PDA

View Full Version : Kerry: Bush ignores 'average folks'



BAMAPHIN 22
08-20-2004, 11:38 AM
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Friday traced North Carolina's job loss over the past four years to President Bush's fixation on tax cuts for the wealthy and indifference to the needs of everyday Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/kerry.nc.ap/index.html

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 12:15 PM
Yeah..Kerry is the "Average Guy". Do you know he recently had his hairstylist flown across the country for a haircut, a-la Bill Clinton?

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 03:29 PM
Yeah..Kerry is the "Average Guy". Do you know he recently had his hairstylist flown across the country for a haircut, a-la Bill Clinton?

Difference is Kerry will come out and talk to the America people, Bush hides behind the WH walls until campaigne time. What I mean by that is do interveiws, speak to the press and other things. I think Kerry's administration will be more open, not have private meetings with HMO's to form the country's health plan, you know, things like that. Funny how you guys never question any of this. I know a lot of you are partisan, but as an American is anything questionable about this Administration. PP1227 I know you mentioned some, but others mention nothing. I'm just curious. This administration could be a dictatorship type admin, who questions your patroitism if you disagree with them and no one questions that. I don't get it. Even if I was a dem or repub, and the leader of my party does that, I bet I'd say something.

BAMAPHIN 22
08-20-2004, 03:50 PM
Here...Here... My thought precisely MDFINFAN...

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:54 PM
both bush and kerry are definitely not "average" guys no matter how often they try to project themselves as average guys. just look at their incomes. Also I doubt that either of them care about the average american.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 04:04 PM
Difference is Kerry will come out and talk to the America people, Bush hides behind the WH walls until campaigne time. What I mean by that is do interveiws, speak to the press and other things. I think Kerry's administration will be more open, not have private meetings with HMO's to form the country's health plan, you know, things like that. Funny how you guys never question any of this. I know a lot of you are partisan, but as an American is anything questionable about this Administration. PP1227 I know you mentioned some, but others mention nothing. I'm just curious. This administration could be a dictatorship type admin, who questions your patroitism if you disagree with them and no one questions that. I don't get it. Even if I was a dem or repub, and the leader of my party does that, I bet I'd say something.


I'm pretty sure Kerry would have a lot more press conferences. I'm also pretty sure the reason for that is because he would never have anything controversial to discuss. I firmly agree that Bush has done a poor job in the PR department. For some reason he went from an open Governor to a more closed off President. Maybe it's because of his reception when he took office...who knows. But what I'm pretty sure of is that Kerry will do a GREAT job of playing lip service...talking about goals he wants to achieve. But I can't see him doing any of the actual work to achieve them. That part involves pissing someone off, and that's just not in Kerry's makeup. Again, why would you expect someone who has done virtually nothing in 20 years as a Senator to do anything in 4 years as President?

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 04:08 PM
Again, why would you expect someone who has done virtually nothing in 20 years as a Senator to do anything in 4 years as President?

For the same reasons you guys keep expecting a guy who's run nothing successfully to run our country.

ohall
08-20-2004, 04:16 PM
Difference is Kerry will come out and talk to the America people, Bush hides behind the WH walls until campaigne time. What I mean by that is do interveiws, speak to the press and other things. I think Kerry's administration will be more open, not have private meetings with HMO's to form the country's health plan, you know, things like that. Funny how you guys never question any of this. I know a lot of you are partisan, but as an American is anything questionable about this Administration. PP1227 I know you mentioned some, but others mention nothing. I'm just curious. This administration could be a dictatorship type admin, who questions your patroitism if you disagree with them and no one questions that. I don't get it. Even if I was a dem or repub, and the leader of my party does that, I bet I'd say something.

That's total BS! I see him giving as many interviews as any other President. You won't find him on CNN though. This administration is just like most REP administrations. They always try and control the press. This is not an exclusive thing Bush #43.

You are so out of whack man it's scary. Your paranoia is controlling.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 04:26 PM
For the same reasons you guys keep expecting a guy who's run nothing successfully to run our country.


Really? The Taliban brought down? Libya and Sudan abandoning WMD programs, POSSIBLE stability in the Middle East because of Iraq, an economy that IS rebounding, freedom from any further attacks post 9/11...do you disagree with any of those things?

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 05:12 PM
Really? The Taliban brought down? Libya and Sudan abandoning WMD programs, POSSIBLE stability in the Middle East because of Iraq, an economy that IS rebounding, freedom from any further attacks post 9/11...do you disagree with any of those things?

Yes Really, the same would have happen to the Taliban under any president. While Libya and Sudan abandoned WMD supposively, I don't trust them, India and Pakistan are picking up the tempo, and you know about Iran. Korea now calling us out, China even more so threatening to invade Taiwan under our reasoning for going into Iraq. Bigger recuitment for Al Quida, our allies withdrawn from us and not sharing as much. Freedom from any further attacks post 9/11? :confused: I don't think so. There's a lot I could say here, but this would take too much time.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 06:18 PM
Yes Really, the same would have happen to the Taliban under any president. While Libya and Sudan abandoned WMD supposively, I don't trust them, India and Pakistan are picking up the tempo, and you know about Iran. Korea now calling us out, China even more so threatening to invade Taiwan under our reasoning for going into Iraq. Bigger recuitment for Al Quida, our allies withdrawn from us and not sharing as much. Freedom from any further attacks post 9/11? :confused: I don't think so. There's a lot I could say here, but this would take too much time.


Um...no. The Taliban were in place and supprting Al Quida for most of Clintons terms...he never took them out. And Libya and Sudan give up the wepons and allowed inspections...what else are you asking for? India and Pakistan are actually in a more peaceful state NOW than they have been for decades. Korea? They violated the nuclear treaty before Iraq. China? If you were born yesterday you could blame Bush for their stance on Taiwan. But only if you were willing to ignore 50 years of history. And I'm sorry you are confused, but maybe you could point out when the terrorists have attacked us post 9/11? I missed that story on CNN.

Section126
08-20-2004, 10:15 PM
Difference is Kerry will come out and talk to the America people, Bush hides behind the WH walls until campaigne time. What I mean by that is do interveiws, speak to the press and other things. I think Kerry's administration will be more open, not have private meetings with HMO's to form the country's health plan, you know, things like that. Funny how you guys never question any of this. I know a lot of you are partisan, but as an American is anything questionable about this Administration. PP1227 I know you mentioned some, but others mention nothing. I'm just curious. This administration could be a dictatorship type admin, who questions your patroitism if you disagree with them and no one questions that. I don't get it. Even if I was a dem or repub, and the leader of my party does that, I bet I'd say something.


First of all.....Your "Kerry will talk to the Folks" comment is complete BS.....Bush is 5000 times the people person that Lurch is....

Second....since when does the country have a "Health Plan" for Bush to discuss with HMO's about?

Nobody has questioned anybody's patriotism.......you are just as paranoid as those moron libs.

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 11:32 PM
Yes Really, the same would have happen to the Taliban under any president. While Libya and Sudan abandoned WMD supposively, I don't trust them, India and Pakistan are picking up the tempo, and you know about Iran. Korea now calling us out, China even more so threatening to invade Taiwan under our reasoning for going into Iraq. Bigger recuitment for Al Quida, our allies withdrawn from us and not sharing as much. Freedom from any further attacks post 9/11? :confused: I don't think so. There's a lot I could say here, but this would take too much time.
Oh Lord,...we went through this yesterday, France and Germany do NOT = all "our allies." Again, to repeat from yestrday, since when does a country that hasn't contributed a da-mn thing to the world in over 100 years, and another that is still impotent under its own collective guilt from 70 years ago constitute "the world." FYI.. there are more NATO countries involved in the war than those that aren't. You Dems keep accusing Bush of his narrow-minded geopolitics and snot-nosed arrogance of others in the world, but by brushing off the contributions of so many other "allies," you show us exactly who are the true elitists. again, multilateralism is not limited to France, germany russia, China and a handful of basket-case Arab totalatarian regimes who hide under the blanket cover of UN inclusivness.
As for the rest of the threats, you mention, you're right about most of them, but for the wrong reasons. Pakistan and India have had nukes for a while, and were testing them in their backyards every few months under Clinton. Things got pretty scary for a while, and while the threat they have on each other is still very real, Bush seems to have tamed them -- especially Musharef, who has been cracking down hard on internal terrorist cells, despite a very loud fantatical minority in his own country. S. Korea and Iran are the more dangerous threats, you are right about that. But, don't kid yourself, they were pre-Bush too. The Iraq war brought them out , and has brought the international spotlight on them. Much more work must be done, yes, but it has become clear that Clinton's gameplan of bribing S. Korea to not engage in nuclear refinment was about as succesful as his plan to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. And there is the lesson. You are right not to trust those countries such as Lybia and Sudan (the stage for the world's current genocide, but they're the chair of the UN human rights council, aren't they?). But like Clinton's plan, Kerry's "more sensitive" approach (whatever in the he-ll that means, anyway) will just sweep everything back under the carpet and lull the sleeping giant back to sleep..until another 9/11 wakes it of course..

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 12:45 AM
Oh Lord,...we went through this yesterday, France and Germany do NOT = all "our allies." Again, to repeat from yestrday, since when does a country that hasn't contributed a da-mn thing to the world in over 100 years, and another that is still impotent under its own collective guilt from 70 years ago constitute "the world." FYI.. there are more NATO countries involved in the war than those that aren't. You Dems keep accusing Bush of his narrow-minded geopolitics and snot-nosed arrogance of others in the world, but by brushing off the contributions of so many other "allies," you show us exactly who are the true elitists. again, multilateralism is not limited to France, germany russia, China and a handful of basket-case Arab totalatarian regimes who hide under the blanket cover of UN inclusivness.
As for the rest of the threats, you mention, you're right about most of them, but for the wrong reasons. Pakistan and India have had nukes for a while, and were testing them in their backyards every few months under Clinton. Things got pretty scary for a while, and while the threat they have on each other is still very real, Bush seems to have tamed them -- especially Musharef, who has been cracking down hard on internal terrorist cells, despite a very loud fantatical minority in his own country. S. Korea and Iran are the more dangerous threats, you are right about that. But, don't kid yourself, they were pre-Bush too. The Iraq war brought them out , and has brought the international spotlight on them. Much more work must be done, yes, but it has become clear that Clinton's gameplan of bribing S. Korea to not engage in nuclear refinment was about as succesful as his plan to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. And there is the lesson. You are right not to trust those countries such as Lybia and Sudan (the stage for the world's current genocide, but they're the chair of the UN human rights council, aren't they?). But like Clinton's plan, Kerry's "more sensitive" approach (whatever in the he-ll that means, anyway) will just sweep everything back under the carpet and lull the sleeping giant back to sleep..until another 9/11 wakes it of course..


:shakeno: France and Germany are not the only ones, just like yesterday, it's time to relook this please, you have big blinders on..

PhinPhan1227
08-21-2004, 12:49 AM
Bottom line, nobody loves us strong, everyone loves us weak. I don't care if they love us so long as they need us and respect us. They are still buying our goods, using our services and coming to our shores...so they still need us. Libya and Sudan disarming says that they respect us more than they did...I'm happy.

TorontoFin
08-21-2004, 01:15 AM
:shakeno: France and Germany are not the only ones, just like yesterday, it's time to relook this please, you have big blinders on..
Sorry... I forgot Russia, which is still a little wet behind the ears when it comes to democracy; Communist, Tibet-enslaving China; and again, the most ruthless despots in the arab leauge, were the most vocal opponents. Two of those countries (france; Russia), as we all know now, spent the last 10 years laundering money through the Oil For Fraud program with saddam -- some of that money found its way out of Saddam's coffers and is being used to fund the "insurgents" as we speak, according to Time magazine, washigton Times, UK's guardian (cetainly no friend of the Bush admin), and half-azzed by the NYT. So excuse me, if I don't bow down to their opinions on American foreign policy when it comes to Iraq. As for blinders, flip the switch pal. You still, after two days, refuse to acknowledge the roles played by almost 70 other nations, or even worse, find them irrelivant because they didn't get the gift of a Veto vote from the UN 60 years ago. Take your pick. either way, you're the one with the tunnel vision. There were flashes here and there, where it seemed I was debating a pretty decent guy, who doesn't like Bush, but didn't seem so partisan that he could acknowledge some pretty basic facts. Guess not