Why does John Kerry continue to say "I will, I will and I will?"

Originally posted by LadyV
Perhaps because the answer is apparent to most people

What would you have him say? He is not the president. He can't say "I did" It is a form of telling the public what "he will" do if elected....I saw this post and just assumed the poster doesn't like Kerry and was venting over something that bothered him/her, it was sorta like a rhetorical quesion.....

LadyV,

I don't like Kerry because he running for an office that I know he won't do any good in, because he's never done any good in the Senate. Just like the "hated-by-North Carolina" John Edwards. If the VPs own state doesn't support him, why should the rest of the country?

I would think more of him if he (Kerry) would acknowledge the fact that he has to work with Congress on the issues that Americans care about. I haven't heard one word about that. I don't believe he really knows that the power of the president is severely limited, and he's in the Senate! He makes it sound as though that the president has sole, decision making authority and he knows good and well he doesn't, or at least he should.

[Edited on 9/10/04 by Intelearthling]

Sorry, he says I will I will I will and explains how he will. Sorry Hamilton, I took what you posted on other topics.

Fully fund the "No Child Left Behind" Act ... allow NATO to help (or completely take over) the training of Iraqis, something the group brought up as a possibility in a meeting a couple weeks ago, but was ignored by Bush ... implement a process to reduce Russia's loose material in four years rather than the 13 years it would take under Bush's plan ... work on a massive global counterproliferation effort which would include scrapping our own plans for bunker-busting nuclear bombs in an effort to hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of other countries ... increase active duty military spots by 40,000 so that we don't need to use a backdoor draft of National Guard reservists or a reinstated draft to fill our military needs ... remove catastrophic cases out of the healthcare system and pay for them via a federal fund so that they don't artifically impact healthcare premiums, which will allow more affordable personal plans, as well as allow small businesses to offer healthcare packages, which will increase the number of Americans covered ... raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids ... have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents -- and kids, if they're earning for themselves -- to be able to pay for college ... implement tax cuts for people making under $200,000, while repealing tax cuts back to the Clinton level for people making above that ... currently sponsoring a bill along with McCain that will eliminate tax loopholes for businesses that outsource jobs overseas ... create a manufacturing jobs credit and a new jobs credit for people to be able to help hire and be more competitive here in America ... reevaluate the Patriot Act so that it cannot be used in a way to deprive American citizens of their most basic rights ... put the 100-200k frozen embryos already stored away in fertility clinics to use by using them for stem cell research.

So, of course he says I will, he is not the president, he can't actually do those things unless he can get the republican dominate congress and the WhiteHouse to approve his plans.

What defines "rich" is not set.

But a person making $200,000 a year is indeed well off.

A truly progressive tax system based on the ability to pay is the only fair system I can think of.

nerdling says something like "people should earn basic needs"

I believe people should earn non-essential needs.. such as automobiles, computers, nice stereo sets, all the extra goodies of life. And of course that is the case.

But I don't believe a person's biological needs should be refused because he lacks a certain amount of printed paper currency. Especially when we live in a country that produces so much food and often surplus food that is often thrown away. Nobody should be forced to live out on the roadside, eating out of dumpsters, or lacking basic medical care.

Hard-capitalists are paranoid in that they think if the government provided the most basic of needs of individuals ... that everyone in the country would quit there careers and live off the state. I think that the majority of people would want the extra goodies in life and not just settle for the most bare of necessities. But atleast the basic needs of the people are insured.

Give a republican a world where everyone had 1 million dollars each, they would refuse because they base success on competition. They are not satisfyed with the idea that everyone lives a high standard of living.. they are more concerned with being more rich than there neigboor.


Once a persons basic needs are established.. then he can focus the rest of his resources on advancing.

[edit on 10-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 10-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 10-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 10-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
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

Bush doesn't work with anyone except his little crew that he hand-picked, oh I forgot,........... yea Bush did work with congress,.. one time,.... he worked him with all that crap about Saddam having WMDs and was getting ready to use them, he worked congress alright, he tricked (lied to ) them into giving him the power of congress to invade Iraq.

The thing is, Bush is a one man Gov't , look at what he has done to our Country and to Iraq, just because he didn't want anyone else's( besides his little hand-picked crew) advice, he could have asked "dear ol dad" for advice about Iraq before he ordered the invasion, but he didn't, and I'll give you one guess as to why he didn't ask his dad .
Naw, I'll just tell you why,........ Bush Sr would have adviced "Jr." NOT to invade Iraq because it would be the Mess that it is to day ( because of our invading it ), with no good way of getting out without massive-troops-killed in the proccess.

Well I guess there's one memorable thing that Bush can take with him on his way out,...... a singer/song writer made a song for Bush, the songs titled " America's idiot",......... for real there is a new song called that ,


Oh BTW, the reason John Kerry says HE WILL,......... is because he will do exactly what he has said he will do,.... which will be nice for a change in a President.

Actually Nanna it's "American Idiot." Written by an American.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by marg6043
funny that bush lay out plan so far has proven a fiasco, look at Iraq, what a mess, what happend to bin-laden, and can he lie his butt off on national TV.
Bush clean air act has made the air cleaner, pleaaaasssseeee give me brake I thing I am gonna puke.

marg6043,

In WWII, It took America and our allies more than 2 1/2 years after they entered the War against Germany/Italy to gain a foothold on the European continent. It took more than 3 1/2 years to force Japan to surrender and it would have been longer if it hadn't been for the Atomic bomb. Progress is being made in Iraq continuously and soon the Iraqi Army will be trained enough to take care of the insurgents that plague their country. It is crucial that Iraq become a democracy for the sake of, not only it's people, but the entire region.

As for the clean air bit, Congress can pass laws that require strict pollution laws on automobiles and factories alike. If a person is concerned about the quality of air in a region of the country, then I would suggest that a letter to a Congressperson, detailing grievances and signing petitions, should get someone's attention. If not, then keep doing it until it does get someone's attention or vote the "slacker" Congresspersons out when it comes around to election time.

Congress can TRY to pass laws,........ there's only one catch to this,....... the President has to sign it.

Originally posted by Intelearthling


I would think more of him if he (Kerry) would acknowledge the fact that he has to work with Congress on the issues that Americans care about. I haven't heard one word about that. I don't believe he really knows that the power of the president is severely limited, and he's in the Senate! He makes it sound as though that the president has sole, decision making authority and he knows good and well he doesn't, or at least he should.

[Edited on 9/10/04 by Intelearthling]

Have you ever gone to one of John Kerry's rallies ??? If you haven't I'd suggest that you might try to go to one.
I've been to many of his rallies and he has talked about Congress and working with them, John knows that the "house" and "senated" has to pass things before it reaches the President's desk, he knows this, unlike George Bush who put a "judge" on the Surpreme Court bench with out it being voted on first.
I gave George Bush a chance because my fiance asked me to, I listened and kept my opionions to myself ( and that was really hard for me to do ) and tried to keep an open-mind to what Bush talked about doing/not doing, then 9/11 happened ,...... Bush swore he would get the" perps" that attacked us,................ and I thought.............. Alright maybe,... just maybe this guy was ok, but then he was doing all that talking about Iraq and I thought, man this guy is going to f@ck-up and more people are going to die, I talked to my fiance about my concerns over Bush wanting to go into Iraq and told him that it's wrong to attack the Iraqis when it was the Saudis that did this to us and I told him to watch and see if what I tell him isn't right. Needless to say,............ I WAS RIGHT and my fiance is NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN .

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
George Bush who put a "judge" on the Surpreme Court bench with out it being voted on first.

Really Nanna? Pray tell the name of said Supreme Court Justice? I think, as usual you are posting a falsehood.

Perhaps you are refering to this?

www.cnn.com...

If so, you should be aware this is something he learned from prior President Bill Clinton:

www.senate.gov...

Anyway Nanna, nice to see you are still so close to the truth.

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
unlike George Bush who put a "judge" on the Surpreme Court bench with out it being voted on first.

Thanks Seth Bullock for the link. I remember this and there was a lot of angry people on Capital Hill. A good president is like a good quarter-back on a Super Bowl bound and winning team.

Kerry wouldn't know how to do this because he would be "skeerd" he'd make someone mad. "SKEERD" is not the kind of president I want, one that "AIN'T SKEERD!"

U.S. Constitution
Article II

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Read it and weep!

The main thing that I don't like about Kerry's economic philosophy is that it is based upon class warfare. He tries to gain votes by dividing the country into the wealthy and everybody else. He attempts to make you think that the tax cuts given to the rich are the reason that you are poor.

This is one of the oldest tricks (lies) in the book. Kerry fails to mention that the rich pay more taxes, invest more, and create more jobs than the poor. He creates an atmosphere of us against them in the workplace which causes friction and mistrust between worker and manager. Production suffers, along with morale, and you know the rest of the story.

Bush, on the other hand, wants to give a tax cut to every taxpayer. The only thing he fails in is his message delivery; he does not say, "Well of course the rich get a bigger tax cut. They pay more in taxes". That would be political suicide, because people don't take the time or effort to see the big picture.

Just my .02