If kerry is so proud of the foriegn leaders who are endorsing his run for the presidency then why won't he disclose who they are ? Isn't he proud that the philisophical enemies of the U.S. want him to win ? Here is the latest commi to come out in favor of lurch. A good read and not too long.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/july/0721_...communist.shtml

I realize that liberal kerry supporters won't ask themselves these questions but honest Americans have to.

Maybe his supporters don't want to be mentioned in the media. He has many foreign friends due to living out of the U.S. for so many years. The thing is, he knows several languages, and has been exposed to many forms of governments. So for one that will make foriegn country's doing business w/ him more impressed. He'll be able to look at things from their point of view, and understand their culture. Even though were not a communist country, and don't like that form of government; we need to respect them and at the same time let them know we don't agree w/ it.

And maybe if pigs had wings they would make big birds. It must be frustrating to have to make excuses for your candidate every time you discuss him. And if you think john kerry isn't a full fledged socialist who will sell us out to the U.N. you need to study the facts before election day. Your taxes will go up by at least 20%. They(taxes) will pay for government programs that benifit those who sign up for those specific programs that keep the people subserviant to the government.

Dont worry though, kerry has as much a chance of winning as i do.

And welcome aboard newbie....

Ok I've done alot of research on who I think should be president. I like government programs. They need to improve health care and environmental needs. welfare should be out there, but the U.S does a crapy job of running it though. Were going on our 3rd generation of it. We should try and find them jobs rather than just hand them money. Latley we've been losing jobs, and thats not helping us. Actually to be precise we have lost 3 million jobs since March 04. So I think we need someone else running the show. Bush only cares about his money. look at all the off shore taxation that goes on, we lose about $70 billion dollars a year just because Bush and his ENRON friends don't want to fork over the cash. Their better tax payers to Bermuda than they are the homeland. I hope you study the facts too, because were headed down hill in my openion.

As ultra Capitalism is not a philosophy (but plain greed), America can't have any philosophical enemies.

Hi there 123:

You say JFK has so many foreign friends because he lived outside the US for so many years.

Can you enlighten us as to when he lived outside the US, where it was and what he was doing? The only reference I can find is his 4 months in Vietnam.

He certainly didn't meet any world leaders there unless he met some VC on the QT.

Any link at all would be nice.

Hi again, 123:

Just a couple of questions about your post.

You say..."Actually to be precise we have lost 3 million jobs since March 04." Would you happen to have a link to this startling piece of information?

You also say...."we lose about $70 billion dollars a year just because Bush and his ENRON friends don't want to fork over the cash." Again, I know this is tiresome but, you wouldn't have any outside verification of this statement would you?

And just one more tiny little thing. I thought the major part of the welfare programs in the US were run by state and local governments. How is the Bush Administration at fault here. Please correct me if I am wrong (but you better have some proof).

In short, please provide us with all these facts you have been studying.

Thankyou chuckd, good questions, and while your at it 123, please deal with the point of this thread. Why won't he talk about his communist endorsers around the world ?

Radical liberals must stick together, this should suprise no one.

I even warn in my signature to say no to Scary John Kerry and the COMMUNIST THUGS that support him.

Kim Jung IL is a PERFECT examples of the kind of leaders who want KERRY to win.

Kerry has one thing going for him, communists and dictators everywhere love him.

The Cold War called, they want their topic back

You mean like the terrorists have for Bush ?

All of this information was pulled directly from the John Kerry web site.

As to the 3 million jobs lost since March 04, you are misquoting, that is from 9/11 and you fail to mention that 1.5 million jobs have been gained.

As to the off-shore taxation and $70 billion dollars lost again pulled directly from the Kerry site: this is reference to American corps investing money over seas due to lower income tax rates and then those corporations reinvesting overseas, so they don't have to pay US income tax. When they bring their money back here it would be taxed , if they don't the tax is deferred. Kerry proposes to get he money back here and have corporations reinvest in America, a one year free pass on any money over and above internal profits will not be taxed as long as they are reinvested in American business, and then to lower the percentage of taxation thereafter by 5% something like from 35% to 33.25%
So basically he's talking about cutting taxes for the rich.....


And as to your comments on welfare, well you sound just like a good old Republican......

"I hope you study the facts too, because were headed down hill in my openion"
Need a tutor?

Your kidding right ? Communism is to control and power what capitalism is to greed. And they are both economic philosophies. One leads to individual freedoms, the other leads to government tyrany. What is so wrong with the free market system in your opinion ?

No. I actually didn't get all of that information from Kerry's site. I got most of the facts before I ever visited his site. I've read some books and I've visited some sites. Heres a list of sites you can visit and some books you can read. I didn't read all of the books, but I've read 3 of them. I have also put a site that is a game. I played it after getting a lot of the information I know too. But here is the info.


Books: Pigs at the Trough - Arianna Huffington, The Lies of George W. Bush - David Corn, Perfectly Legal- David Cay Johnston, Worse Than Watergate - John W. Dean, The Price of Loyalty: Paul O'Neill - Ron Suskind, Plan of Attack - Bob Woodward, Fanatics and Fools - Arianna Huffington, Had Enough? - James Carville, The Great Unraveling - Paul Krugman, Dude, Where's My Country - Michael Moore,

Dem. Links: John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee, MoveOn

Assorted Web: Citizens for Tax Justice, CTJ - tax cuts, CTJ - Debt, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Center for Fair Economy, Centrists.org - Deficit, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, CBPP - Cost of War, United for Fair Economy - Taxes, Annual Deficit, CNN Money - Buffet on Bush Tax Cut, Paul O'Neill on Bush Tax Cut, Public Utility Law Project - FERC&ENRON, Online Journal - FERC&ENRON, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Music for America - Job Losses, Rumsfeld Caught Lying

Dig in!!!

Sorry I just read what I wrote and realized I forgot to put the game site on it.
It's http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html[/URL]

Bwaaaahahahahahah!

James Carville, Arianna Huffington, John Dean, Paul O'Neill and Michael Moore?

Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously after looking at your library list?

A more balanced diet I have never seen!

A philosophical enemy of the U.S. is President Bush.

I think what chuckd asked for has not been provided. He didn't ask for a library list of marxism as 123 provided, but for specific links to the points made by 123, which, were NOT provided.

The only thing provided was a link for a "game".


Running the country and defending America is not a game. If real links from real sites that specifically denote that so-called facts used in the post cannot be provided 123, then your credibility is called into question.

Please let us know when you can possibly back up your "facts".

politicts

123, if all you read is socialist dribble, is it any wonder you are a socialist ? Check out the real history of this country and you will find we were anything but socialist. Our forfathers were independance and individual freedoms minded. They encouraged an open and free market which stimulated the individuals creativity and produced wealth. I just can't figure out why the liberals hate our creativity and ability to create wealth.

Yeah Bush is doing a real good job creating wealth.....my #####!! He creats wealth for himself and all the other rich ppl out there. He should be trying to creat wealth for the little guy to you know.

Dearling, if you only read 3 of the books you listed, why do you think the others contain the information you misquoted? So which of the 3 did you read?

The Lies of George W. Bush - David Corn, Plan of Attack - Bob Woodward, Pigs at the Trough - Arianna Huffington. I've read those books.

I Repeat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/QUOTE]Yeah Bush is doing a real good job creating wealth.....my #####!! He creats wealth for himself and all the other rich ppl out there.

He should be trying to create wealth for the little guy too, you know. I know ppl need to make an effort to be successful, but Bush could at least make education more affordable and create jobs. I'm not talking about stupid retail ones either, supply more executive or CEO jobs.

The point of a free society is that it allows the freedom for the individual to create wealth for themselves. You have this freedom but you are so spoiled you want another man to give it to you. If the U.S. had a program to send every young person to a third world country for 6 months, socialism and liberalism wouldn't exist in this country. Americans would fully appreciate the blessings this country affords us and the democratic party wouldn't have become the philosophical monster it has grown into in this generation. nuff said for now.

Boy, have you been wasting your time!

Let me see here. President Kennedy, in 1963, while pushing his across the board tax cuts stated that " A Rising Tide floats ALL boats." Now what about that don't you understand? What he meant is that is you lower taxes on Everyone, you unlock the potential of Everyone to help improve the economy: not subsidize the State.

And just as we Classic Economic folks point out, lowering taxes will create a more vibrant economy, AND help generate higer tax revenues. AND help the little guy get ahead. It worked in the mid sixties, enabling LBJ to get us into Real involvement in VietNam. It worded in the 80s with Reagan, and the after effect were still felt in the 90s along with the peace divident generated by the fall of the USSR.

So, I think that you need to get a little education in basic classical economics. Forget all that Keynesian bilge, and go to Supply Side University, sign up for the free courses and learn something.

That is of course, if you are truely interested in learning some REAL facts, not rhetoric.

Exactly how many executive or CEO jobs do you think would be necessary? Should everyone be a CEO or executive? You do realize to create more jobs like this you have to create more corporations? So we'll have a bunch of management companies overseeing a bunch of management-types, all managing management.

Of course I guess we could just start giving everyone a title...
"Hi Welcome to McDonald's I'll be your CECO (Chief Executive Cashier Officer)today. Would you like to executive-size your fries?"




Chief Executive Officer - the title implies one person holds the job....

Here's lesson #1, it's not too long. It's from John L's Supply Side U.
By Jude Wanniski
Memo To: SSU Students
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Predicting a Victory

A REAGAN LANDSLIDE?
By Jude Wanniski

The presidential campaign will be waged over economic theory and the policies that flow from "demand-side" and "supply-side" theories. Reagan is the first Republican presidential candidate since 1952 to carry the "supply-side" banner. Reagan parallels with Goldwater's 1964 campaign are false; An aggressive Reagan campaign that puts tax-rate reductions and central-bank reform at the center will translate into a Reagan victory and effective control of Congress. The financial markets will respond positively as the scenario unfolds, a bull market getting underway in earnest when the markets gain confidence that supply-side policies will be instituted by a President Reagan. The loss of John Sears was a temporary setback. But President Carter's economic mismanagement plus Reagan's growing confidence in his own platform points to the possibility of a Reagan landslide.

April 1980

*****

Leonard Silk of The New York Times, the dean of Keynesian economic writers (Lindley Clark, Jr., of The Wall Street Journal being the leading monetarist commentator), began his column on February 29 with the assumption that it would be Carter versus Reagan in 1980. He went on the observation that economic issues would be paramount in the campaign, and the voters would have a distinct choice of economic strategies. Carter continues to rely on policies that flow from Keynesian and monetarist "demand" models of the economy, he said, while "it seems clear" that Reagan has "bought supply-side economics."

The Carter approach thus requires monetary and fiscal restraint (taking money out of people's pockets) to combat inflation, and monetary and fiscal ease (putting money into people's pockets) to combat unemployment. The model provides no simultaneous solution to the problems of inflation and unemployment (you can not put money into people's pockets while simultaneously extracting it, except in a Marx Brothers movie).

The "supply-side" or "neo-classical" model, broadly speaking, uses monetary policy to combat inflation and fiscal policy to combat recession (permitting individuals to keep in their pockets more of what they produce, in the form of hard dollars, thereby encouraging them to produce more).

"The great debate of 1980 could turn out to be demand-side versus supply-side economics -- if the candidates are up to it," said Silk.

This point, "if the candidates are up to it," is the single most important question facing global financial markets this year, especially: "Is Ronald Reagan up to an aggressive offensive on supply-side policy at the center of his campaign for the Presidency?" If he is, and at the same time can diffuse the "warmonger" attack that crippled Goldwater in 1964, Reagan can defeat President Carter. Indeed, he could not only defeat Carter easily, but in proportions that could give the Republican Party effective control of Congress for the first time since Eisenhower's first term. In 1964, remember, the Johnson landslide was built on a platform of economic expansion ushered in by the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts, which Barry Goldwater and the GOP bitterly opposed, arguing austerity and "fiscal responsibility." Although the terminology was not employed, we can say that the Democrats carried the supply-side banner in that election while the Republicans were demand-siders, a situation that has reversed in 1980. The only other Presidential election since World War II that contained a supply-side banner was in 1952, when Eisenhower vaguely flapped the tax-cut flag urged upon him by Senator Taft of Ohio, a flag Eisenhower shelved as soon as he was elected.

In this ideal scenario, in which Reagan would both attack President Carter's "politics of despair" and ardently press for supply-sider solutions of tax cuts, deregulation and hard money, there are three stages the financial markets must follow in determining whether Reagan is "up to it." The first is the period up to the July convention in Detroit, the second is the period up to the November elections, and the third is the period up to the Inauguration.

ANNOUNCER: Some of our leaders say our country has to stop growing; that our children may have to accept a lower standard of living than we've had. Ronald Reagan doesn't buy that.

REAGAN: This is the greatest country in the world. We have the ability to solve our economic problems...our energy problems -- even our social problems. We have the talent. We have the drive. We have the imagination. Now all we need is the leadership.

"Taxes" :30 seconds

ANNOUNCER: Ronald Reagan believes that when you tax something you get less of it. We're taxing work, savings and investment like never before. As a result we have less work, less savings and less invested.

REAGAN: I didn't always agree with President Kennedy. But when his 30% Federal tax cut became law, the economy did so well that every group in the country came out ahead. Even the government gained $54 billion in unexpected revenues. If I become President, we're going to try that again.

"Good Shepherd" :60 seconds

ANNOUNCER: In the past few years, our income has been eroded by the worst peacetime inflation and the largest tax increases in history. Our leaders tell us that in order to help energy consumers, we have to tax energy producers. And to have lower prices, we have to keep Federal tax rates high. Ronald Reagan doesn't believe that.

REAGAN: If there's one thing we've seen enough of, it's this idea that for one American to gain, another American has to suffer. When the economy is weak as it has been in recent years...everybody suffers...especially those who have the least. If we reduce paperwork and unnecessary regulations...if we cut tax rates deeply and permanently, we'll be removing many of the barriers that hold everybody back. Those who have the least will gain the most. If we put incentives back into society, everyone will gain. We have to move ahead. But we can't leave anyone behind.

Funny that.
Seems like he should prefer Bush.
Why is Bush such a failure he can't catch that man? Osama must be very happy with the incompetent Bush war plan.

We've got better vision. We've got better ideas. We've got real plans. We have a better sense of what's happening in America and we have better hair." Kerry Quote

Yet another one of John Kerry's stauchest foriegn supporters, excellent work Boon.

Boon Me, so this is where you and GOP are getting all your little graphic Democratic teasers? And they have a forum too. Do they allow folks like Huey and Thaiquila?

What an uproar they could cause over there!