Kerry the hypocrite....

[T-Man007]

TweetJohn Kerry says he will bring back US companies to the US and stop letting them take jobs over seas and out of the country. While at the same time he has married into the Heinz family (where he has become very welthy). Ionically, Heinz does not produce any of their catsup products in the US anymore. That's right. Just go grab a bottle of Heinz and see where it's made, not here. I don't believe for one second he's going to battle is family (and his fortune) to bring their operations back to the US, do you?

[JsJs24]

TweetI don't care where his company is to tell you the truth. I just think the country will be better off economically with a democrat in office (in this case, John Kerry).

[T-Man007]

TweetReally? I'm not trying to insult you, I respect you candor on here but why do you think that?

I will be the first to admit that Bush really pissed me off when he allowed jobs to go over seas. But I don't see how a Dem is going to be better for the economy. The only reason Clinton looked so good was the huge growth in the computer industry. The Intel II, the Intel III, those chips were huge developments in the cpu world and as a result everyone upgraded computers. I know because I bougth 3 computers during his time, some people bought more. But when you have that kind of demand for a product there is bound to be economic rewards. But, like all goods things, eventually everyone will have one and sales will drop. This took place as Bush got in office. There is nothing that any Dem could have done. Enron still would have lied, Worldcom still would have lied and the tech industry still would have laid off all those people no matter who's in office.

And I personally thank God that a Dem wasn't in office in 2001 or we'd already been attacked a few more times because there's no way Gore would have had the balls to go run Bin Ladin in a hole. People would have complained and he would have sided with them. He protested the President the entire time and that's not a "for the people" kind of person I want. I don't know, maybe Kerry would be different but I doubt it. After all, he has voted down every type of military spending there is and he thinks by investing in foreign affairs he will stop the enemy but the terrorist do not care who we are friends with. They will attack again and they will do it while we have a weak non-war President in office. I guarantee it. And with Kerry wanting to cut the CIA, FBI and NSA funds they will not only attack but we wont be able to afford to find out who did it.

[3Vandoo]

TweetGuys it everywhere like that when you have billionaires running thr countries. They dont care about your interests, they care about the elite interest. Bush is one with his companies and ties with the oil world, do you know what he did to Canada so his companies could profits violating the WTO /NAFTA treaty?

Kerry is married to miss Heinz and the F in his name stands for Forbes, hell know we know mister from a nice family.

Here also its the same, our Prime Minister as minister of finance brought some laws so his shipping company could save millions in taxes.

As for Gore Running at Uncle Binny, I think Bin Laden would be dead by now because the democrats would have not interefered with operations made by military, they learned the hard way in 1993

[JsJs24]

Tweet

Really? I'm not trying to insult you, I respect you candor on here but why do you think that?

I will be the first to admit that Bush really pissed me off when he allowed jobs to go over seas. But I don't see how a Dem is going to be better for the economy. The only reason Clinton looked so good was the huge growth in the computer industry. The Intel II, the Intel III, those chips were huge developments in the cpu world and as a result everyone upgraded computers. I know because I bougth 3 computers during his time, some people bought more. But when you have that kind of demand for a product there is bound to be economic rewards. But, like all goods things, eventually everyone will have one and sales will drop. This took place as Bush got in office. There is nothing that any Dem could have done. Enron still would have lied, Worldcom still would have lied and the tech industry still would have laid off all those people no matter who's in office.

And I personally thank God that a Dem wasn't in office in 2001 or we'd already been attacked a few more times because there's no way Gore would have had the balls to go run Bin Ladin in a hole. People would have complained and he would have sided with them. He protested the President the entire time and that's not a "for the people" kind of person I want. I don't know, maybe Kerry would be different but I doubt it. After all, he has voted down every type of military spending there is and he thinks by investing in foreign affairs he will stop the enemy but the terrorist do not care who we are friends with. They will attack again and they will do it while we have a weak non-war President in office. I guarantee it. And with Kerry wanting to cut the CIA, FBI and NSA funds they will not only attack but we wont be able to afford to find out who did it.

Well, I told myself I would not debate polotics anymore because it is worthless. If you take a knowledgable democrat and republican and have them debate, the outcome is nothing. Each will have several good points for their party and several bad ones for the other. As for the war, what we are doing in Iraq did not need to be done now imo. Bin Laden is where our prime responsibility is. And yes, Gore would have went after him too I'm sure. The main thing that kills me with republicans in office is their choices with spending and stupid tax cuts with a 7 trillion dollar debt. But to tell you the truth, I think about all politicians are crooks on power trips. However, Kerry imo seems to be more sincere.

And since you brought up war and how terrorist situations should be handled, please do a search on General Zinni. I'd like to hear what you think about his opinions.

[T-Man007]

TweetAs far as Iraq I'm on the fence with that one. I think ousting Saddam was good but now the situation is a mess. I know Bush didn't wait until the UN Inspectors were finished either. He was anxious to get in there. Man with a mission. But I do feel safer with Saddam behind bars. I can't deny that. So that's why I'm on the fence.

Yea, you guys are both right, the rich will support the rich. It would be great to have someone like Zell Miller as President. Someone who came from nothing to be a great Governor and Senator. I know he's a Dem but he's fromt he old school. I used live in Gerogia and I always liked him.

[JsJs24]

Tweet

Yea, you guys are both right, the rich will support the rich. It would be great to have someone like Zell Miller as President. Someone who came from nothing to be a great Governor and Senator. I know he's a Dem but he's fromt he old school. I used live in Gerogia and I always liked him.

That's one good thing about John Edwards; he grew up middle class. As for Saddam, yes I too am glad he is caught, however, I did not see him as an immediate threat to the U.S. These terrorists we pissed off are MUCH worse imo. If the government is so damn worried about our safety then why don't they do something about North Korea. They are much more dangerous then Iraq was imo.

[T-Man007]

Tweet

Well, I told myself I would not debate polotics anymore because it is worthless. If you take a knowledgable democrat and republican and have them debate, the outcome is nothing. Each will have several good points for their party and several bad ones for the other. As for the war, what we are doing in Iraq did not need to be done now imo. Bin Laden is where our prime responsibility is. And yes, Gore would have went after him too I'm sure. The main thing that kills me with republicans in office is their choices with spending and stupid tax cuts with a 7 trillion dollar debt. But to tell you the truth, I think about all politicians are crooks on power trips. However, Kerry imo seems to be more sincere.

And since you brought up war and how terrorist situations should be handled, please do a search on General Zinni. I'd like to hear what you think about his opinions.

I did some research on him and it appears he feels the President was owed better military planning. He, as I read it, feels the operation was not planned or exucuted properly. I don't know how that all works but I'm sure someone had to inform the Pres that they were ready to go. So someone in the military failed at informing the Pres this is not the right time and this was not the way to do it. He also states that many Generals didn't want the war. If that was true then why did they go? Surely a room full of the best Generals telling the Pres not to go would have stopped him or atleast postponed it. So, either the Generals are saying they didn't want to go after they realized they screwed up or Bush forced them to go. I don't know, only the men in that room know for sure. But I've never seen a war lead by a President, wars are lead by Generals and if the war was handled wrong then the Generals handled it wrong. When a war is handled right who gets the credit? The General who lead it. The Pres is behind the scenes hoping he has a good General leading the operation. From what I got from Zinnni on a CBS News excerpt is that he feels the Pres was severly misinformed and severly let down. He says "heads need to roll". But he never says it was Bush's fault, he says it was planned poorly and at the wrong time.

"Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do."

Someone convinced the Pres and secretary according to Zinni. So I feel feel the war might have been done wrong but I still can't help feeling better about Saddam in bars.

About the debt. That's never gonna get better until they come up with a better system of taxes. I'm self employed and own my own corporation. You know how easy it is to get out of paying taxes? Man, it's a walk in the park. Now, unfortunately (for my pocket book), I'm honest with my taxes and I pay them. But I know dozens of people in my iindustry that don't. Then take into account all the cash income from under the table wages to drugs, prostitutes, strip clubs, bartenders, etc. That's billions and billions changing hands every year without taxation. For the record, I am NOT for legalizing drugs like pot, coke and x or prostitution. However, if income taxes were abolished and a National Sales tax of say 13 to 15% were put in place the economy would bounce back. You take out a couple % for social security. Then the rest is divied up amongst the government and states however they need it. Heres' why this works. There are hundreds of billions of $$ changing hands without taxation. Now, if you take that $$ and you tax it at the register you will get way more than taxing the income of a person. I know guys who make over 10 million a year and when there CPA's are done it's more like 1.5 to 2 million. However, these guys will spend most of their money on homes, boats, cars, vacations, fine dining, wives shopping, etc (all in the name of the company of course). You get them at the register and you can get more out of them than you ever could from income tax. There are too many loop holes in income taxes. But, a national sales tax is unaviodable. You buy, you pay, that simple. Unfortunately, I don't think it would ever fly becasue those who don't pay would make an uproar and many of those are wealthy. And the wealthy seem to be the most looked out for.

[JsJs24]

Tweet[QUOTE=T-Man007]I did some research on him and it appears he feels the President was owed better military planning. He, as I read it, feels the operation was not planned or exucuted properly. I don't know how that all works but I'm sure someone had to inform the Pres that they were ready to go. So someone in the military failed at informing the Pres this is not the right time and this was not the way to do it. He also states that many Generals didn't want the war. If that was true then why did they go? Surely a room full of the best Generals telling the Pres not to go would have stopped him or atleast postponed it. So, either the Generals are saying they didn't want to go after they realized they screwed up or Bush forced them to go. I don't know, only the men in that room know for sure. But I've never seen a war lead by a President, wars are lead by Generals and if the war was handled wrong then the Generals handled it wrong. When a war is handled right who gets the credit? The General who lead it. The Pres is behind the scenes hoping he has a good General leading the operation. From what I got from Zinnni on a CBS News excerpt is that he feels the Pres was severly misinformed and severly let down. He says "heads need to roll". But he never says it was Bush's fault, he says it was planned poorly and at the wrong time.

QUOTE]

I like your view on taxation and agree entirely. From economis courses I do believe we need to maintain some debt to keep the economy running properly, however, 7 trillion is a bit high.

About the war and who led it. General Zinni it seems has great respect for the president and therefore does not intend to criticize him or his actions. Yet, he does mention the President was given bad information. Another comment he made is that the war on Iraq has been a civilian run war. He does not seem too fond of Wolfiwitz (of course who the hell is) or several other members of congress, and I wonder if he even like Rumsfeld (I have my opinions of him). Gen. Zinni insists that the generals basically had no say in this war and I believe every word this man has said. The only General that can speak his mind about the President and Congress is a retired one, otherwise he or she would face a court martial. Another thing I admire and respect about Gen. Zinni is that he is a 39 yr former MARINE general and was previously the commander of Central Forces. This man is no coward when it comes to war (his record speaks for itself), nor is he lacking any information about the middle east. The fact that he left the White House because of this war, and the fact that Powell plans to leave if the presidency remains the same lead me to worry that something just isn't right in the White House. With a change in presidents most likely the White House will do some changing furthermore.

[T-Man007]

TweetYou make some good points bro. For some reason Kerry scares me. I cant put my finger on it. But on the other hand it would be nice to have a better approach to foreign affairs in the white house. I respect Bush's firmness but I think if Bush was Bush but had Clintons tact he would be awesome, aside from the excessive spending. Of course, we have to keep in mind how much of that spending went into rebuilding two other contries. Take that out of the sum and you have a lower number. Not a good one, but a lower one.

[DangerousGround]

TweetKerry IMO is to indecisive unsure and has no balls of his own,,shit he just is a rep of his party just nice to have someone stronger in there with mind of his own and not be hypocrite all the time to get votes.
he's a puss!

Gommer Pile for president

[LOCO]

Tweetwhat's ketsup?

[3Vandoo]

Tweet

what's ketsup?

an United Stater thingie

[FUZO]

TweetITS RED COMES IN A BOTTLE AND YOU PUT IT ON FRENCHIE VANDOO FRIES

[T-Man007]

Tweet

ITS RED COMES IN A BOTTLE AND YOU PUT IT ON FRENCHIE VANDOO FRIES

LMAO! That's funny.