in the show. Sounds fair to me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Truth in your world must be something different.
"Reporting for duty!" (remember? ;) )
How soon you forget...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040504/news_1n4kerry.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I truly wouldn't mind if Sinclair offered Kerry 90 minutes of prime time to rebut the docudrama.
F911 is playing on pay per view the night before election, what more do you want?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Boy howdy was I wrong!..
nah you just werent fully informed. most werent. kerrys antics common knolwedge in some parts of military which equals "esoteric".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
F911 is playing on pay per view the night before election, what more do you want?
I want you to admit that there is a HUGE difference between pay-per-view and broadcast TV. (See the FCC for clarification if you like)
-
Originally posted by Toad
He invited Kerry to particpate in the show. Sounds fair to me.
Hehe..
"We're gonna hang ya John... would you like to come?"
-
Originally posted by anonymous
nah you just werent fully informed. most werent. kerrys antics common knolwedge in some parts of military which equals "esoteric".
I wasn't wrong about Kerry, just about the depths the cons would reach to damage a war hero. sad really.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wasn't wrong about Kerry, just about the depths the cons would reach to damage a war hero. sad really.
you said you have respect for military i believe you. what kerry did after coming back from vn is very close to treason. he met with senior enemy leadership in secret while still commisioned officer in us military. he lied before senate in such a way as to provide enemy with propoganda while us was at war.
-
Getting near Halloween, all this rummaging around thread graveyards. But Toad was right -- not much Gore in 2004.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
you said you have respect for military i believe you. what kerry did after coming back from vn is very close to treason. he met with senior enemy leadership in secret while still commisioned officer in us military. he lied before senate in such a way as to provide enemy with propoganda while us was at war.
Not that I agree with you, but nothing he did upon his return has anything to do with his actions in combat. You can attack his politics or his antiwar actions all you want. I just get my neck hairs in a snit when people attack a man's combat record.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not that I agree with you, but nothing he did upon his return has anything to do with his actions in combat. You can attack his politics or his antiwar actions all you want. I just get my neck hairs in a snit when people attack a man's combat record.
No, nothing he did had anything to do with HIS actions in combat...but it affected so many POW's. This man will lose, and his combat record will be a moot point after Nov. 2nd. He turned on his fellow veterans, its time that his fellow veterans turns on him. And they will...
-
Red Herring.
Stolen Honor isn't about Kerry's war record. It's about what he did AFTER the war and how it affected US servicemen held in captivity by the NV.
As for "a hanging", maybe it's more like what Truman said about "give 'em hell, Harry".
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought
it was hell."
There's guys that know what happened in the Hanoi Hilton; they're still around and they had it happen to themselves.
Now, if some can't take the fact that Kerry's post-war activities had very negative results for American servicemen held in the Hilton.... that ain't Hell or a hanging; it's just the truth.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Doesn't look like a "Secret" plan at all.
"New Tax Plan May Bring Shift In Burden
Poor Could Pay A Bigger Share
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A03
As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.
Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59577-2002Dec15.html
Thrawn please stop throwing facts in the mix... It disrupts those who love their party right or wrong.
As Eagler just said "I would vote for ANY republican before I voted for ANY dumbacrat "
:eek: