Does this say enough?

No, because it doesn't say anything. I care about the opinion of Ed Koch like I care about the opinion of the Dixie Chicks.

Kerry's foreign policy includes "a new era of alliances" to sidestep the current go solo style the White House has been doing. His foreign policy advisers include some of Clinton's people.

The Presidents job is to do what is best for the people of the United States, not what is best for France's economy, or Europe, or any other part of the world. The most important job of the President is to be Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces and use those forces to protect the American people AND the interest of the American people.

How sucessful was Clinton's foreign policy that his advisers are worth listening to again?

He wants to send some sort of special presidential envoy to try and establish new peace talks in the middle east.

The only way to achieve peace in the middle east is to have a ruling dictator. OR to have a war so incredibly large in the region AND one side completely, in-arguabley beats the other. That's how peace is achieved. Wars are never won with treaties. AND nearly every treaty that has been signed to avoid war has always ended up being a temporary fix.

Not realizing this fact has little to do with maturity or "enlightenment." It's an integral part of human nature to rise up against ones "oppressor" or percieved oppressor until you either win or are beaten into submission.

For the trade market he promised a 120 day review of all U.S. trade agreements and he plans on using the world trade organization to put a check on China's currency practices.

And this is a good thing? For one, how well known is China in research and development. They send their best and brightest to the US to learn what can't be learned in Asia. Secondly, how is giving a world or international trade organization power over our trade policy going to do us any good? The US is part of the UN. How large of a percentage of the UN's buget is supported with US dollars? Same with NATO. Joining a WTO benifits every nation involved more than it does the US, but the burden of buget will land squarely on the US. No taxation without equal represtation.

These pro Kerry coments are only the tip of the iceburg on what he would like to do to take power AWAY from America and Americans in the global community. How long has Kerry been in the US Senate? How much legilation has his name on it (meaning he helped draft it)? Kerry has been a doom and gloomer his entire career, consistantly complaining of everyone else's policies, but never offering solutions. He makes a great candidate for the next media anylist/reporter/anchor person, but not worthy of presidential consideration.

enough with the "flip flop" already. He didnt flip flop on anything. He had one opinion when he was told that there was proof of WMD in Iraq, and another when he found out that was bogus....just like the rest of us.

Kerry said this in an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times. It was printed in the September 6, 2002 edition:
"If Saddam is unwilling to bend to the international community and its already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States – a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Kerry now condemns the Bush administration for acting. THAT if flip-flopping.

Kerry is on record saying this in 1998:
"Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."

In 1990, Kerry in on record in the US Senate floor stating the following (as well as many more occassions afterword)"
"Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program."

Kerry is preaching the exact opposite now. THAT is flip-flopping.

I'm sorry, but Kerry would be THE UGLIEST President EVER !!!!!

Nixon was homely, Carter looked like Alfred E Numan, LBJ had ears Dumbo would envy, but Kerry is one step from a

Lon Chaney character........Lurch with a billionaire wife............

eww

I'm sorry, but Kerry would be THE UGLIEST President EVER !!!!!

Nixon was homely, Carter looked like Alfred E Numan, LBJ had ears Dumbo would envy, but Kerry is one step from a

Lon Chaney character........Lurch with a billionaire wife............

eww

Although I do not entirely disagree with Dynosoar, that has little to do with how one should view Kerry as a possible President.

There are plenty of "ugly" people that would make for great presidents. This one just happens to be a spineless, flip-flopping, extreme liberal, hiding in moderates clothing.

Does anyone want an ugly leader representing the Greatest country in the World?

Hell no !

Kerry is proof positive that the Democratic party has conceded this election, they're setting up for a Hillary run in '08 .

If they were serious about a candidate they'd nominate John "purty boy" Edwards !!

It is after all a popularity contest, and the purtiest always win for prom queen. ( lest we forget that leadership is not a req. for democrats in the last 20 yrs)

Dynosoar, I think that some people hate Bush so much they would vote for the elephant man if need be.

Ignorance is Blix, that is the flip flopping I was talking about. I don't mind a politician changing his mind as new information unfolds or changing with the times. I mind when a politician states things purely for political gain. Anyone who doesn't see Kerry doing that is being duped.

AS for the people who think $200,000 is being rich, I challenge you to be a small business owner, pay for decent benefits and taxes and see how rich you feel afterward. Yes, small business owners will be a lot of those people affected by raising taxes for the "rich". I know small business owners that already pay a whole person's salary worth of taxes. If they had that money back they would hire and grow the business, create new jobs.

I keep hearing that Kerry "believes" he can do better. I just haven't heard how yet.

If you can tell me one politician who hasn't stated things for political gains, I will not only eat my hat, I'll eat yours too.

Cheers

If taxes get raised I wonder how many people we would need to lay off. Or at the very least we'd probably have to start charging for some parts of JoeUser.

Lower taxes means more capital to spend. That money is then spent hiring new people who can then do more things.

That's an excellent economic theory Brad, and in your case I believe it, but as bigger companies than yours, those who would be most effected by the Corporate Tax increases, send more of their workforce over seas, I have problems believing it. I have no idea how much Stardock brings in a year, but I seriously doubt you make $100m in salary and bonuses every year. The kind of companies that give their CEOs that much money are the ones who will be targetted by tax increases. Not to be mean, but Stardock is no Microsoft, so until that day, I doubt you have much to worry about.

Cheers

Jeblackstar - most new jobs are created by small companies. It's easy to point your finger at some Fortune 100 company and say "Look at those bastards!". But small businesses are the engine of the US economy and have been for quite a few years. And it is the small business that is affected by this.

And Stardock has a lot of people who work from overseas too. We were outsourcing people overseas before the term had even been coined. So what? Have Americans lost their jobs as a result? No. It simply creates a different set of jobs that we hire for domestically. 

And BTW, if they want to raise taxes on people who make $100 million per year then that's news to me. What I heard is they want to raise taxes on anyone who makes $200k per year which essentially means every reasonably successful small business owner. Perhaps John Kerry can also decide which people we should lay off. I can say in all honesty that one of our new hires this year is a direct result of the tax cuts.

My point is that corporate taxes, not personal taxes, will mostly affect those companies who can afford to pay their CEOs $100m a year. Not companies such as yours. I agree, it is easy to point at the Fortune 500 companies and say those bastards. So perhaps those bastards should pay more. That's Kerry's plan, and that would be mine too. Stardock doesn't make enough in a year to reach the amount that Kerry intends to target. If your personal taxes go up, well that's one thing, but you weren't going to pay some new guy's salary out of your personal salary were you?

Cheers

Kerry's plan doesn't touch corporate taxes, Jeb. It raises individual taxes. You said you were a lawyer, why are you even debating this? You should know how LLCs and S-corps operate.

Look, if you raise the individaul rate from say 33% to 39% you're going to effectively cost LLCs and S-corp's tens of thousands of dollars if they're doing any real business. What do you think they'll do? They'll lay off that new worker.

I know it feels good to talk about some big corp being evil but Kerry's plan doesn't even target them one bit.   And btw, as a small business owner, I regularly give up some of my personal salary for my employees when times are tough. Of the 10 years this company has existed, I've gone 3 of them without receiving any significant salary (i.e "poverty level") in order to keep from laying off people.

But let's look at other CEOs too of small businesses. Let's say they pay themselves $250,000 per year. You raise their taxes and they say "Hey,I have expenses, and now I have to pay an extra $20k in taxes? Well, I Walter, the new guy we don't really need him that much, I'll just lay him off so that I can make my house payment on that new house I bought."