Will Marshall: Kerry has been proven right on Iraq.

[madfloridian]

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=252795

SNIP..."Having been proven right on Iraq, Kerry is in a strong position both to persuade anti-war Democrats that abandoning the country to civil war and terrorism would be a strategic calamity for the United States, and to argue to independent and undecided voters that the Bush administration lacks the credibility to restore America's tarnished moral standing and win international cooperation.

Kerry's big challenge now is to fit Iraq within a broader vision for making Americans safer. For Democrats, the best way to close the national security gap that has bedeviled them for too long is to forge a better strategy for winning the war on terror and Islamic extremism. Primarily a clash of ideas and values, that war will not be won on any battlefield. Ultimately, we will win by offering the moderate majority of Muslims an alternative to jihadi terror.

Just as Truman did at the beginning of the Cold War, Kerry and the Democrats should fashion a comprehensive strategy that transforms our military to better fight terrorism and prevent proliferation, that opens markets throughout the wider Middle East to stimulate trade and jobs, that ties development aid to accountable governance, and that puts America squarely and consistently on the side of human rights and democratic reforms, not a spurious "stability."END SNIP

First of all, I happen not to think he was proven right on Iraq. I also read the last paragraph to mean we are going to stay. And most likely go on to the "wider Middle East to stimulate trade and jobs". And does he mean a stability is not enough? What does he mean by a "spurious" stability?

\Spu"ri*ous\, a.
1. Not proceeding from the true source, or from the source
pretended; not genuine; false; adulterate.

What does he think would be true security? Staying forever? Yes, I think that is what he means.

[ulysses]

1. fuck Will Marshall.

Idiot.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Whatever!!!

:eyes:

The DLC is such an UN-AMERICAN MENACE!

:grr:

[madfloridian]

3. Says Kerry is a "Blair Democrat." WTH is that?

SNIP....:The conflict in Iraq, of course, has brought the old tensions between the party's hawks and doves back to the fore. Kerry and other "Blair Democrats" backed the Iraq war resolution to strengthen Bush's hand in pressing the United Nations to enforce its mandates against Saddam Hussein. But Howard Dean vaulted to an early lead in the primaries when he attacked Democrats for supporting "George Bush's unilateral war." In the end, though, Dean's campaign fizzled, as even liberal anti-war voters in Iowa and New Hampshire saw Kerry as a more credible challenger to Bush....."END SNIP

SO now Blair is credible enough for us to compare with our nominee?

[tnlefty]

5. If I were Kerry I would demand that he stop with the "Blair democrats"

bullcrap. Blair is taking a lot of heat for being dishonest about WMDs, intelligence, actual numbers of mass graves and the numbers of bodies in them.

I don't think that I would want to likened to Blair about anything.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I find the comparison the Bush's poodle to be offensive

and I hope it is inaccurate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Marshall is eager to put his words in other people's mouths.

I find his polemics to be highly disingenuous.

[blm]

6. True security through education, healthcare and economic opportunity

is what Kerry has always proposed for the Mideast. That's why the Saudi Royals are not particularly fans of his.

By urging and promoting PUBLIC education in the Mideast, then the poor and working class won't be herded ONLY into fundamentalist Islamic schools as they are now.

Will Marshall is just ONE of Kerry's advisors. No doubt he is angling as much as he can to claim the centrist ground. But, I doubt Kerry will change his plan to get tough on Saudi Arabia to appease the more centrist of his advisors.

[JohnKleeb]

9. what is Kerry's mideast plan? I am unfamliar with it

[madfloridian]

10. Yeh, blm, while we are losing ours! Our country's needs are neglected.

I have had my leg pulled enough on this stuff. I am not stupid, and I know when my interests are not being met.

So I gather you think it ok for Marshall to compare Kerry to Blair.

[blm]

30. I said what I said. Why put words in my post that I did not?

Kerry's intention is for the Saudi Royals to distribute the oil profits of their country more fairly, including for schools and healthcare. He intends to come down on them and force them to do so, possibly through sanctions or good old shame.

It has nothing to do with our needs on those issues.

Maybe I just don't understand the tone of your post?

[IndianaGreen]

74. "Kerry's intention is for the Saudi Royals..." BALONEY!

Kerry's intention is for the Saudi Royals to distribute the oil profits of their country more fairly, including for schools and healthcare.

What you said Kerry's intentions are is exactly what Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela. Chavez has taken the oil profits that used to flow into the pockets of the elites, and reallocated them for schools and health care for all Venezuelans.

Why is Kerry against Chavez then?

BTW, the idea of a Kerry Administration being so concerned about the way Saudis distribute their oil profits is absolute BALONEY when one takes into consideration the way Kerry/Edwards have ignored the plight of the Palestinians.

This rhetoric remind me more of what we used to hear from the Reagan Administration, constantly obsession about the "evils" of some dictator they hated while completely ignoring the greater "evils" of dictators they loved. Shall I mention Somoza?

[madfloridian]

11. I saw your referral to public education for the middle east.

While ours is systematically being undermined. Something is wrong with this picture.

[Selwynn]

17. I believe we can do both, and should certainly stand for both.

[madfloridian]

23. Who comes first? Them or us?

Just wanting to know.

[Selwynn]

28. We both come together.

Now you know.

It is in our best interests, that we look out for their best interests. We are connected, we don't live in an isolated bubble where the rest of the world has no impact on us. Therefore, we should not think in terms of who is MORE important - us or them, but see our importance as critcally linked and work on both.

[madfloridian]

42. You are so so wrong. The care of our own people is more important.

When did you stop thinking that.

[Selwynn]

55. I never "started" thinking that.

I don't have a heirarchical view in which "we" are more important and/or superior to other people.

I also believe that my health and well being is in some ways linked to the health and well being of my "neighbor." I believe in global humanity, not nationalism. Lives of Iraqis are not somehow less valuable or less important than lives of Americans, and it seems racist and classist to say otherwise.

The United States is not merely the goverment of American people, it is the single most powerful and wealthy nation not only in the world today, but in the history of the world. To act like we don't have responsibilty to do what we can with that great wealth and power for the benefit of all people seems wrong.

I don't believe in an either/or that acts like if we do what's right for others we somehow won't be able to do what's right for ourselves. To me that is wrong thinking for two reasons: a) we have more than enough capacity to do what's right both for ourselves and others if we would just stop doing what's wrong for most people in america and what's wrong for others b) what is right for us is related to what is right for others. Bringing better education and better quality of life to others is best for us. Because ignorance and poverty are the primary breeding grounds for desparate violence and terrorism.

When the world's standard of life is elevated, that is a direct benefit to us, it is literally doing what is in our best interests. At the same time, doing that doesn't at all mean that we therefore cannot overhaul our educational system and take care of our own domestic needs. We just need to decide that we want to do what's right and then do it.

[madfloridian]

60. But they are taking away our standard of living to give to other countries

We may elevate those in Iraq (though we have most surely not done it yet.) Then, since we are already apparently doing covert things in Iran,maybe we can elevate them as well.

So why did my son-in-law have to wait a year for needed surgery because my daughter's insurance did not cover him during his lay-off?

Why can't my middle-class neighbor,who is about to lose her home because of unemployment, get aid for her doctor and hospital care because she is so well off.

[Selwynn]

72. *They* are not taking away anything

You are acting like we just simply don't have the means to do both. You know, we didn't have the kind of education we should have or the health care system we should have long before we invaded Iraq.

We don't have the kind of medical insurance your son in law deserves and we don't have the kind of medical care your neighbor deserves because our government and our society chooses not to have them. We choose to continue to elect officials who continue to support policies that take more away from those who need it and give more breaks to those who don't.

What I am trying to say is that if we actually had our priorities straight and elected the right kind of leadership we would be able to meet both our responsibilities in the world and our responsibilities at home. The problem is not that there just isn't enough to go around. The problem is that the massive, massive abundance that there is is completely consolidated at the very top, so that there is neither enough left to create the kind of social programs that this nation deserves, nor enough left to be the responsible compassionate empowering kind of world leader we could be.

This is why I keep saying its not either or. The problem is not that we help others. That's not why things at home are broken. Things are both broken in our relations abroad and here at home because we those with the power choose to put those who will maintain that monopoly into government, and the top 10% continues to exploit both the bottom 90% of this country and the rest of the world for its own selfish ends. If that wasn't happening, we would be able to meet our obligations to our own citizens and still do what we should do in the world as well.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Our problems in the Middle East are related to Israel's Occupation

and our knee-jerk support of it.

The basic assumption that Marshall makes is fatally flawed. It is US foreign policy, and our choices in friends, that is creating terrorists every day.

We must change policy, beginning with our cutting off all military aid and financial assistance to all the countries in the Middle East. All of what that money does is to prop up the corrupt tyrants that we love so much, such as President Mubarak of Egypt, and to makes financially feasible for Israel to build and maintain settlements on Occupied Palestine.

The problem is not only in the Middle East, but it extends to every Continent where America uses force to maintain its hegemony, not to mention the standard of living of the new Rome (at the expense of everyone else).

How about abolishing Plan Colombia for starts?

[Selwynn]

19. Sigh.... yes, that's a great point too.

Thanks for the reminder.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Will Marshall was one of the signatories of PNAC

and he is now behind the DLC version of PNAC, the Progressive Policy Institute. The "Progressive" name is as an accurate description of its ideology as the "Socialist" is of the National Socialist Party. If this is over your head, the NSP was the official name of the German Nazi party.

[madfloridian]

13. More about "Blair Democrats." From WP by Will Marshall in May.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A62909-2003Apr30¬Found=true

SNIP..."After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.

Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security. Their "yes-but" position on Iraq irked the antiwar left and some political commentators, who prefer the parties to take starkly opposing stands on every issue, no matter how complicated. But the Blair Democrats faithfully reflected Americans' instinctive internationalism. While neoconservatives may yearn for a new Augustan age based on unfettered U.S. power, most Americans still see strategic advantages in international cooperation......"END SNIP

Will Marshall should just go away quietly. Just look at how he frames the argument, like the good little neocon that he is. It is so misleading.

Will, I would rather not have attacked Iraq at all. Stop with the rhetoric.

[wyldwolf]

20. Will, continue with the rhetotic...

Most Americans DO see strategic advantages in international cooperation, no Bush-led unilateralism.

I understand your "Blair Democrats" reference. I don't take it that you're trying to install a new label on democrats but rather use the term to describe democrats who took Blair's point of view - that the UN should have been challenged to broker the Iraq issue.

[IndianaGreen]

75. If the DLC-types want Bush's war to become Kerry's war...

Bring it on!

In 1969 the Democratic Vietnam War became a Republican war, and Nixon became a war criminal just as Lyndon Johnson had become before him.

Is this what Will Marshall and his adoring followers want to happen in 2005? Do you want the neocon PNAC Iraq war become the neodem PPI Iraq war? Beware of what you wish...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. You mean they finally found the WMD???

Oh, I guess not. But, we gotta get those "markets" open lest the CEOs suffer.

[Selwynn]

15. I am undecided on the issue of immediate withdraw.

These are the ways I am torn:

One one hand:
We devastated that country, therefore we're responsible for restoring it. I can consider whether our continued military occupation is worse for the the Iraqi people, but I cannot accept any scenario in which the United States is not forced to pay for rebuilding what we destroyed.

So that's the first point: even if military force should be withdrawn immediately, I cannot support anything that says the US should no longer be responsible for paying for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Still on the same hand, I am unsure of what will happen if the United States immediately and unilaterally withdraws. Will it leave a power vacuum with dooms that country to far worse civil war, destruction and suffering. Will it allow for other hard line oppressive terrorist or tyrannical regimes to come to power and once again enslave the people?

So that's the second point: is our immediate withdraw really best for the Iraqi people. That's what I care about most. We fucked them, and now I feel we are absolutely responsible for making restitution in whatever ways we can. If leaving now means dooming Iraqi people to greater suffering or worse oppression or violence, then I do not support immediate withdraw.

Now, on the other hand:
It is entirely possible that our presence there, even in the times where it is well intentioned (what I mean by that is, even when we are doing things like rebuilding or training teachers, or some of the other positive things that are trying to be done) is not helpful, does not make Iraqi people's lives more safe, or less oppressed by only makes the violence and destruction worse.

So that's the first point on this side: our military presence directly hurts the aim of making things better for the Iraqi people.

In addition, its also possible that our current administration cares so little for actually helping the Iraqi people really than we literally have no real good intentions there, little or nothing positive is even seriously initiated, and most of that is for show.

So that's the second point on this side: if our presence in Iraq really does absolutely nothing positive to rebuild or repair or improve, then we should immediately withdraw.


My own feeling at the moment are sort of like this: the United States should transition military force to a United Nations led peace keeping force made up of many nations, none of them the United States (because more countries will cooperate if we're not there). But the United States should still be responsible for the costs and struggle to repair all the horrible tragic damage that was done to the people of that country. We should have teams of builders and volunteers, not corporations awarded lucrative government contracts, but workers working through the United Nations committed to the rebuilding process.

But because I myself am torn on what I feel is a really complicated issue, I'm not as furious as some of you are that not every democrat in politics is immediately ready to say we should cut and run.

[ulysses]

18. I used to believe that we couldn't morally withdraw

until things were "stabilized", lest civil war erupt. I now believe that civil war is inevitable regardless of whether we're there militarily or not.

[wyldwolf]

16. Great article!

winning the war on terror and Islamic extremism.... will not be won on any battlefield. Ultimately, we will win by offering the moderate majority of Muslims an alternative to jihadi terror.

That is correct! But how?

Just as Truman did at the beginning of the Cold War, Kerry and the Democrats should fashion a comprehensive strategy that transforms our military to better fight terrorism and prevent proliferation, that opens markets throughout the wider Middle East to stimulate trade and jobs, that ties development aid to accountable governance, and that puts America squarely and consistently on the side of human rights and democratic reforms, not a spurious "stability."

Yes! Offer the poor of this country economic stability. Eliminate the very conditions that allow terrorist groups to recruit. Finally, offer them REAL democratic reform - not the spurious "stability" Bush offers that could be washed away tomorrow.

[madfloridian]

21. While allowing our jobs, insurance, and health care to be taken away .

Yeh, good job.

[wyldwolf]

22. taken away... where? and from who?

[madfloridian]

24. Oh, good grief. That deserves no answer.

.

[wyldwolf]

25. correction: You HAVE no answer

Just as you desperately tried to read something sinister into Marshall's use of "spurious."

No indication is given that OUR jobs will be given away.

Rebuilding war-torn and impoverished areas equates to many jobs THERE for people. Unless you're worried that people like Haliburton will lose out?

[madfloridian]

31. You say we have not lost jobs, insurance, or healthcare?

I say you are wrong. Florida has lost several thousand just this week from just two companies. I can find it, but you can search just as well as I can. I think for anyone to argue that our country has not lost jobs is perfectly disingenuous.

I speak from experience on the health care, and several family members can as well. It has tripled in cost in 3 years, our insurance. We will be losing our drug coverage next year.

Healthcare is not available for many of the people in the US. For you to say it is is just silly.

[wyldwolf]

34. No, of course not

But what does this have to do with boosting the economic conditions of war-torn impoverished nations?

Are you saying war-torn impoverished nations don't need economic stability? Are you saying you'd rather fight terrorism "Bush style" instead of eliminating the very conditions that allow terrorists to recruit?

[madfloridian]

38. Then you tell me where the money is coming from.

Who is funding all the goodies for the other countries?

[wyldwolf]

40. It should be an international venture

..as Marshall suggested in the article.

But you tell me - where does the money come from now?

Should we intervene in Sudan? Costs money! Help them recover? Costs money!

[madfloridian]

44. No, you tell me where the money will come from. Quit shifting.

When did the argument switch to the Sudan? We just invaded a foreign country who was not a threat, our nominee voted for it, and I want to know where the money is coming from for us to continue.

I worked hard for my retirement benefits, I pay a lot for them. Why the hell are they being taken away?

[wyldwolf]

46. Shifting?

When did the argument switch to the Sudan?

When you questioned where money would come from for international operations - Sudan being one we will possibly soon undertake. You did ask, in post 38: Who is funding all the goodies for the other countries? Sudan is another country, no?

So, when did the argument shift to your family's healtcare - as in post 31?

I want to know where the money is coming from for us to continue.

The same place money comes from for every international operations. Are you saying we shouldn't fix what we broke?

[madfloridian]

47. Read Marshall's article about what we are up to.

You are agreeing 100% with the neocon position about the middle east, and you are attempting to blur the real argument.

Backing off.

[wyldwolf]

49. backing off...

...your reasoning abilities are in full bloom.... so you should back off.

[madfloridian]

50. Oh, my.

What do you mean by full bloom?

[wyldwolf]

52. see, I KNEW you wouldn't really back off!

Instead of defending your position with hard facts, you gave me the blanket assumptive statement, "You are agreeing 100% with the neocon position about the middle east, and you are attempting to blur the real argument."

Yet, you never presented the real argument.

BRILLIANT reasoning skills!

[GreenArrow]

70. of course, you are agreeing with the neocon position on the middle east

100 percent. Try reading the PNAC document again.

The real argument is whether Kerry was right or wrong about the Iraq invasion. He was wrong, as time has shown and will continue to show. But he is electable, which is the only thing that really matters.

[wyldwolf]

71. of course I'm not

What I agreed with was the points I made in post 16.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Are you really asking this question? If so,....

...where have you been for the last several years?

[wyldwolf]

29. Yes I am...

So, for the benefit of those who you assume are missing something, explain it to us.

[madfloridian]

33. Then if you are serious, I will let others answer you.

I think you are totally aware and just arguing.

[wyldwolf]

35. because you can't?

And you do understand Marshall's use of "spurious" now ... right?

[blm]

32. Kerry's plan is to take away our jobs, insurance and healthcare?

Do you have a cite for that?

I was under the impression it wasn't an either or proposition.

[wyldwolf]

36. blm, with some of these DU'ers, it is ALWAYS an either/or proposition

[madfloridian]

39. No, some of us do not hide our heads in the sand with blind loyalty.

We question. We wonder. We get blasted and come back for more.

[wyldwolf]

41. a persecution complex

...mixed with a blinding mistrust of just about everything.

You quote articles - questioning even the most obvious points like the use of the word "spurrious," then whine when people take an opposite position and never bother to back up the assertions you make. Maybe it's just the WAY you question and wonder...

[madfloridian]

45. There, you said it. I "whine". That is all you can say.

I am quoting an article from the head of a Democratic group who advises our nomineee. So you throw it back at me that I quote articles? Why are you so angry over the word "spurious." Marshall used it first. Argue with him.

[wyldwolf]

48. I said more than "whine." I also said you have a persecution complex

I also quoted from the article - the only difference is I didn't read into things that weren't there or question a very obvious use of a certain word.

But funny you should question my use of the word "whine" and not your use of the terms "hide our heads in the sand" and "blind loyalty."

[madfloridian]

51. I can not agree with you that we should send our resources overseas.

If I ask where the money is coming from, you can not tell me. I am not the one hiding my head in the sand.

I do not think our party should disallow questioning. If you do that you are demanding blind loyalty.

[wyldwolf]

53. Then we'll agree to disagree...

It is our resources that feed the hungry in impoverished nations, provide AIDS relief, and other humanitarian things overseas, but if you ain't for that, then we'll just disagree.

[madfloridian]

57. Again, what about our own people?

There are agencies that help provide the things you mention. What agency will give me back the prescription coverage I will lose next year under the new rules?

What agency takes care of my middle class neighbor's health care while she is laid off? She earned too much to qualify for anything.

Perhaps you are right. It is the "way I argue", because I expect the truth.

[wyldwolf]

58. What about our own people?

There are agencies that help provide the things you mention.

Financed by the US

What agency will give me back the prescription coverage I will lose next year under the new rules?

My question to you is why do you feel this has to be given to you?

I'm a firm believer in a national healthcare plan but not because I think I'm intitled to it but rather because our country can afford it.

This is why I back the politicians most likely to get into a position to bring about change.

It is the "way I argue", because I expect the truth.

Then why present half truths, inuendo, and opinions as "evidence?"

[madfloridian]

59. Why are they cancelling my prescription coverage?

What agency will pay for my neighbor's doctor and hospital visits? She makes too much money for the usual ones to even look at her.

Now, please quote the sentence that indicates I think it should be given to me. Hubby and I have invested well, we have good retirement. However, new rules to help insurance companies are hurting us through no fault of our own.

Please show statements that I think it should be "given" to me. I am not of that mindset. You are using neocon arguments and trying to make them sound sensible....in fact they will drain our country's resources.

Again, where are we getting the money to fund Iraq....and then Iran. etc. and etc.

[wyldwolf]

61. what do you mean "your" prescription coverage?

It doesn't belong to you. Coverage was provided to you and now whatever entity did so has decided (for whatever reason) not to do it anymore.

madfloridian - we pay taxes. You know this. That is where the money comes from. We aren't in Iran, etc, etc.,

Taxes cover many many things including medicare and other "safety net" features. Taxes will cover the eventual universal healthcare we will get from the democrats.

Honestly - the very people who whine about "DLC this" and "DNC that" are the very ones who need them the most to protect their interests against the GOP who really don't give a good damn about you.

Everytime you refer to insurance and prescription coverage as "mine" and that they are taking "your" coverage away, you are implying it should be given to you. You only get it two ways - you work and pay for it (then it is yours and can't be taken away) or you are allowed benefits on someone else's dime. The latter case in which the entity who provides it to you can take it away.

If I loaned you a car to use and then, after a year, said I need it back, would you claim I was "taking your car away?"

[madfloridian]

62. I paid for it. They are cancelling retirees drug coverage.

No one has "given" me anything.....not ever. I find it insulting that you have not even read my posts.
Shame on you for not addressing the issues. No one ever gave us a penny, not one damn penny.

When we retired we had the option of drug coverage from our group insurance with our employees. We took it and paid for it. Now they are cancelling it, just as they are screwing up Medicare and Social security. AND many other social programs. So the corporations don't have to pay taxes, so they do away with social programs. Those are RNC talking points and shame on you.

You sound very hard hearted. I don't think you want to understand at all. I find your post insulting.

[wyldwolf]

63. yeah, right

I don't give a rat's ass if you find my post insulting.

I find it insulting that you have not even read my posts.

Everyone of them.

When we retired we had the option of drug coverage from our group insurance with our employees. We took it and paid for it.

So you paid a lump sum to be covered forever? What exactly is that kind of policy called?

just as they are screwing up Medicare and Social security. AND many other social programs. So the corporations don't have to pay taxes, so they do away with social programs. Those are RNC talking points and shame on you.

1. Show me some documentation that shows "they" are screwing up Medicare and Social security and "many other social programs" so the corporations don't have to pay taxes.

2. Why "shame on me" whem I've not given any RNC talking points?

3. Typical of a bankrupt argument from the left - resorting to "shame" and accusations of rightwing talking points when one can't make their case.

[madfloridian]

64. You are not aware of the Medicare scam?

I am sorry, but you need to educate yourself. Yes, you implied I was after the government taking care of me.

If you read all my posts, you know that my hubby and I are fairly big donors to various candidates. Look up my posts. We could not do that on the welfare you seem to think I am on. You sound cold toward the needs and feelings of others.

If you are not aware of how they are ruining the Medicare program, and that Social Security is already on the chopping block, then you need to look up some stuff.

Try
www.retiredamericans.org

Am I my brother's keeper? You betcha.

[wyldwolf]

65. now why would I go back and read ALL of your posts?

I don't find you that interesting or important to go back and read all 1000+ posts of yours, nor does it really matter if you are fairly big donors to various candidates. What does that have to do with the discussion?

I've never said or implied you are on welfare.

Why not share some info on how "they" are ruining the Medicare program so, as you said, big corporations won't have to pay taxes.

[madfloridian]

66. Go to the site I posted.

The destruction will soon be complete.

www.retiredamericans.org

[wyldwolf]

67. so they're rooting for Kerry/Edwards ...

...and the destruction will soon be complete?

Pretty dramatic.

Why not share with us how this destruction will soon be complete? Don't you know?

[madfloridian]

68. Oh, please.

Of course they are rooting for Kerry. So am I. If you do not know what is going on with Medicare, and you can not see all the stuff at the site......that is too bad. This is just too much now.

[wyldwolf]

69. obviously YOU don't know what is going on with Medicare...

..because you won't post it nor show how "the destruction" is so big companies won't have to pay taxes.

And clarify this: If Kerry wins, will the "destruction" not be soon completed? Or will if just be put off?

[madfloridian]

73. Have you read the material at the site?

?

[madfloridian]

37. Where is the money coming from for Iraq?

What are they doing to our social programs? You know, like Medicare and Social Security. You are smarter than to use that kind of argument on me. Who is paying for all these good folks in Iraq and the mideast to have all this good stuff?

Our schools in Florida are deteriorating. There is so much proof, it insults me that you ask.

Good jobs are going overseas, healthcare is not available.

What is our party coming to that this type of rhetoric goes on? When did we become so damn responsible for the world and its jobs education and healthcare?

You are too smart to argue like that.

[blm]

56. Kerry can be trusted with power. Iraq's resources

can best serve the Iraqi people as long as Bush cronies aren't siphoning away the profits. Bush's power gives his cronies power and profit.

[ulysses]

43. since you seem to agree with Marshall,

how has Kerry been proven right on Iraq?

[HFishbine]

27. "Opening Markets"

That's really what it's all about, isn't it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Otherwise known as "Vital Interests" or "National Security".

Of course, there are some loudmouthed, "unrealistic", "impractical", leftists who call it Imperialism. Keep it to yourself though, the "realistic", "practical", "not as bas as", folks get upset when you bring it up.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

76. Proven right because he voted for the war? What?

This doesn't make any sense.