Us presidential election 2004

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]The article just proves Kerry's point actually

It also makes him a hypocrite.

Hi DanAK47

No a Hypocrite is somone who says they will be fair about taxes and give everyone tax breaks but does not and then spends their time running scams on the American tax payer like George Bush Junior's "I should be taxed as a small business." Tax scam.

Quote[/b] ]Bush's Timber Company

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company?

That's news to me.

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company."  Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

George Bush Junior and his NeoConMen cronies in Halliburton and ENRON's share use such cons and scams to get out of paying their share Bush even boasts about how easy it is for his cronies to dodge paying their fair share.

John F. Kerry will be taking back those taxes so the rest of the middle classes dont have to pay the NeoConMen's share as well as their own.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Juniors Hump is making the news in the UK.

Quote[/b] ]“Last week I looked at 28 photographs and without question, given his movement, it could not be a crease because it was consistent all the way through so what I can confirm is that he did have a bump between his shoulder blades horizontally about 2 inches wide and about half an inch deep, I would have said. The developments and what's available to the president are such that I'd of thought that's rather ungainly and certainly I wouldn't have positioned it there if indeed he was going to have a device you would want to have it out of the way. I'd have positioned it under his armpit or something like thatâ€

Glenmore Trenear-Harvey, Intelligence Analyst

http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/10/week_3/11_bush.html

as to the suit crease excuse.

Quote[/b] ]At the weekend the President's tailor, Georges de Paris, entered the fray dismissing the bump as a rouche in his jacket.

But one Saville Row tailor didn't think that explanation measured up:

Channel 4 News: How could I have a bulge in my suit?

William Hunt, tailor: well not unless you're from Notre Dame then I can't see how it would work really.

Channel 4 News: What if I lean forward? He was leaning forward on his lectern like that..

William Hunt: It's perfectly flat across your back isn't it. It's pulled a little bit tight here but there's certainly nothing sticking out

Channel 4 News: What if I stand up?

William Hunt:This jacket is a little tight across the back for you but I can't see how you'd have anything unless you were concealing something.

Much of the UK news in the UK is much less flattering with accusations of Wiregate, Prompter-gate, or Audio-gate and cartoons of a humpty back George Bush Junior with a TV attena sticking out of his collar as Charles Lawtry in the Hunchback of Notre Dame mumbling "The bell.. Just a minute let me finish! The bells The bells" being one of my favourites.:D    

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

George Bush Juniors Hump is making the news in the UK.

I can quite easily believe Bush was wired during the debate just as he was proven to be wired during his D-Day address and press conference in France.  However, I have my doubts about the bulge being the actual wire and the earpiece being visible.

The earpiece need only be a tiny electromagnetic induction wave powered speaker.  Just picture an ultra-miniature, half millimeter thick speaker with a closed-loop coil and diaphram against the eardrum.  ...Virtually undetectable and certainly not visible in press photos.

The receiver and signal driver are worn on Bush's belt and back, but why make the induction loop from a fat bulging cable when a flat ribbon inductor will due just as well without being seen?  In fact, I'd have built it into the starched collar of his shirt for near perfect orientation, max efficiency and total secrecy.

[kerosene 0]

You cant really be critical of him wearing a wire at the D-day address, it was a dignified event. I think it was best for everyone involved.

I dont think it was a wire becuase someone would've said "George we can see the thing stuck to your back, it wont work." Like Bernadotte said, they've got much more advanced shit than that.

[Bernadotte 0]

You cant really be critical of him wearing a wire at the D-day address, it was a dignified event.  I think it was best for everyone involved.

Yeah, Kerosene, I totally agree.

However, I do believe that the American voting public have a right to know that their current President is unable to represent their nation at such a press conference on his own.  As long as there's nothing wrong with it and it was best for everyone involved then why keep it a secret?  Well, maybe because the debate commision would have been under pressure to take action against such technology being used if everyone already knew about it.

[DanAK47 1]

If it's true that he pays a 12.8% rate he is a hypocrite because he is paying a little over a third of what his tax bracket's rate is while saying rich people don't need a tax break.

[Bernadotte 0]

If it's true that he pays a 12.8% rate he is a hypocrite because he is paying a little over a third of what his tax bracket's rate is while saying rich people don't need a tax break.

I think you're a little confused.

If he is paying less than what is legally required then he is a wrong.

If he is not doing something wrong, but you feel he should pay more then the system maybe wrong.

Only if he put that wrong system in place and now campaigns against it would he possibly be a hypocrite.

I hope that's clear now.

[DanAK47 1]

He is saying it is wrong for rich people to get a tax break.

If he is getting two thirds off he is in the wrong.

[shinRaiden 0]

Bill Virgin, senior Business reporter for the openly left of center Seattle PI has this to say:

Quote[/b] ]

Given the verbiage contained in this daily fish wrap celebrating John Kerry and wailing what a threat to the planet George W. Bush constitutes, I suppose it is time for someone to sluice out the Augean stables of accumulated political nonsense.

Somebody needs to help back up on the turnip truck those who not only fell off yesterday but, having done so, proceeded to purchase (at full retail) every vial of snake oil being peddled by the Kerryites, and explain why the president should be re-elected.

That person would be me.

In a more frivolous time -- say, the Clinton administration -- it would be enough to recommend re-election merely by listing the accumulation of generally deplorable people -- Michael Moore, Al Franken, Garry Trudeau, Bill Moyers, Garrison Keillor, et al. -- caterwauling about Bush.

But these are not frivolous times. These serious times mean dealing with serious issues, most of them having to do, in some form, with the economy.

There's been a lot of fatuous talk about presidents creating or losing jobs. Here's a news bulletin: They don't. Bush didn't lose jobs any more than Clinton created them (of course, if the Dems want to take credit for the bubble economy of the '90s, they can also take credit for its collapse, since it was already in full retreat by Inauguration Day 2001).

What presidents can do is tinker at the margins, and to create a climate for businesses to generate jobs (or do the sorts of things that discourage job creation). This Bush has done with not one but two tax cuts (which, despite what you have heard, substantially benefited the middle class) that helped tide the economy over its rough spot and set the stage for a recovery.

On foreign trade, Bush has been (to borrow the old Scoop Jackson comment about liberalism) a free-trader without being a damn fool about it.

While he has advocated further agreements to reduce barriers, he has also been willing to file and pursue cases on commodities ranging from airplanes to steel -- much to the disconsolation of the purer-than-thou wing of his own party.

Even if the cases are ultimately unsuccessful, at least they've sent the signal that the United States will no longer be an easy mark.

But by far the most serious economic issue of our times also happens to be this campaign's big-ticket issue: global security.

On that issue, Bush is clearly the superior choice. He was exactly right to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then to go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He correctly saw those two events as part of a continuum on the war on radical Islamofascism.

The Kerryites and others with limited mental dexterity have a hard time distinguishing between the words "safe" and "safer." Did booting the Taliban from Afghanistan, forcing Saddam to live like a dissolute hobbit and putting al-Qaida on the run make the world "safe"? Of course not. The world wasn't "safe" then, isn't "safe" now, never will be "safe."

But did taking those actions make the world safer, and better, not just for Americans but for those nations that aspire to some degree of freedom and tranquility? Absolutely. Deposing Saddam deprived global terrorism of one place in which to set up an operating base and one more sponsor (and yes, Saddam was working on more nasty weapons to supplement those he hid or shipped to Syria, and he was definitely working on being al-Qaida's new best friend).

It also sent to the rest of the world a message of American resoluteness, that it would not cower at home in anticipation of the next attack. Compare that with the Kerry approach, which appears to be a mixture of obsequiousness and forelock tugging before the corrupt and venal United Nations.

Yes, there are still problem areas. Immigration policy continues to be a mess. Neither party seems interested in controlling spending (the Medicare drug benefit was a competition between both parties to see who could give away the most the fastest).

Would John Kerry be a dreadful president, on the order of a Jimmy Carter or a Richard Nixon? Probably not. He seems to suffer the same malady as the first President Bush -- an interest in being president without much of an idea of what to do as president.

Furthermore, a sharply divided Congress would likely rein in tendencies to veer toward the more unwholesome realms of AlGoreland.

But the times require something more than a caretaker president sleepwalking to the next crisis.

In contrast to the previous president, who actually had to pronounce "I am still relevant," there has been no question that the "misunderestimated" president has been relevant and willing to do more than gab issues to death, especially on the most critical issue of our age -- the promotion of not just our own security, but the cause of global freedom.

Which is, if you're looking for one, a reason to vote for Bush. Of course, if you like the idea of further irritating the professional whining classes -- those who probably wouldn't be content without something to mewl about, anyway -- that'll work, too.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think you're a little confused.

If he is paying less than what is legally required then he is a wrong.

If he is not doing something wrong, but you feel he should pay more then the system maybe wrong.

Only if he put that wrong system in place and now campaigns against it would he possibly be a hypocrite.

I hope that's clear now.  

You're missing the point. He is standing up and saying that rich people don't deserve tax breaks and should "pay their fair share", while he gives himself unofficial tax breaks and pays one-third of his "fair share". Reprimanding people for committing an offense while simultaneously committing that same offense is hypocrisy.

Quote[/b] ]If he is paying less than what is legally required then he is a wrong.

Would you say the same thing if Cheney and Co. were caught using Kerry methods to pay 12.8% ? Personally, I suspect that you'd accuse them of "not paying their fair share".

[walker 0]

Hi all

Clearly m21man and DanAK47 you are against tax cuts for the ultra rich otherwise you would not be arguing that ultra rich people should be Taxed more.

The people helping the ultra rich not to pay their fair share are the NeoConMen with their I am a small business man because I bought a few dollars worth of wood scams and Cons.

As you know Multi Millionair George Bush Junior uses the I am a small business man con to get off paying his fair share of taxes. In fact the Conneticut Carpet Bagger who pretends to be a Texan even boasts about how he can get his fancy shmancy lawyers and accountants to do it for him.

If you realy want to tax John F. Kerry more you will have to vote for John F. Kerry because he is the only person who will get rid of the Tax breaks for the wealthiest people earning over 200,000 dollars a year.

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you realy want to tax John F. Kerry more you will have to vote for John F. Kerry because he is the only person who will get rid of the Tax breaks for the wealthiest people earning over 200,000 dollars a year.

Of course he'll get rid of the tax breaks! Well, maybe not all of them, Theresa needs a new Gulfstream jet, and a new mansion couldn't hurt. Come to think of it, the family needs a couple new SUVs. A bright yellow Hummer H2 would be nice. As Theresa says, "Safety first".

Or maybe he can just help raise taxes on the rich, while still skirting the law himself. You know, like he did while he was a Senator.

Quote[/b] ]As you know Multi Millionair George Bush Junior uses the I am a small business man con to get off paying his fair share of taxes.

It's fairly amusing to watch you wriggle like an oil-drenched intern. In fact, you're doing precisely what I guessed Bernadotte would do: Accuse Bush of "not paying his fair share", while ignoring Kerry's "creative" interpretations of tax codes. And remember, The Devious Ketchup Duo earned about 10 times what Bush earned, so when Kerry skirts his taxes, he deprives the IRS of far more cash than Bush.

Quote[/b] ]In fact the Conneticut Carpet Bagger who pretends to be a Texan even boasts about how he can get his fancy shmancy lawyers and accountants to do it for him.

So Ketchupman is better? Why? Because he cheats his taxes while serving as a US Senator?

[DanAK47 1]

Dude you are missing the point. Kerry's tax bracket is 35%. If he is paying 12.8% and complaining about rich people getting off taxes, he's throwing a stone from a glass house.

[Akira 0]

Bill Virgin, senior Business reporter for the openly left of center Seattle PI has this to say:

Dude that article is so not left of center, nor is the rhetoric contained with in, that I really have no idea where to start. Other than to call it propoganda claptrap. It's clearly an EDITORIAL and one should label it as so when you draw attention to it.

Just because a paper may be considered "left of center" that hardly means everyone at it is.

EDIT: I looked at Bill Virgin's other articles, and they are all business or radio related....umm...clearly not a political analyst. I f you want we all can start posting editorials by writers going for our parrticular candidate.

[denoir 0]

Dude you are missing the point. Kerry's tax bracket is 35%. If he is paying 12.8% and complaining about rich people getting off taxes, he's throwing a stone from a glass house.

He is not complaining about rich people getting off taxes - he is complaining about a system that allows that. Get it?

In the same way thinking that fossile fuel is bad for the environment and should be changed for something else ASAP, doesn't mean you can't drive a car without being a hypocrite.

The problem is on the system level.

[Akira 0]

Dude you are missing the point. Kerry's tax bracket is 35%. If he is paying 12.8% and complaining about rich people getting off taxes, he's throwing a stone from a glass house.

He is not complaining about rich people getting off taxes - he is complaining about a system that allows that. Get it?

In the same way thinking that fossile fuel is bad for the environment and should be changed for something else ASAP, doesn't mean you can't drive a car without being a hypocrite.

The problem is on the system level.

I wasn't even going to tackle their fundamental misunderstanding of the tax code and what Kerry is saying.

Maybe as soon as they actually start paying taxes then they will finally understand.

[bn880 5]

Dude you are missing the point. Kerry's tax bracket is 35%. If he is paying 12.8% and complaining about rich people getting off taxes, he's throwing a stone from a glass house.

He is not complaining about rich people getting off taxes - he is complaining about a system that allows that. Get it?

In the same way thinking that fossile fuel is bad for the environment and should be changed for something else ASAP, doesn't mean you can't drive a car without being a hypocrite.

The problem is on the system level.

Just like being a nutcase does not mean you can't do good as a psychologist. (often to the contrary...)

PS: DanAk47, I find your Avatar really offensive... do you know why?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Are you a humpty backed president with no memory and an inability to string words together into sentences?

Then you need IFB & Cueing from Comtek

http://www.comtek.com/IFBCueing/ifbcueing.html

along with the AP-230 Auto-Prompter Kit

They supply all your needs to be the nations next mindless Republican puppet president.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1325238,00.html

Kind Regards Walker

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Comtek can not be held responcible for you looking like a hupty backed prat or for making you yell at imaginary people not on stage with you. Your chances of becoming president may be be reduced if you are caught secretly using the IFB & Cueing or AP-230 Auto-Prompter Kit to cheat at debates.</span>

[billybob2002 0]

Only if Bush was black...*shakes head* (directed at Walker)

Anyway, Kerry is Jesus F'in Christ....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/edwards.stem.cell/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Frist knocks Edwards over stem cell comment

Edwards invokes legacy of Christopher Reeve

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 8:47 PM EDT (0047 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

Edwards campaign spokesman Mark Kornblau hit back, "Yes, breakthrough research often takes time, but that's never been a reason to not even try -- until George Bush."

Edwards made the comment Monday while he was stumping in Newton, Iowa.

Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."

Kornblau, Edwards' spokesman, said, "What's crass is George Bush standing in the way of promising stem cell research."

Edwards and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry have been critical of President Bush's decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The candidates charge the federal limitation is hindering scientific progress on therapies that could offer hope to people suffering from maladies such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

Reeve, who was left paralyzed after a horseback-riding accident nine years ago, was an advocate for increased funding for new treatments for spinal cord injuries and stem cell research.

Kerry mentioned Reeve by name in Friday's presidential debate while criticizing Bush's stem cell policy.

Three years ago, citing moral and ethical considerations in destroying human embryos to extract stem cells, Bush limited federal research funding to embryonic stem cell lines already in existence.

Research using stem cells extracted from adult cells was not affected by the policy, nor was privately funded research using new embryonic stem cell lines.

The president and his supporters note that his administration is the first to offer any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, accusing Democrats of trying to create the impression that Bush has banned the practice.

Criticizing Edwards' comment linking the lifting of Bush's policy to medical breakthroughs, Frist said research related to spinal cord injuries does not involve embryonic stem cells but rather adult stem cells, "where the president has absolutely no restrictions, no limitations and there are about 140 treatments."

Embryonic stem cells are believed to be able to develop into more kinds of cells than adult stem cells, and thus more useful in potentially treating diseases. Yet some research indicates that might not be the case, and the National Institutes of Health has called for further study of both adult and embryonic stem cells.

"Stem cell research is promising," Frist said. "The president vigorously promotes adult and embryonic stem cell research, but he does it with an ethical and moral framework."

[Bernadotte 0]

You're missing the point. He is standing up and saying that rich people don't deserve tax breaks and should "pay their fair share", while he gives himself unofficial tax breaks and pays one-third of his "fair share".

Fact of life:  Everyone pays as little taxes as is legally possible.  That's a fundamental part of the system and there's nothing wrong with it.  If you are paying more taxes than what is legally required then I suggest you have your head examined.

Now please explain to me what an "unofficial tax break" is.  If it's illegal then Kerry should be imprisoned.  If it's not then what's the problem?

Quote[/b] ]Reprimanding people for committing an offense while simultaneously committing that same offense is hypocrisy.

He wasn't reprimanding people for merely taking advantage of a bad system.  He was reprimanding the people who created the bad system that they could then take advantage of themselves.

I can see where this may be a bit difficult for you to grasp so I'll try to present an analogy:

If the President has a blue car and passes a law saying that all blue cars owners get 20% off the price of gasoline it's not fair, right?

But is it wrong for some guy with a blue car to buy the cheaper fuel?  Of course not. He's just following the rules.

Is it hypocritical of that guy to criticise other blue car owners for buying cheap fuel?  Of course it is.

But is it hypocritical of that guy to criticise the president for creating the law in the first place?  No, not at all.

Now if this particular blue car owner actually struggles to change the law to make it fair for all car owners then he is acting very honourably because he is trying to help all car owners even though it will ultimately hurt his own interests.  Get it?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the President has a blue car and passes a law saying that all blue cars owners get 20% off the price of gasoline it's not fair, right?

But is it wrong for some guy with a blue car to buy the cheaper fuel?  Of course not.  He's just following the rules.

Is it hypocritical of that guy to criticise other blue car owners for buying cheap fuel?  Of course it is.

But is it hypocritical of that guy to criticise the president for creating the law in the first place?  No, not at all.

You need some more details for this example to be appropriate:

First, this guy has to have cash dripping out of his nose, so he doesn't have the "I really need the extra money" excuse. Second, this guy has a consistent record of voting against cheap Blue Fuel. He's not just criticizing the president for enacting the Blue Fuel law, he's been taking government action to stop this law. This guy is important and has a consistent, decade-long anti-Blue record. And still he uses the cheap fuel.

Edit: I'm looking at the official Kerry tax reform doc, and I see little to nothing about actual reform of the tax code for rich individuals. Raising taxes is pretty much the only thing I can see, not much loophole closing. You know, more anti-Blue Fuel laws. If he was elected, one gets the sense that he'd just make more anti-Blue Fuel laws while signing the paperwork for a shiny new blue Hummer H2.

Here's What I Was Looking At

[denoir 0]

Found this quite interesting in context with Bush's statements.

Nato ministers feel US pressure [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The US is to urge Nato to take overall responsibility for peacekeeping and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Nato defence ministers meeting in Romania on Wednesday will hear US officials suggest that separate US and Nato missions merge under Nato command.

The alliance currently commands 9,000 Kabul-based international troops, while there are 18,000 US troops hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

....

This means that the US troops will be under NATO command. It's kind of different from the rhetoric Bush used in the debates where he accused Kerry of wanting to put the control of US forces into the hands of others. This is exactly what that is.

Furthermore it shows that the US is losing interest in pursuing AQ in Afghanistan. NATO may be good for many things, but certainly not for quick responses with no strings attached.

Another interesting side note is Bosnia, where EU is taking over the command at the end of this year (it was NATO until now). While the US is slowly packing its bags, they won't be fully out for a year or two - creating the unique situation of US forces being under EU command.

Now I'm not criticizing that development per se, I'm just saying that it's a bit different from the rhetoric that Bush uses in public. He talks tough, but in reality he is adapting to the reality of the situation: that US forces are way over-extended and that they really need international help at almost any cost.

Another example is the ICC. In the debates Bush several times in strong words spoke out against it. At the same time the US did not seek an exemption this year at the UN - meaning that US troops now indeed by international law fall into the jurisdiction of the ICC.

[denoir 0]

First, this guy has to have cash dripping out of his nose, so he doesn't have the "I really need the extra money" excuse.

Actually Kerry doesn't. His wife yes, but not him. During the primaries he had to loan money and took a mortage on his house.

He is actually the only candidate that has taken a personal loan and hence a personal financial risk to fund his campaign.

[walker 0]

Hi all

If you want to see tax dodges like that used by George Bush Junior in his, I am a small business man scam, stamped out and the likes of ENRON execs Halliburton contractors and other scam merchants involved in NeoConMan tax dodges and fraud brought to justice and made to pay then you will have to vote for John F. Kerry.

If you want all those big NeoConMen who gouged you with their ENRON fake power shortages and the NeoConMan speculators and Oil Billionair cronies of TBA with their fantasy oil shortage be forced to pay their fair shair in taxes then you will have to vote for John F. Kerry.

If you want to increase John F. Kerry's Taxes you have to vote for John F. Kerry because he is the only president who will get rid of the tax breaks for the the Ultra Rich who are earning over 200,000 dollars a year.

If you want fair taxes on the ultra rich and you are sick of paying their share as well as your own then you will have to vote for John F. Kerry.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

You need some more details for this example to be appropriate:

Sorry m21man, but you completely lost me.  I hope you know what an analogy is because your response didn't mention the word "hypocrite" even once.  And afterall, that's what you and Dan were going on about, no?