Why should I vote for Kerry?

[goodevening]

As of now, I plan on voting for Kerry for a few of reasons:

1. He is smarter than Bush.

2. He went to war and thus would not send soldiers unless absolutly nessicarry, or he would send an abundence of soldiers and not make the same mistake that was made in vietnam.

3. Bush got out of going to vietnam and sent people to war.

4. Bush cut high income taxes.

5. Kerry wants to tax corperations for outsoursing.

6. I dont know anything about Nader aside from there is no way he could win.

...but this is all i really know or think i know

what else should i know before i vote?

[Scribbler1]

Well, he's NOT Bush, which in itself is a good enough reason. Don't expect too much better from Kerry though. The BIG difference is the exact same thing Bush is slamming Kerry with. He changes his mind! Bush doesn't seem to be bothered with his popularity all that much, so when he does something like get us into a war, he is apparently focused on what he did and believes he is right. The lack of ability to adjust your position based on new evidence is the most damning thing against Bush.
Kerry, OTOH is apparently (in typical politician fashion) a LOT more concerned about polls than Bush. If he had taken us to war as Bush did, I believe he would see the new evidence indicating no WMD's, etc. and try to find a way out of this instead of "sticking to his guns" like an idiot.

[bishop]

the only benefit of being concerned about polls, in theory, is that they're more likely to give the public what it wants.

[Section 8]

You should know that Kerry doesn't support the constitution. Kerry supports the Federal Reserve, when the constitution says that all currency must be backed by gold and silver. Kerry attempted to subvert the constitution by giving Bush the power to go to war at a whim, in a pathetic attempt to evade blame for any reprecussions that might happen. At the Democratic Convention there were "free-speech zones" which were guarded with chainlink fence and razor-wire. Kerry supports governmental intrusion to the education system through increased education funding. Kerry supports stronger sanctions in Iran which are a barrier to free trade and kill innocent citizens. Kerry supports the IRS. Kerry supports a limit on the second amendment and the FAA. Yet more of the reasons why you should vote for Michael Badnarik for president. For more info, visit http://www.badnarik.org or http://www.lp.org Remember, the only wasted vote is if you vote for someone whom you don't respect.

[bishop]

has badnarik ever talked about how he would actually return us to the gold standard? i've read a lot about foreign exchange, if he's convinced you that it'll be feasable, he's played you for a fool. we still keep gold reserves too..

and, i was always taught that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court decides that it is...

[RickSp]

You should know that Kerry doesn't support the constitution.

Have you been listening to Badnarick's hair-brained course on the Constitution?

Bush is opposed to the parts of the Constitution that I really care about - the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. While Kerry may be a mediocre political hack, Bush is threat the very core of the Republic.

Brave Americans defeated one mad King George in the 1781. It is time to do it again.

[RickSp]

has badnarik ever talked about how he would actually return us to the gold standard? i've read a lot about foreign exchange, if he's convinced you that it'll be feasable, he's played you for a fool. we still keep gold reserves too.. and, i was always taught that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court decides that it is...

Badnarick is nice guy and a good campaigner. His actual ideas, if you scratch beneath the surface, are a bit nuts and he plays a bit fast and loose with facts and figures. The first Libertarian Party campaign I was involved was over thirty years ago. Shame we have accomplised so little in three decades. On the other hand compared to Kerry and Bush, Mike may not look so bad.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Section 8, You should know that Kerry doesn't support the constitution. Kerry supports the Federal Reserve, when the constitution says that all currency must be backed by gold and silver.

Is this something NEW? Holy cow, I thought we were STILL on the gold standard!

Kerry attempted to subvert the constitution by giving Bush the power to go to war at a whim, in a pathetic attempt to evade blame for any reprecussions that might happen.

Absolutely correct, and one of my main reasons for wanting the ENTIRE Congress replaced immediately.

Remember, the only wasted vote is if you vote for someone whom you don't respect.

Unless you are voting AGAINST a dangerous, uncontrolled man and the logical and sane choice doesn't have a chance in hell of ousting that dangerous man.

Bush OUT, Kerry IN and then Kerry OUT in favor of a Libertarian NEXT time! It's the only sane choice in this most dangerous time in our country's history.

[Section 8]

Originally posted by bishop+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>has badnarik ever talked about how he would actually return us to the gold standard? i've read a lot about foreign exchange, if he's convinced you that it'll be feasable, he's played you for a fool. we still keep gold reserves too..[/b]

I highly suggest that you pick up A Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard. Until then, I suggest you read this, although it's way over the top, there are some nice nuggets of information buried in there.

<!--QuoteBegin-ricksp
Badnarick is nice guy and a good campaigner. His actual ideas, if you scratch beneath the surface, are a bit nuts and he plays a bit fast and loose with facts and figures. The first Libertarian Party campaign I was involved was over thirty years ago. Shame we have accomplised so little in three decades. On the other hand compared to Kerry and Bush, Mike may not look so bad.[/quote]

I disagree with him on some issues, and I think he is much to vague on his plan in Iraq, but for the most part I agree with him. He would definently make a much better president than Bush or Kerry. Exactly what positions do you think are nuts?

Scribbler1- I personally don't see much of a difference in Bush or Kerry. In 2008 however, the Republicans will probably field McCain (the fascist) and Giuliani. So that election is pretty much sealed. I think that the best course of action is to resurect Barry Goldwater. Anybody with me?

[bishop]

no offense, but you must've swiped that link like i swipe hershey with toilet paper... damn near every link on that page is broken. before you toss something over, how about checking it first?

and like i said, i've read a lot about this issue since foreign exchange is one of my primary interests. in theory, returning to gold is a good idea because of its natural ability to limit long term inflation (although nominal inflation has been much more volatile under gold - and has caused some significant economic problems). however, the entire global financial system operates on floating exchange rates. it is NOT as simple as "let's return to the gold standard". how about advocating a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets instead? throughout its history, problems that have been blamed on the fed should have been blamed on government and its fiscal irresponsibility.

heh, but as long as he ties his argument to the constitution then that means it's the best idea, right?

[RickSp]

I disagree with him on some issues, and I think he is much to vague on his plan in Iraq, but for the most part I agree with him. He would definently make a much better president than Bush or Kerry. Exactly what positions do you think are nuts?

He has suggested that taxes can be cut and the IRS abolished without great disruption. To support this he quotes figures on IRS tax collection that are simply wrong. (I read this in an interview he had with L. Niel Smith early inthe campaign.) He also makes statements about gun control and gun violence that are factually wrong and obviously so. His "constitutionlist" side is a bit odd. He has suggested that rather that sending troops to Afghanistan the President could have issued "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", which ceased to exist as a matter of international law as of the mid 1800s. His ideas on car ownership, drivers licenses and whether or not he really has to pay taxes could get him thrown in jail one day. Even if his arguments on these issues had merit, which I question, running for President without paying taxes strikes me as absurdly foolhardy.

[Section 8]

Dammit, I keep political links like that under a favorite folder, so it worked a year ago. I don't pretend to know that much about economics, so I stand corrected. Would a silver standard be any different? I would also support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by goodevening, Why should I vote for Kerry?

To show your compassion :-)))

Bush and his pack, has already filled out their pockets with some billions of dolllars. Just give a chance another pack to grab some bucks too.
Kerry would be delighted :-)))

[bishop]

Would a silver standard be any different?

no. the reason why nixon abandoned the gold standard was because we couldn't back up all of our overseas debts/investments. we had billions in europe and japan - their central banks continued to buy dollars to stock up their reserves. as it was, europe and japan were destroyed in ww2, so they kept buying our currency in case theirs collapsed. all was well until vietnam started, and when lbj was president. the fiscal damage that happened was a really big deal. it's the reason why nixon abandoned the gold standard.

now, badnarik would say that you'd simply (and arbitrarily) increase the natural value of gold - which essentially is inflating the standard, so the dollar will continue to be inflated. using historical prices, you can't use gold, silver or any precious commodity (other than oil) to back paper currency.

plus, the system has reformed itself (incurring billions of costs during the transition) to function on a floating exchange system. it actually works better in practice and theory, even though it's controversial for the ultra-constitutionalists and those who simply believe what third-party candidates tell them.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Exerpts from The Creature from Jekyll Island By G Edward Griffin. This desribes our Federal Reserve and the Banking System. With the connection to the NWO.

[Suburbanite]

Don't call it a Republic RickSp, it implies that the best leaders will lead, which isn't the case.

[Starboy]

Why am I voting for Kerry? There are a great number of reasons not least of which Kerry is for science rather than lying about it as Bush did last night. That Kerry is for sober consideration before taking major action rather than Bush's shoot first ask questions later. That Kerry is a man of character that went to Yale and got an education that actually shows rather than Bush who appears to have been a lazy ass and partied the entire time. Then Kerry served his country by going into harms way and then when he came back after demonstrating his commitment to his country he spoke out on what he saw. Whether or not you agree with what Kerry said about Vietnam is beyond the point. He earned the right to say it rather than Bush who spent his time in the National Guard but didn't show up for duty. I am for Kerry because Kerry is for upholding the constitution as is the duty of the President rather than forcing his particular religious views on the entire country because he thinks that his personal convictions give him that right. Bush failed to get an education at Yale and doesn't understand what it means to be a public servant especially the President of the United States. If I were the president of Yale I would take Bush’s degree back.

Starboy

Originally posted by goodevening, As of now, I plan on voting for Kerry for a few of reasons: 1. He is smarter than Bush. 2. He went to war and thus would not send soldiers unless absolutly nessicarry, or he would send an abundence of soldiers and not make the same mistake that was made in vietnam. 3. Bush got out of going to vietnam and sent people to war. 4. Bush cut high income taxes. 5. Kerry wants to tax corperations for outsoursing. 6. I dont know anything about Nader aside from there is no way he could win. ...but this is all i really know or think i know what else should i know before i vote?

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-Winston Churchill

1. Or appears to be. Personally, his 'solutions' to the problems are completely idealistic and will never happen but they sure sound good on camera.
2. Weak. (as a decision for whom to vote for)
3. Weaker. (as a decision for whom to vote for)
4. *tears* I'm positive you'd ask for a break from the government if you were part of the 10% of this country that pays 90% of the taxes.
5. Kerry receives funding from large corporations and so do 99% of the senate/house. That will never happen. LOL.
6. .... the only problem you might have with Nader is that he'll pull votes from Kerry -- but i doubt it will matter this race.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by colin, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." -Winston Churchill

As long as we are going to quote Winston Churchill to shore up our poor decisions how about this:

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill

My, my, if that isn't the best description of Dubya and the religious nutcases he embodies I have yet to hear one. If anyone can't change his mind and wears it as a badge of honor it has to be Dubya. And if anyone is fond of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over until people fall into a hypnotic trance that would have to be Dubya.

Starboy

i think it's obvious in his quote Churchill notions the subject of CHANGE.

so thanks for the supportive reply.