I was watching the debate and as Bush would say that he's signed a numerous bills and he has worked with Congress, Kerry continues to say "He will do this" and "He will do that."

It sounds to me that he will not be willing to work with Congress on issues that affect Americans, but instead, impose a totalitarian state with him as the dictator.

If he should ever become president, he may enforce a marshall law on the American people and we will be working for the Federal government to pay for all the programs he's proposing.

And on top of all this, where does he get off on saying that a person making $200,000/year is rich? Here you got a billionaire saying that someone making less than a million a year is rich.

We're all in big trouble if he ever gets in the White House.

Come on! XXX number of people viewed this topic! And no one responded? I guess you liberals have no response! Becuase you know you are wrong!

EDIT: Sorry, that's the other guy.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by curme]

Maybe because....


He will?

He's not a Republican, recall.

Kerry really didn't go into detail about any of his 'plans'. I thought I would throw up if I had to hear "I have a plan" one more time. If he spent less time saying "I have a plan" and more time actually explaining it I think I might have a heart attack!

All Kerry did tonight was say "I will", "I have a plan", bash Bush and name drop. That's it. I was not satisfied at all with his answers.

Jemison

Interearthling - it's a political play. Ronald Reagan did it, Bill Clinton did it, George W. Bush did it in 2000. It's designed to show people that the candidate has a mastery of the issues at hand. Of course he will work with the Congress - every President does. But, on a strictly communicational point of view, whose face will Americans put on their government? Not Dennis Hastert's or Tom Daschle's - the President's.

Remember, even the debate puts the electorate in the mindset that this is a choice between two men, not two governments.

Originally posted by Jemison
Kerry really didn't go into detail about any of his 'plans'.

He went into plenty of detail about his plans. Since apparently you missed them, I'll be posting them verbatim when the transcripts come out so you can see the error in your statement.

You know what my average income is?

Not even 10% of 200,000, and you know what, I'm so sick of 1 rich person's tax breaks equaling more than what I can make in two years.

I work part time to get myself through college. I work my ass off to get what little I have. I think I deserve a tax break, and some decent healthcare. Kerry can help me get that.

As I recall, in the 2000 Election, Bush would continually repeat " He will work with Congress." He never made himself sound as though he was intent on being a one-person government as Kerry sounds that he's trying to do.

I haven't heard Kerry say anything about "he'll work with Congress on key issues."

It's always "I'm going to change health care."
"I'm going to win this war in Iraq."
"I'm going to catch Osama bin Laden."
"I'm going to bring back the allies to the table."

Seems to me. since he's been on the campaign trail, he doesn't have a clue of what Congress is.

Well, rightly so. He was never there half the time in the first place, was he?

Yes when i hear kerry speak, all i hear are empty promises.

I find myself, after every Kerry statement, asking myself HOW?

HOW will Kerry bring allies back?
HOW will Kerry cut the national defecit?
HOW will Kerry protect us from terrorists?
etc., etc...

Hell if Kerry had reasons to back up what he claims he'll do, i'd vote for him. But until this man supports what he says, he's nothing but a pathological liar and a poor excuse for a president.

.
Could it possibly be that is because he hasn't been elected president yet?

Bush has a record you can embrace or reject. John F. Kerry has to say "what I will do as president."

Is this a no-brainer or is that just me?
.

Interearthling - do you mean Bush referred to himself in the third person?

From what I've seen, what Americans seem to want is a strong President, and both Bush and Kerry know that this election will be about who can be the toughest.

Ultimately, Americans will not feel safer or better off with a Democratic or a Republican Congress. They will feel safer or better off with a President they've seen telling them that he has a vision.

Originally posted by Loki
You know what my average income is?

Not even 10% of 200,000, and you know what, I'm so sick of 1 rich person's tax breaks equaling more than what I can make in two years.

I work part time to get myself through college. I work my ass off to get what little I have. I think I deserve a tax break, and some decent healthcare. Kerry can help me get that.

When you graduate college and possibly go on to gain your post-graduate degrees to to increase your earnings, you may change your mind then, when unjust taxations are imposed on income that you worked so hard to gain through years of toiling over books, exams, finals and classroom attendance.

Maybe the question should be put to Kerry and his wife. Would he give up more than a third of his income? Would he impose these illegal tax increases on his wife and her family?

Why does kerry continue to say "I will"

Is very simple he is the oposing candidate so he is the one that has to promised what he will do and convince the voter, while the acting candidate (bush) has to defend what he already has done.

It's just politics

That would normally work, except that kerry's 'I wills' have to be balanced with the 'he's done'-s , and he is left wanting and you would have to believe that he has changed his positions on many issues dramatically in order to believe all the 'I wills' when looked at through the eyes of the Senate record.

I for one don't believe a tiger as old hat as Kerry can change his stripes this late in the game. Of course, he may be trying a Clinton, and depending on daily polling data to tell him how to act and think.

Marg - aw shucks, why did you take away your schoolgirl ava? I loved it!

Seriously, what amazed me in this debate is that it was supposed (I think) to be mainly on domestic affairs, yet the war on Iraq took a lot of airtime. And again I say, it'll determine this election as well as how the candidates behave - and Interearthling's question is quite pertinent, because in time of peace I believe people will look for a unifier who will work with both sides of Congress, while in wartime (especially such a controversial one) people want to be protected and will give credit to who looks the strongest.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Otts]

Remember, Otts, Reagan had a very difficult time and was very, very unpopular in Europe and at home for modernizing our military and deploying new weapons during the Cold War, and here we are with no more USSR and Mutually Assured Destruction hanging over our heads........


Stick it out GW! Popularity isn't everything! Knowing in your heart you are doing what you truly believe to be right is what counts. Follow Reagan's example.

Originally posted by Otts
Interearthling - do you mean Bush referred to himself in the third person?

From what I've seen, what Americans seem to want is a strong President, and both Bush and Kerry know that this election will be about who can be the toughest.

Ultimately, Americans will not feel safer or better off with a Democratic or a Republican Congress. They will feel safer or better off with a President they've seen telling them that he has a vision.

The president is always the third person when it comes to legislation of laws. The president, at no given time, can never introduce a bill before Congress. He may suggest bills and he can veto bills Congress has already already forwarded for the presidents signature.

As far as I'm concerned, it is John Kerry misleading the American public and the whole planet as far as that goes, in what he'll be able to do if he were to become CIC.

Otts, not to be a smart tail or anything like that, but people with visions don't hold up against people with a working agenda. Kerry is lost in a fantasy world while Bush is laying reality out on the table.

Bush and co. have tried to expose Kerry as a flip flopper. I think it's obvious they better get off that, because the nation is getting a firsthand chance to see how resolute Kerry is in his views. It's easy to take a 4 second sound byte and mix it with some vote and call someone a flip-flopper. It's not so easy trying to do the same to that person's face, when he can refute everything you are saying.

I don't anyone looking at the debates with an impartial view would claim Kerry is a flip-flopper anymore. He's come off as exactly what Bush and his cronies tried to convince you he wasn't -- a person strong in his convictions. You can try to spin it all you want, but this is why the poll numbers have closed so much over the past few weeks; everyone is realizing all the lies that the Bush administration used to try and automatically disqualify Kerry as a viable presidential candidate are just that -- lies.