Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[KCFlyer]

you will be stuck with bush for four more years.....get used to it

I'm not so sure about that...I live in Johnson County Kansas, where most folks would vote for my labrador retriever if she ran as a republican. I've seen Kerry/Edwards signs in front lawns in Leawood Kansas. A little background about that area, that act is akin to the Boston Tea Party or "Give me liberty or give me death". There's a little unrest in the heartland. Missouri is one of his critical "swing states"...read your papers and you'll find Missouri has lost more jobs than just about any other state. The only folks who think that Bush is their man are the rednecks who hate Arabs. Gotta love Missouri....John Ashcroft ran against a dead guy for Senate....and LOST.

That's the odd part about this area...we've seen thousands of white collar, telecom jobs eliminated, although in a nod to Bush, lots of new jobs have been created due to the Super Walmart's being built...they seem to pop up like weeds. Read a little bit about WalMart to see what kind of quality jobs they create. Here's a little something - Walmart claims that they have 70% full time workers, although they consider 28 hours per week to be "full time". They also don't offer benefits until some poor soul has worked their two years. So they work two jobs to try to make ends meet and they still think Bush is their man because "he cut taxes".

That's the odd part about you...you work for a failing airline, a company that may soon see 28,00o people on the streets, and for whatever reason, you feel Bush is the man for you.

 

[delldude]

I'm not so sure about that...I live in Johnson County Kansas, where most folks would vote for my labrador retriever if she ran as a republican. I've seen Kerry/Edwards signs in front lawns in Leawood Kansas. A little background about that area, that act is akin to the Boston Tea Party or "Give me liberty or give me death". There's a little unrest in the heartland. Missouri is one of his critical "swing states"...read your papers and you'll find Missouri has lost more jobs than just about any other state. The only folks who think that Bush is their man are the rednecks who hate Arabs. Gotta love Missouri....John Ashcroft ran against a dead guy for Senate....and LOST.

That's the odd part about this area...we've seen thousands of white collar, telecom jobs eliminated, although in a nod to Bush, lots of new jobs have been created due to the Super Walmart's being built...they seem to pop up like weeds. Read a little bit about WalMart to see what kind of quality jobs they create. Here's a little something - Walmart claims that they have 70% full time workers, although they consider 28 hours per week to be "full time". They also don't offer benefits until some poor soul has worked their two years. So they work two jobs to try to make ends meet and they still think Bush is their man because "he cut taxes".

That's the odd part about you...you work for a failing airline, a company that may soon see 28,00o people on the streets, and for whatever reason, you feel Bush is the man for you.

[post="173579"][/post]​

i'm an arab who hates rednecks.....

That's the odd part about you...you work for a failing airline, a company that may soon see 28,00o people on the streets, and for whatever reason, you feel Bush is the man for you.

yeah thats because i don't believe kerry is worth it....hes a liar and a scoundrel.and kerry isn't going to do a damned thing for U or UAL for that matter either,so where we go from here?
at least we know where bush stands...
your boy bush inherited willys sinking economy and add the 9/11 thing into the mix,you should be lucky there is a walmart.
the kerry fans are falling for a silver toungued liar and fail to see the real man behind the curtain..i feel sorry for people like you who put lock stock and barrel into some waffling liar and cheat who'll do anything to get elected.
some 64 people expose what kerry really is and they are branded as dishonest.2 or 3 of kerrys lackys come to his defense and it all goes away..i find it funny some 64 or more all say the same thing ,must be part of that vast right wing conspiracy i heard about.

 

[delldude]

TIME Poll: Election 2004
Sat Aug 28 2004 11:39:25 ET

46% WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, 44% WOULD VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY, AND 5% FOR RALPH NADER

More Than 3 in 4 (77%) Have Seen, Heard or Read About Swift Boat Attack Ads; A Majority (56%) Say Ads are ‘Politics as Usual,’ While Almost 1 in 3 (35%) Say ‘Some Truth’ to Ads

Only 39% Approve of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 49% Think He Should Not Be Kept In Bush’s Cabinet if Re-Elected; 74% Approval for Secretary of State Colin Powell

New York – If the 2004 election for President were being held today, 46% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 44% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 5% would vote for Ralph Nader. In the two-way race, 46% would vote for Bush and 46% would vote for Kerry, according to a new TIME poll.

SWIFT BOAT ATTACK ADS

More than 3 in 4 (77%) have seen or heard about the ads attacking Kerry’s Vietnam military service record. A majority (56%) who saw the ads say it’s just politics as usual. However, almost 1 in 3 voters (35%) say there’s "some truth" to the accusations. Almost 3 in 4 (72%) of those who saw the ads say they had no impact on their vote intentions. About equal numbers say the ads made them more anti-Kerry (13%) or more pro-Kerry (14%). Almost 1 in 4 swing voters (25%) who saw the ads say that there’s some truth to the accusations.

FAVORABILITY RATINGS

Kerry’s favorability rating is at to 44% favorable and 33% unfavorable, down from 53% favorable and 29% unfavorable in early August. Bush’s favorability rating is at to 46% favorable and 39% unfavorable. More than half (53%) have a favorable opinion of Laura Bush, while 25% have a favorable opinion of Teresa Heinz Kerry .

BUSH’S CABINET

Only 39% approve of the job that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has done and 37% disapprove. Voters are split on whether Bush should replace Rumsfeld, with 49% saying he should be replaced, and 48% saying he should stay. Of the four cabinet members TIME asked about, Secretary of State Colin Powell gets the highest approval rating of 74% with 85% saying that he should stay if Bush is re-elected. More than half (52%) approve of the job that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has done as a member of Bush’s cabinet while 25% disapprove, and 68% think Rice should be kept in the job. And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has a 44% favorable and 25% unfavorable rating with 61% saying that he should also stay a member of Bush’s cabinet. Overall Bush’s cabinet gets a 50% favorable and 36% unfavorable rating.

 

[AgMedallion]

Union members have a right to have the portion of their dues used for political purposes refunded to them under the 'Dues Objector' program. If the members do not wish their dues used for political purposes they only need to file their request for 'Dues Objector' status with their union and that portion of their dues, as determined by a neutral arbitrator, will be refunded to them.

I've seen articles describing how popular this makes the workers requesting such refunds. Is it really worth the harassment to get back 53 cents?

Where is the equivalent program for Big Business? How do customers get part of their purchase price refunded to them rather than have it used for political purposes?

The equivalent program is called taking your business elsewhere, something employees who fear retribution, if they request a refund from their union bosses, can't do without quitting their jobs and moving to a new one with a different union but, as usual, one which is an affiliate of the Democratic Party.

Indeed, the 'tax havens' in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere have existed for many years, but it is only under the current President that the legal and ethical barriers to such corporate treason have been removed.

Care to cite the bill which removed the restriction which didn't exist in the first place? Removed ethical barriers? I missed the part where GWB announced on national television that it's now ethical for corporations to move their HQ to Bermuda to evade taxes.

Only the Republicans could argue that it should be legal for corporations to move their headquarters offshore to avoid taxes

This is from a March 6, 2000 NYT article. I didn't realize that GWB was President then. I was under the erroneous impression that he was inaugurated Jan 20, 2001. Stupid me!

*****************************************************************
March 6, 2000

Bermuda Move Allows Insurers to Avoid Taxes


By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON and JOSEPH B. TREASTER

A half-dozen American insurance companies have begun exploiting a loophole in federal tax law. By simply moving their headquarters to Bermuda or being acquired by a Bermuda insurer, they no longer have to pay income taxes.

If all American property and casualty insurers followed suit, they could shelter $40 billion a year based on recent profits, avoiding $7 billion in taxes annually, Treasury officials estimated yesterday. The Treasury would be deprived of 4 cents of every dollar in income taxes now collected from corporations of all kinds. State governments are losing money, too. (rest of article deleted)

It's interesting that CBS banned the MoveOn.org ad from the superbowl yet felt free to run the Not So Swift ads. So much for the myth of the Liberal Media.

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps even CBS figures that statements from swiftboat vets who were actually in Nam to witness events Kerry claimed to be true are somehow more believable and objective than moveon.org crapola equating GWB to Hitler or claiming he knew about 9/11 in advance. 😉

 

[KCFlyer]

I missed the part where GWB announced on national television that it's now ethical for corporations to move their HQ to Bermuda to evade taxes.

No, your sure didn't. But if you stop and think, you haven't seen GWB on TV explaining any of the things he DID order either.

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps even CBS figures that statements from swiftboat vets who were actually in Nam to witness events Kerry claimed to be true are somehow more believable and objective than moveon.org crapola equating GWB to Hitler or claiming he knew about 9/11 in advance. 😉

If it was Hitler, then yes, it was a mistake. They meant to say "Goering". The following sure looks a lot like the "justification for war in Iraq":

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

[NWA/AMT]

I've seen articles describing how popular this makes the workers requesting such refunds. Is it really worth the harassment to get back 53 cents?

[post="173615"][/post]​

Is it really 53 cents? When I filed as a dues objector under the IAM it was far more than 53 cents, about eight dollars more in fact. I received no harrassment from anyone associated with the IAM or any of my fellow members, many of whom were also dues objectors.

The equivalent program is called taking your business elsewhere...

Perhaps you can identify which auto manufacturer one can choose which isn't trying to use its PAC money to keep government emission standards high and milage standards low? Which formerly public utility not affiliated with Enron the people of Portland Oregon may use since their utility, PGE, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enron? Ludicrous!

...something employees who fear retribution, if they request a refund from their union bosses, can't do without quitting their jobs...

As I stated, I and hundreds of others did just that under one of the largest and allegedly most militant of the AFL-CIO unions and received NO retribution at all. Your statement is a transparent attempt to continue the Republican fictions about unions. "Union Bosses"? You've been watching too many movies.

and moving to a new one with a different union but, as usual, one which is an affiliate of the Democratic Party.

Again incorrect. We at NWA changed to a non-AFL-CIO affiliated union which uses none of our dues money for political purposes. But something like that doesn't help reinforce the Republican fiction of 'Big Labor' holding the working man hostage so I doubt you'd be aware of it.

Care to cite the bill which removed the restriction which didn't exist in the first place?

There's no bill to cite because it was not necessary for Goerge to use a bill. Rescinding the government regulations that prevented the federal government from doing business with such companies and ending the enforcement of tax laws which penalized such blatant attempts to circumvent the US tax codes was quite enough.

I didn't realize that GWB was President then. I was under the erroneous impression that he was inaugurated Jan 20, 2001. Stupid me!

And who controlled the Congress at that time? Stupid was your choice of word, although I can't disagree with it. In true NeoCon fashion you only used half of my quote, and then out of context. What I said was: "Only the Republicans could argue that it should be legal for corporations to move their headquarters offshore to avoid taxes - Which they have - but illegal for seniors to go to Canada to obtain affordable drugs." - Which they have. Even the Republican Governors of California and Minnesota have realized that making seniors subsidize the drug manufacturers is a bad idea, why not George? Why should a US corporation be allowed to use a technicality to avoid paying their taxes?

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps even CBS figures that statements from swiftboat vets who were actually in Nam to witness events Kerry claimed to be true are somehow more believable and objective than moveon.org crapola equating GWB to Hitler or claiming he knew about 9/11 in advance.

The ad CBS refused was on the US deficit, which has what to do with Hitler or 9/11? They certainly didn't have a problem running the Bush smears of McCain in 2000 that were far more spurious than those you mention. Sounds like Viacom, the corporation that controls a large portion of the media in this country, is making it clear which boy they're backing.

So much for Freedom of Choice.

 

[AgMedallion]

Is it really 53 cents? When I filed as a dues objector under the IAM it was far more than 53 cents, about eight dollars more in fact. I received no harrassment from anyone associated with the IAM or any of my fellow members, many of whom were also dues objectors.

I was just giving some low figure. Depending on which union you're talking about, the amount would vary. But in all cases, it would be relatively little, as your actual 8 dollar figure suggests. I'd agree that in most cases, you wouldn't be harrassed, but there are many documented cases where people were. Personally, if I were a teamster, or in some other, shall we say less than totally ethical union, I wouldn't want to take the chance. It wouldn't take much aggravation to equal more than 8 bucks.

Look, I don't favor corporations influencing legislation or elections with their money anymore than I favor unions doing the same. But as long as each "side" is contributing mostly to a different party, you can't ban the unions from contributing if you don't ban corporations and vice versa. But to claim that one side's poop doesn't stink is grossly unfair.

And who controlled the Congress at that time?

There were many years when the Dems had control of both the White House and Congress, yet they never rescinded the Bermuda loophole.

Stupid was your choice of word, although I can't disagree with it.

I just knew that I should have inserted a rolleyes smiley, but was naive enough to figure most would realize the sarcasm. 😛

In true NeoCon fashion

I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm only conservative on some issues. For example, I'm pro-choice and pro-gun control. I'm just against immoral/amoral liars, rapists, perjurers and pardon sellers like BJ Bill (and those who support such contemptible people merely because of "party loyalty"). Here's a fresh idea, how about being loyal to your country first? I'm also against people like Kerry who flip-flop around on their political views like a freshly caught fish on the deck of a boat. Folks who would fight "sensitive" wars against terrorists (if they fought those wars at all, i.e. didn't make "deals" to mollify them) and propose to first get permission from corrupt leaders like Chirac. Or veterans like Kerry who come home from their 4 month war to blast their fellow servicemen as war criminals while some of those servicemen are rotting in North Vietnamese prisons and being tortured to lie that they're war criminals, while Kerry freely states that on national television. Funny how Kerry never brags about his record as a Senator. Perhaps it's because he has no record. He mostly missed meetings on national security issues and the few meetings he did attend didn't result in any meaningful contributions on his part. It's absolutely pathetic that this was the best the Dems could produce. The only point in his favor is that he's not on the public payroll getting BJ's under his desk, waving his Johnson at female subordinates, or using public employees to recruit skanks. At least I don't think he is. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt! One thing I know he never did is sell pardons, mainly because he never had the power to do so. I suppose after Clinton, any nominee the Dems produce is a moral compass by comparison.

Even the Republican Governors of California and Minnesota have realized that making seniors subsidize the drug manufacturers is a bad idea, why not George?

Actually here is one issue we can agree on. Personally, I'm sick of the drug manufacturers having the American public, in effect, subsidize Canadians and others, by having them pay high prices while the foreigners get them cheap. Unfortunately, Americans wouldn't be able to use any drugs if they're dead as a result of a terrorist strike, an event more likely if Kerry were elected.

The ad CBS refused was on the US deficit, which has what to do with Hitler or 9/11?

I didn't mean to imply the ad was about Hitler or 9/11. But the fact that moveon.org does publicize that other crap makes ANYTHING they put out highly suspect, to say the least. For example, if some delusional fool you see on the street states a fact while yelling and screaming about the end of the world coming tomorrow, the "fact" gets lost in all the ranting and raving.

 

[AA-MCI]

For example, if some delusional fool you see on the street states a fact while yelling and screaming about the end of the world coming tomorrow, the "fact" gets lost in all the ranting and raving.

[post="173791"][/post]​

Tom Ridge makes a career of doing just that.

 

[diogenes]

What money-making genius! First, support state-sponsored terrorism. Then, sell weapons to the 'terrorees'. Genius, I tell you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/...ain595214.shtml


And,"None Dare Call It Treason" :angry:

 

[FredF]

When the Democratic convention was being held in Boston, the protesters were only allowed in a fenced in area well away from the Fleet center. There were kept away from the media spotlight and well away from the actual convention area.

In NY, protesters are allowed to march past the Garder un hindered. Now ask yourselvs who is trying to quash those the protest against them?

 

[sentrido]

I think it has more to do with the amount of protestors.

 

[FredF]

I think it has more to do with the amount of protestors.

[post="174162"][/post]​

Were that true then that would serve as an even bigger incentive to "Segregate" the protesters for "Secuirty" like the did in Boston.




So exactly who is afraid of critism and protest?

 

[AgMedallion]

I think it has more to do with the amount of protestors.

[post="174162"][/post]​

Actually, it has more to do with geography from what I've heard. MSG is located in the middle of Manhattan right above Penn Station, so closing it off to the protestors would be next to impossible. The Fleet Center in Boston where the Dems gathered, OTOH, is easier to screen off. Personally, I'm glad the protestors, many of whom are total wack jobs, esp the nudists, are there in their full glory. It shows an important part of the Democratic base of support. Them and the screwballs at moveon.org who compare GWB to Hitler and say he knew about 9/11 in advance. The sane middle-of-the-road types who are still undecided can then see who they identify with more. Let the games begin. 😀
I know I'll be smiling by 11PM on Nov 2nd.

 

[KCFlyer]

I know I'll be smiling by 11PM on Nov 2nd.

[post="174417"][/post]​

YOu want Bush to lose?

 

[FredF]

I was merely using it to point out, again, the blantant hypocracy of the democratic party. They accuse either the President or the republican party of doing something that they are not, yet the dems can do it all day long and nobody complains.

Also, as you read through the stories, how the dems love to attack conservatives of being hate filled and mean, yet the protests in boston were peacefull while the protesting in NY is filled with attacks, arson, foul language. I read one story where a protested was carrying a sign, had no idea what it meant. When asked why he was carring it, he said that someone at the start of the march gave it to him to carry.

Gee, he really cared about what he was doing didn't he?

😛