# Kerry's plan for the US !



## Ron Gilmore

:eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm

Heres a good example of what Kerry crowd and the rest of the Democrats have in mind for us. Yesterday, New York Senator Hillary Clinton was speaking at a fund-raiser in San Francisco on behalf of Senator Barbara Boxer. At that fund-raiser, she told those in attendance to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Kerry wins the White House and the Democrats control of Congress. *That's right...she's telling everyone in advance Kerry and the rest of his leftist pals are going to raise their taxes.* Hillary really showed herself at this fund raiser --- if, that is, they manage to get the White House and control of the congress. Not only did hillary reveal her love of high taxes, but she did so in the arrogant, condescending manner that forms the foundation of her personality. Hillary told us that she is *".. going to take things away from (us) on behalf of the common good."* 

There are several basic elements of the liberal faith exposed in Hillary's threat. *(And yes, it was a threat.) *The two most important elements were that *all wealth belongs to the government *and *all that the lives of individuals must be controlled by government.* The government demonstrates its ownership of all wealth by determining how it is to be "distributed," and it's ownership of individuals by controlling aspects of our private lives. 

The Imperial Federal government, under the control of such worthy people as John Kerry and Hillary, decides what portion of the wealth that we have earned it will "give" us. You've heard Kerry refer to tax breaks as "giveaways" to the rich. You and I know that a tax break doesn't "give" anything to the rich. It merely allows the high producers to keep more of what the worked for an earned.  :beer: But to Kerry and his leftist friends, all that you earn actually belongs to government ... so, to them, it is a giveaway. :******:

Not only do liberals not recognize your right to or ownership of the wealth that you produce, liberals don't even want to recognize your sovereignty as an individual. Just think for a moment of the choices that the government doesn't allow you to make. 
It's so wonderful to live in a free country, isn't it?

And now we have Hillary proudly and arrogantly announcing that the government is going to seize property from individuals for "the common good*." Don't ignore the message here. You are not a free individual. You exist to serve the state. * John Kerry and Hillary are here to show you the way. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Don't ignore the message here. You are not a free individual. You exist to serve the state"

yeah but i guess our boys in iraq who were forced to serve beyond their tour of duty are free as a bird


----------



## Dano2

I know, its terrible.
We are screwed either way, no matter who wins


----------



## Bobm

John O'Neill, who took command of John Kerry's swift boat in Vietnam following Kerry's departure for home after just four months in country: 
"[Shortly after his return stateside in 1971], Kerry crossed an important line, fully and finally breaking loyalty with those of us who were still under the fire of combat in Vietnam - first by falsely accusing us of war crimes and then by allowing himself to become a surrogate spokesperson for our enemies. More than 250 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, many of whom served alongside John Kerry, have joined together in signing a protest of our own. *We have come together in a solemn statement that we who served with John Kerry do not consider him to be fit to be our Commander-in-Chief."*

This says a lot!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I much prefer that Kerry actually served, the good statements about his war experience far outweighs that of the bad.


----------



## Bobm

His "war experience"??? He went to Nam for only 4 months because even then he had political aspirations and realized that military service on his resume would be important for his political career. He was only there fo four months because he worked hard for four "paper cut" purple hearts so he would get shipped back state side as soon as he could. Purple hearts that his commanding officer did'nt want to give him and has publicly stated so recently. *Kerry refuses to release the nature of the wounds he recieved, why do think that is? *Its because if the public knew the truth he would once agin be exposed for the political phony he is. 
There are a lot of Democrats that served honorably Kerry unfortunately wasn't one of them, he lied about his fellow soldiers claiming that they were committing war crimes and the guys my age that did serve don't appreciate it. The Democrats should of nominated Liberman or some other honest man, Kerry is not, and if he gets elected his lack of character will continue to shine through, and in the long term further the damage that Clintons activities did to the democratic party image. Hes the wrong man for this time in History.


----------



## Dano2

"There are a lot of Democrats that served honorably "

wow Bob, giving a little credit to the Democrats?
I suppose you think they were the water boys for the pubiclans eh?
Heh! Heh!

Just joking ofcourse, but its irritateing (can spell worth a crap)
this whole democrat, republican, etc, etc, crap.

My folks are democrats, so I guess I was raised thinking I am too, so I take a little offense deep inside when I see them slammed, even though I try not to because I dont consider myself Dem. or Rep. , either one is as good as the other.

I could care less if there were a dem. or a rep. in office as long as they could do some good for this country.

But I'm afraid thats asking too much.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

bob, it isin't even recorded that bush served, at least kerry served


----------



## MTPheas

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html

His wounds were not of the "papercut" variety either Bob. In fact, he still carries schrapnel in his body. Saw an article yesterday that I'll try to find and link that featured an interview with one of the soldiers who was on the boat when Kerry was injured with a "sheen of his blood covering the entire boat deck" yet managed to rescue on of his sailors. For this, he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star.


----------



## seabass

bob, I"m surprised you'd even be willing to bring up Kerry's military record... because then it just begs to be contrasted with Bush's miltary experience.


----------



## BigDaddy

I posted this question in the past, but never got an answer: How does a soldier get a Purple Heart? I know that they need to be injured, but doesn't somebody need to award them with it? Didn't somebody have to sign the approval for Kerry's approval? If this is true, then didn't somebody determine that his injuries were worthy of the award?


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Big Daddy,
I'm not sure whom has to approve the award. There's a level of hierarchy that raises w/ each respective medal, for example a Battalion Commander of LtColonel or higher rank may approve an Army Achievement Medal(AAM), but it takes a full-bird Colonel to approve a Army Commendation(ARCOM) and a one-star BG to approve a Meritorious Sevice Medal(MSM, see the pattern?). However, unlike all other awards and medals a soldier CANNOT be recommended or "put-in" for a Purple Heart; to receive the award one must meet strict criteria. I'm sure that since this is different, one would have to be acknowledged either by a superior or medical officer, but the final approval would come from a higher like the Dep of Army or DoD, someone in the Pentagon.
I'm pretty sure of the rest, though, because I spent months studying if for an NCO board, it's somewhat etched in my head. But Rude probably knows better than me.


----------



## Bobm

I read that the Schrapnel was a splinter all soldiers get them routinely , I was a medic during this war. His commanding officer stated that he didn't think that it warranted a purple heart, Kerry used it for a trip home. Really seeing how this country was supporting the war I don't really blame Kerry for that. My beef is that hes claiming to be a war hero and he isn't, and the men that served with him have publicly stated this and that they don't belive he is fit to be commander in chief. As for Bushes service he hid in the guard which was a common ploy at that time, and nothing to be proud of but the difference is he is not running on his miltary record and Kerry makes it a big part of his resume. Militant Tiger you don't know what you are talking about read more about it. His time in the guard was accounted for,and while he technically filled his committmant, and flying jets is very dangerous I think he dodged Vietnam like many other friends of mine did at the time by going into the guard. If you guys experienced the way soldiers were reguarded by civilians during Vietnam you would understand why so many took this path. The war was unwinnable due to the political climate for the country.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

last i saw bob bush's supposed troop that he served with said "Mr. Bush was not seen in this regiment" or something to that degree. frankly the arguement with kerry being a war hero isint over his wounds, anyone can get shot. he saved mens lives, this is well documented and the man who he saved has come forth many times to express his gratitude and the heroism that kerry showed.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

What Kerry did or didn't do 20 or 30 years ago doesn't mean much. Same with Bush. People mature and grow up. What he does today, or has done in the near past is important. Look at Kerry's record. Very much for very strict gun control. He is more liberal than Kennedy. I like to talk liberal and conservative not democrat and republican. I like it that way because liberal and conservative views remain the same while the two parties are in constant metamorphosis. Many older relatives of mine who have the same values as I vote democrat because they remember the conservative democrats of the past. I firmly believe that JFK would fit in the republican party better today than the democrat party. There are those today who admire Europe more than America, they think there is no place for firearms in America, they believe that our soldiers are worse than the terrorists they hunt, in reality they are less tolerant than conservatives, they constantly remind us of the first amendment and their right to freedom of speech. They have forgotten that the first amendment also guarantees the freedom of religion. They go even further constantly bring up separation of church and state as a means of denying religious freedom. The idea of separation of church and state is not in the constitution or the bill of rights, it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. He was concerned that government would interfere with religion, not that religion would interfere with government. There are extremely politicians today that I think are anti American, anti Christian, anti firearms, and some of the most intolerant people you will ever meet. The big problem today is people have chosen sides , some long ago, and stick with that side right or wrong. Study the candidates this year and this fall vote for those who will best represent your values. Myself, I think the environment will survive Bush much longer than my freedom will survive Kerry. The side we must strive to be on is not the democrat or republican side, the liberal or the conservative, but the right side. I hear so many people not as concerned about what is right, but more concerned with getting even. Great attitude when so much is at stake.


----------



## Waterfowlerguy

NEVER TRUST ANYONE THAT DOESN'T TRUST YOU TO OWN A GUN. If anyone can name me one place in the history of the world where the people were seperated from the most effective weapons of the day and then had their rights respected I will be very impressed. Whether it was an english long bow or an AR-15. There is no government that can be trusted to protect your rights as men and women. Depend on them for anything and you are at the mercy of those who hold your leash. Usually that doesn't turn out well for you. I have never in my life (which is relavitely short comparred to some of you) seen a politician I could believe in and don't expect to see that change soon. At best I pick the lesser of two evils and feel good about that. And that is pathetic. John Kerry has a long history of voting against my rights to own firearms. Regardless of what you may think about a variety of different firearms it all boils down to a liberal tag line of a few years ago. "It's the guns stupid". They are so right. Its the guns in the hands of citizens that liberated the colonies. Its our guns (the U.S.) that have protected and liberated people all over the world. It's the guns (yours) which protect you from the evil elements of our society that don't respect life or law. Our police ARE NOT obligated to even respond to your summons for help. And lastly it is the guns (yours of all types) which keep the politicians from trampling your rights. Teddy Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". A man who is free and whose freadoms are sheparded by him needn't scream to be heard. He can speak softly and his right to do so will be respected. His soft voice heard by all. Kerry has long established that he is not interested in hearing my voice. Nor is he interested in allowing me to retain the tools to shepard my own freedom. I'd sooner drink turpentine and pi$$ on a brush fire then trust him with my dogs leash let alone mine.


----------



## Plainsman

Waterfowlerguy

Good thinking especially on this day. How many people stop to even think what July 4th is even about? We did not defy British oppression with pitchforks and rolling pins. The liberal argument will be this is a modern world it can't happen. The state of denial has become the largest state of the United States.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

look, if kerry is elected he wont take away your guns, its way to liberal of a notion and will be knocked down as soon as he puts it up


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman are you psychic??? 
Your quote


> The liberal argument will be this is a modern world it can't happen


.

It happened in the very next post! They are sooooo predictable!


----------



## Plainsman

MT

Not if there was as liberal (do not read democrat, there are some crazy republicans too) senate and house. No idea is to liberal for Kerry. The problem is there are some very influential liberals like Kerry, Boxer, Schummer, Hillary, Kennedy, and others that are very far left on firearms issues. The second part of the problem is the less powerful liberals follow their lead like trained puppies. That leads to another problem, a person is afraid to vote for a democrat that he likes. That isn't fair to them, but what is the choice? I don't want to send support to these people. If they were less partisan I would vote for some. I guess I will for governor here in North Dakota. Democrats want my firearms, and republicans want to turn hunting into a sport for the rich. Like having cancer in my right lung or my left. Throw in national security and it's a no brainer.


----------



## Bobm

*Democrats want my firearms, and republicans want to turn hunting into a sport for the rich*.??????
Politicians maybe but not the rank and file. The problem with the current Democrat party is they've sold their soul to the far left, which is a shame because it was really once for the mainstream averge joe. Many of the positions held by the Democrats in the 50's are now held by the current republican party. Its a strange thing to study and watch, you get the feeling that when people go to Washington they lose touch with the rest of the country and only hear from the fringe groups!


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm

It depends on what you consider the rank and file. The average democrat does not want to take away our firearms. Even the average democrat politician doesn't, but for some strange reason it appears as if someone tells them what to do in Washington. Why else would they appear so partisan? Also, like Dano2 mentioned a few posts back. His parents he said were democrat. As I mentioned so are many older people who share our values. The problem is the democratic party has changed so much in the past 30 years that it is no longer the party that they think it is. I listen to many older people talk and I would think they are much more conservative than I, but guess what, they vote democrat. They vote for the very party that fights against their values. I understand why Dano2 thinks he is democrat, and I admire his loyalty to his parents. He is right about many democrats serving honorably, but I would be willing to bet that if he and his parents were to look closely at what is happening today, and what each party platform truly supports, they would agree with us. I am willing to bet that they are excellent people voting for the past. What do you think Dano2, have I come close? Sorry if I was hard on you before, but shock works faster than long drawn out argument. Also, it wasn't aimed only at you. I hope you see my recent comments as complementary, as they are intended.


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman there is no doubt I think you're one of the good guys. I share your frustration about how many older people are loyal to the Dem without regard for their current policies. They are'nt stupid they just don't want to admit it to themselves. Or they are still using the mainstream media as their primary source of info and its so biased they really don't know whats going on not many of the older generation uses the internet unfortunately.


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm

I think people who enjoy hunting and the outdoors are the best America has to offer. It always amazes me that there is political disagreement on this site. I am sure that 99.9% of the people on this site I would be proud to have as friends. There is only one answer. We get our information from different places, and we trust different people for that information. On another thread with Bigdaddy we I think agree in theory, yet somehow we disagree. Some people have developed a faith in the New York Times, others in Fox News, and perhaps some think MTV has all the correct answers. In this next election perhaps the best thing a person can do is get on the internet, access the congressional records, and any other information they can on Kerry and Bush. Let their records speak for them not what they say. After all the old joke about how do you tell when a politician is lying applies too often. (their lips are moving)

Please excuse my terrible typing. I am in a goofy position trying to keep my leg in the air with ice on it after knee surgery a few days ago.


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman, The level of political stupidity in this country is very high to put it mildly, the vast majority of the voters don't even know the positions or voting record of the people they vote for. They vote because thats the way their parents did, or because of some half truth they hear in the media, sometimes I fear its hopeless. What did you do to your knee?? MY right knee is bothering me I had some cortisone shot in it a couple of years ago. Lately I've been daydreaming about trying to go bow hunting for elk in Colorado and it started hurting again, maybe its trying to tell me something.


----------



## Plainsman

Bob, I tore a blood vein, and when an area of the knee lost blood it died. With dead bone beneath the cartilage above died also. They had to go in and cut out the dead bone. If it heals there is a 70% chance that new cartilage will form over it. If not, well I'm not sure. Artificial knee perhaps. I think I'll make it back to work tomorrow.

As far as the political situation I always find it funny how completely uninformed people form the strongest opinions. I hear liberals say, Oh I will not watch that Hannity, or conservatives that will not listen to Ed Schultz. How can you think you know what is going on if you only listen to the side you already agree with? I have friends that voted for Gore last election because they thought Bush was to pro abortion. Can you believe that. Vote for who you want, but at least understand the candidates positions.


----------



## Bobm

Hope you heal up before hunting season. Its like Coot Killer thinking Ted turner was a conservative. There is so much misinformation out there that a lot of people are confused. Its a mess.


----------



## Plainsman

You know Kerry has been so busy during this campaign that he has not been able to get back to Washington for some votes in the senate. Like the vote on social security, but then I guess that wasn't important. Also, the vote that would have enhanced benefits for the men and women in the armed forces, but then I guess that wasn't real important. He did make it back for one he thought was real important. For those who think he is a gun owner and sportsman, and has no plans for more and more gun control which senate bill do you think he thought it was important enough to go back to DC for? That's right Senate Bill 1805. The one that would protect manufacturers from frivolous law suites. Which way do you think he voted? Does anyone not know. I guess if the second amendment is in the way of private gun ownership go in the back door and drive manufacturers out of business. Can you say bankrupts? I would suggest buying a few extra rifles. After all when you children or grandchildren can not buy any perhaps you can leave them some in you will. Of course I don't know what they will do with them, animal rights groups are all ultra liberal. One thing follows another like dominoes falling. Shall we start making bets, which will be lost first firearms or hunting. If I was around for another 50 years I would bet you both will be gone. Are you willing to give up your firearms so your lazy friends can stay on welfare?


----------



## ksec

Kerry isnt raising taxes on us. He may raise them for the upper 2 % but why should they get a free ride like Bush has been giving them.

Kerry is a hunter, a fisherman, and he wants to keep out outdoors clean and open, Bush wants to cut all the trees down, dirty the waters , open season on endangered species and drill for oil in protected wildlife regions.

Bush lied and cooked the intelligence and now we have 1000 dead Americans being shipped home in bodybags. We also have 200 billion of our tax dollars going to open hospitals and roads in Iraq while we close them here in this country. Kids in Iraq are getting health care while kids in Ohio are doing without. Old folks in Iraq get medicine while my retired Aunt in Indiana goes without the pills she needs -she has to pick between eating or buing her heart medicine. Only in Bushs Amerika can we be cutting taxes on the filthy rich while raising them for the middle class. \

Bush also has said he thinks outsourcing is good for us. He thinks shipping our jobs to communist China is good for America. We get McDonalds and Kmart jobs in exchange for good paying jobs that can support a family.

Vote smart people. Vote for the man who will work for us. Bush works for corporations and the Elite Wealthy. If he can show us one thing hes done for working people Id be really surprised. I can show you 50 things hes done that hurt working people.

Kerry for America . He will make America come back to the people. Another four years of Bush gets us more wars by lying and outsourcing of our livliehoods. Seriously, who can afford four more years of him. Hes already driven us into the largest deficit in the history of the world.


----------



## Bobm

Nothing in the post above is true, typical desperate loser liberal talking points what a dunce!


----------



## Plainsman

Bob

To quote an old cliché there is a silver lining in that cloud (wild post above). The silver lining is when they get that desperate and off the wall they blow their credibility. They are of the same mindset as old Michael Moore. Even most liberals will see statements like the above are just over the deep end. When intelligent people read that post he does more for Bush than Kerry.


----------



## ksec

Lets compare shall we (some just spew the namecalling while others use facts)

Both men went to good colleges. While Bush used his Daddies influence to be able to enter Kerry used his grades.

While in college Bush was a C student and a fancypants little cheerleader who probably cheered for Kerry who was into Hockey and other manly sports .

Kerry was also an avid Hunter and Fisherman.

Bush did cheers with girls and shook his Pom Poms.

Kerry went to the war and fought bravely. 
Bush used Daddies influence and bypassed hundreds in line ahead of him and joined the guard to avoid fighting in VietNam.

Kerry came home a decorated veteran.

Bush deserted the National Gaurd a year early and this is proven.

One magically had all his records destroyed while the other proudly shows his to the world. Guess who??? hehe

Enter the world and Bush pulls a con job by (insider trading ) stealing life savings from little old lady investors in Harken Oil . Bush left with millions in stolen money which he used to buy part of the Texas Rangers.. He never had to take any responsibility in the crime (always the same through his entire life )

Kerry has led an honorable life serving his country in the political world fighting for the hard working middle class of America.

Vote for Kerry. Hes got character . Hes led an honorable life. Hs honest to a fault. And he has the history to prove it.


----------



## Plainsman

Ksec

Nearly everything you say has been refuted. It just sounds so good to you that you can't drop it. You keep talking about his daddy helping him, you call him a sissy etc. It isn't worth arguing with someone who can not except the truth. I can't remember who a while ago was complaining about the rich getting more tax money back. Well I'm not the rich, but I am smart enough to know they get more back because they paid more. I know there are people who look down on the poor, but the poor are as guilty of hating the rich. It is a two way street. In your posts I hear a lot of hatred for people who have made good financial judgments. I wish I was one of them. For a couple hundred thousand I would put up with liberals hating me. They do anyway.

Do you call character applying for your own purple hearts, then faking throwing them away for the cameras? That has been substantiated.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Bush also has said he thinks outsourcing is good for us. He thinks shipping our jobs to communist China is good for America. We get McDonalds and Kmart jobs in exchange for good paying jobs that can support a family. "

I believe this is true. Sure our employment rates are up but its all hospitality jobs


----------



## Plainsman

I have not kept abreast of the outsourcing issue so can not refute or substantiate. For the sake of argument lets say for a minute it will give us another percentage unemployment. Which is more important that single percent or the national security. We do know which one will give us national security do we not? One will use our military, the other will beg the United Nations. I don't know what people see in Kerry. I think the majority of people know he will endanger us further they just don't take this serious enough. MT, are you willing to risk out country simply so you can say your side won an election. This isn't a video game MT.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I'm not being snide here I sincerely want you to think about this. You are single and only need think of yourself at this point. Let me forward you perhaps 22 or 23 years. Lets say now you are 40 and you and your wife are looking at your sleeping ten and twelve year old son and daughter. You are perhaps thinking that back when you were 18 you didn't realize you could love something so much. Next you hear sirens in the street and when you turn on the news their has been another suicide bomber in a restaurant just a few blocks away. Then your wife turns to you and says, god I wish Bush had ended this back in 2006 so our children wouldn't have to go through this and perhaps be drafted into the military. The United Nations has become worse than useless. Today they are a hindrance to security in Israel and they are arrogant enough to hinder our security also. They have, by their lack of resolve. Unsuccessful people hate successful people out of jealousy, and members of the UN hate us for the same reasons liberals hate the rich.


----------



## Bobm

MT think about what you say and don't fall prey to such rhetorical nonsense. Whats the figure over a millions jobs added this year, how many more McDonalds and K Marts do you see??? Nowhere near enought to account for those new job numbers and those are entry level jobs for kids and undereducated low achievers, which is a critical part of our economy. Jobs are here and are growing at near record rates. *The problem is that the job makeup is shifting and many in the workforce are being forced to change their way of looking at what they will do. *Its hurts some but its good for the country as a whole to use its resouces wisely, there are many things produced, that are produced more efficiently overseas, which is specifically why Walmart does so well look at the label of the countries of origin next time you shop there. Everybody *****es about foriegn products while at the same time demanding the best price , you can't have both. And the real fact is presidents have very little effect on the economy, the congress is much more influential and even they are a small part of the problem. MT the only job security you will ever have is a good set of skills so develop them to the best of your ability and keep them current, always be looking at the horizon to try to see what will be in demand 10 years out.


----------



## Bubba

ksec said:


> Bush also has said he thinks outsourcing is good for us. He thinks shipping our jobs to communist China is good for America. We get McDonalds and Kmart jobs in exchange for good paying jobs that can support a family.
> 
> Vote smart people. Vote for the man who will work for us. Bush works for corporations and the Elite Wealthy. If he can show us one thing hes done for working people Id be really surprised. I can show you 50 things hes done that hurt working people.
> 
> Check the back of a Heinz ketchup bottle sometime or go to the Heinz website, and find out where most of this stuff is made, etc. Do you suppose it was Bush that sent these jobs where they're at? Why do you think Kerry has somewhat toned down his attacks on Bush as far as sending jobs elsewhere? Even he's not dumb enough to think that isn't going to come back and bite him in the backside. Just like the under the table donations from lawfirms that's going to bite him and his running mate.......


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Bush also has said he thinks outsourcing is good for us. He thinks shipping our jobs to communist China is good for America. We get McDonald's and Kmart jobs in exchange for good paying jobs that can support a family. "

I believe this is true. Sure our employment rates are up but its all hospitality jobs

To dispel the myth once again. The GAO and CBO have documented that the in sourced jobs are putting more money into the coffers of both federal and state than the amount lost from outscoring. This info is in the fiscal 04 budget report. This is what and why GW says outscoring is good. Lower end lower skilled jobs are leaving and higher end jobs are being brought into this country via the free trade agreements.

Now for all of you that think only the top 2% are going to get hit. Today it was reported that Kerry is proposing $266 billion in new spending over the current level of revenues even if all the tax cuts where repealed.

In WI last week and MN Kerry drew small crowds in the rural area's when he was trying to pretend he is a hunter. I had the chance to visit with the guy that borrowed Kerry his shotgun to use at the trap range. He went a supporter and came home a Bush voter. The reason is that Kerry is a phony. His remarks and comments in and around these guys made it clear how out of touch he is on guns and taxes and rural America.


----------



## Bobm

Here, are a few predictions of what will transpire in the unlikely event that John Kerry becomes the most powerful man on Earth.

*Major terrorist attacks will occur in the United States*. _John Kerry clearly does not recognize that the fight against terror must be pre-emptive: No amount of wheedling, cajoling or appeasement will convince Islamo-fascist terrorists not to murder Americans. _Terrorists must simply face death or capture, but Kerry operates under an amorality designed by the United Nations and therefore feels that American pre-emption is not an option.

*Little on Kerry's resume suggests that his views have changed radically since the 1970s*, when he demanded that U.S. troops be sent around the world at the behest of the United Nations. Not only that: If Kerry has his way, the much-maligned but incredibly productive Patriot Act will fizzle, allowing terrorists to roam virtually unhindered throughout the United States.

*Gay marriage will become a reality across the country*. The chances of passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage before the election are slim. And with the radical gay-activist agenda moving full steam forward, it seems very likely that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will soon be struck down by the courts, forcing states to accept gay marriages from other states.

Even if DOMA is left standing, though, liberal activists are willing to circumvent the law, as they have in San Francisco and New York. *What would President John Kerry do to protect the sacred institution of marriage? Nothing[/b]. He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- and he was one of only 16 senators to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, comparing advocates of DOMA to 1960s racists who opposed interracial marriage. Get ready for Mr. and Mr. Smith if Kerry is elected.

Your taxes will rise. If you're a government leech, vote for John Kerry. Otherwise, a vote for John Kerry means more out of your paycheck. Don't buy the Clintonesque political demagoguery that Kerry will sock it to the millionaires while leaving the rest of us untouched. Look at Kerry's Senate record instead.

If you're a member of the middle class, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you own stocks or a car, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you die or get married, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. Even if you use the Internet, Kerry might want to raise your taxes; he said in 2001 that online taxation would be needed in the near future. Kerry voted against the Bush tax cuts. Kerry has promised a tax increase of $700 billion -- and that's a low-end estimate. If he actually fulfills his campaign spending promises, make that estimate closer to $1.7 trillion. Don't be surprised if a Kerry administration transforms economic boom into stagnancy or even recession.

The military will be crippled -- again. Like Bill Clinton, Kerry purports to be a military supporter. And, yes, Kerry served his country with honor. But Kerry's actions upon his return to the United States and his efforts on behalf of the anti-military faction of American liberalism are inexcusable. During his tenure in the Senate, Kerry repeatedly voted to cut back the military; in 2003, Kerry voted against $87 billion to support troops in harm's way. He also campaigns for allowing open homosexuals into the military, a move that will surely undermine morale and morality in our armed services. Kerry insists that he will strengthen the military, but which John Kerry will show up? If Bill Clinton was any indicator of Democratic "strong" military policy, we're in real trouble.

These are only a taste of what a Kerry presidency would bring. A vastly liberal Supreme Court is not a probability but a virtual certainty. Abortion would be reinstated in the pantheon of leftist government-sponsored programs. Public education will revert to its previously unaccountable status. America's energy resources will not grow, and dependency on foreign oil will remain.

Trial lawyers will have a vocal advocate in the White House -- and when health-care costs go up because of unjustified lawsuits, government-run health care will be proposed as a solution. The legal immigration system will not only remain broken; it will be completely destroyed as Kerry encourages more benefits for "undocumented immigrants."

The America portrayed here will be John Kerry's "stronger America." I just pray we do not have to live in it.*


----------



## Southwest Fisher

If you're gonna repeat the bu**sh** about that 87 million bill, why don't you get all the particulars involved? How much bs was attached to that bill, huh? A couple of things like this:

administrative changes have been:
- to reject an amendment by Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin,(Dem) that would have shifted $4.6 billion from Iraqi reconstruction to the Pentagon, transformed some spending into loans, and paid for the entire $87 billion by canceling tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans,

-an amendment by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., to require more detailed reporting on how the money will be spent.

-an amendment by Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., requiring the administration to show Congress details of no-bid contracts before they are awarded.

- a provision by committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., that in effect prohibits Condoleeza Rice from administering the funds. The presidential adviser did not need Senate confirmationfor her job, and lawmakers said they want the money controlled by an official they could compel to testify to Congress, such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Basic breakdown of the Bill has:

$65.3 billion for U.S. military expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere,

$21.6 billion to rebuild those two nations and aid other countries including Liberia.

but, it also includes:

- more than $100 million for work at military facilities in Virginia, Maryland and elsewhere, so far,..

as well as provisions that ensure that a minimum of $9.3 billion of the money is allowed to be spent at Rumsfield and Bush's personal discretion with no oversight or accounting, just a minimal requirement to inform the Senate that these appropriatons have been used or transferred

Gee, why would any "employee of the people" ever question that, huh? While you're at it, Bob, tell everyone about the fact that Bush cut veteran's benefits right after he appeared on an aircraft carrier (Mission accomplished ring a bell?)

Personally, I'd rather have trial lawyers in the White House than Enron, especially after thousands of employees lost their 401K's while all the board still got their golden parachutes (except, so far, for Fastow, who got jail time -DAmn right!). I hope Kenny-Boy enjoys his prison stay, but Bush will probably pardon him on his way out of office - in January!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I am willing to risk that Mr Kerry will go in the face of the constitution and change the second amendment, which has been in place for several hundred years and disallow gun ownership in any way shape or form.


----------



## BigDaddy

The current Shrub administration is great testimony of what happens when people vote on only one or two issues. I have relatives that vote for candidates based solely on abortion and guns. Know what you get when you vote solely on abortion and guns, while ignoring all other policy issues? George W. Bush.

Please don't believe the party propaganda (from either side). Rush and his co-horts will have you believe that all Democrats are coming for your guns and anxious to get every pregnant teen in the stirrups. Others will have you believe that all Republicans want to post the Ten Commandments in your local school. Focus on the candidates and do some homework.

The sad part of all of this is that of out of all the 290 million people in the United States, we limit our options to Bush and Kerry. These are the best that we have to offer? Sad, sad, sad. Both are spoiled rich boys with little connection to the general population. Both are controlled by their respective party leadership. Both tell their party's followers exactly what they want to hear instead of trying to sell their message to the masses.

I still think that we need a strong moderate to unite this country again. We need a person from outside the political arena that has the courage, smarts, and articulation to convince the public that we deserve an alternative to the current Republican/Democratic party options.


----------



## Bobm

SW fisher said


> as well as provisions that ensure that a minimum of $9.3 billion of the money is allowed to be spent at Rumsfield and Bush's personal discretion with no oversight or accounting, just a minimal requirement to inform the Senate that these appropriations have been used or transferred


We allow admistrators to hande money all the time like that and it wasn't without oversite or accounting it was *so they could shift funds where they are needed in the war effort without going though a bunch of the same red tape that makes it hard to get supplies to soldiers when they are needed*, *something the you have previously complained about and rightly so* Thats cookie money in the federal budget. ANd Rumfeld and Cheney can be trusted to spend it efficiently.
SW fisher said


> Gee, why would any "employee of the people" ever question that, huh?


Kerry is an elitist that reguards the people as his serfs to pay taxes for what ever he deems important and he is one of the spendiest Senators in the bunch! He like most antimiltiary leftists just doesn't like spending it on military related things and unfortunately for your liberal argument his long anti military voting record speaks for itself this was no effort to save us money it was his consistant anti military stance.
SW fisher said


> Personally, I'd rather have trial lawyers in the White House than Enron, especially after thousands of employees lost their 401K's while all the board still got their golden parachutes (except, so far, for Fastow, who got jail time -DAmn right!). I hope Kenny-Boy enjoys his prison stay, but Bush will probably pardon him on his way out of office - in January!


Neither this admistration of the previous one can be blamed for crooked accounting in the private sector, but your comment *once again shows how you liberals with your inability to hold people personally accountable* love lawyers that consistantly hold others accountable ( in Edwards case Doctors for acts of God like problem pregnancies) and gun manufacturers for the acts of violence that some miniscule number of gun owners commit. Yeah it shouldn't surprise us you love trial lawyers. :eyeroll: The inability of liberals to use logic makes the rediculous settlements in frivoulous lawsuits like the lady that sued Mcdonalds because the coffee was hot( DUH, bet 12 liberal were on that jury :lol: ) Ok in SW fishers world. 
The judicial branch of our three legged government is bringing the Enron folks to justice and the Whitehouse( executive branch) has no business interferring with the Process of the law and won't. 
Bush will lose only if there are enough of us that use SW fishers logic to make decisions, fortunately the internet and talk radio is helping the conservative side spread the truth about the fallacies of the liberal adjenda because the networks sure won't :eyeroll: 
Go fishing its something you understand.


----------



## Bobm

Big daddy says


> *I still think that we need a strong moderate to unite this country again*


We have one, Bush. Its always mystified me why the left hates him so, I guess its the circumstance of the election, because he has been passing a lot of Democrat adjenda policies that conservatives are not too pleased about and the left has been wanting for many years.
We have a stupid uniformed electorate that allows its opinions to be formed by the liars in the network news rather than looking at the reocrds of the candidates


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I still think that we need a strong moderate to unite this country again

We have one, Bush. Its always mystified me why the left hates him so much"

bob please dont play stupid, moderate my *** hes trying to push a ban on gay marriage (something that the majority, of the people dont want)

as for why the left hates him, lets see he threw us into a huge national debt, took us to an iraq which was unnecissary and got piles of our men killed. He also abandoned the UN and most of our allies in this crusade. gee i really do wonder why they dont like him....


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I think he is moderate. The reason I think so is because he is a little to liberal, but what is a better choice. As far as most people don't want a ban on gay marriage, where did you get that information. I have never seen it. I don't think that is a fact, I think it is simply your opinion stated as fact. Who threw us into a huge national dept. The economy started it's downswing in late April early May before he took office. And, no I'm not being partisan and blaming anyone so don't take that tact. Abandoned the UN. I wish. Throw their behind out of the country before they actually think they have any business monitoring our elections. I don't remember who the person was that wrote the letter asking the UN to monitor our elections, but I hope that whatever state they come from they get the boot from office in the next election. You want to see real division in this nation, bring the UN in. That letter from democrat or republican was a new low for a politician in this country.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT the majority do want marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Zogby did a poll just last week that shows this to be about 73%, however it drops to about 50% that want a Amendment.

The recent actions in the senate will be revisited if the defense of marriage act is challenged successfully in the Courts. Many on the Dem side of the aisle have indicated that if this where to happen they would revisit this with intent to pass just such language.

Really Bush is a moderate in terms of his social policy concerning SS,Medicare, and Education, and also on many other issues. On the war on terror he has been a hawk not unlike Miller and Liberman. Take the untrue accusations about Iraq out of the equation and Bush would be in double digit leads over Kerry. By fall I think he will win by a 5 point margin.

The recent report on Intel in Britain proves that Bush was acting and speaking on solid Intel about the acquisition of nuclear material and that Wilson under oath during the 9/11 hearings admitted he was wrong.

These things and other will sway the undecided to stay the course and re-elect Bush. Fear of tax increases and increases in spending to the tune of about $6000.00 a year more per person in the US for his get me elected give aways, and the improving economy will solidify the 10% that are undecided.

Little will sway the hard core masses that have dug in already. Rep are 89% behind Bush Dem's 74% behind anybody but Bush. Yet only 36% are solid behind Kerry and his programs.

We will have IMHO a new attack before the election, and Kerry will have egg all over his face in trying to line up to capitalize upon it. The people will just as after 9/11 rally around the Pres as he will have center stage in responding. He will have the ability to act, and Kerry only to say what he might have done.

We have more funding for wetlands and conservation programs other than CRP under Bush. We have a new plan in place for healthier forests that will in the future reduce the risk and severity of wild fires. He has asked and gotten more National lands opened up to hunters and fishermen not just birdwatchers. All this is coming to light.

I spoke with Don Niles a Friend of mine from Superior WI last night, he traveled and listened to both Kerry and Bush. Don is an independent guy and has after listening to them both came away thinking Bush says what he feels and is sincere while Kerry is out of touch and speaking to the crowd based upon what he thinks they want to hear.


----------



## Bobm

MT where do you get this stuff, you are the most fact challenged person I have ever talked to. I do enjoy talking to you but please start reading on these topics before you comment on them. Your comments are welcome and I find it great that a young guy like you is interested in these subjects but you really need to find alternative sources of info from the ones you are currently using


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Before you dare call someone fact-challenged look in your own mirror, this self-righteous sh** is somewhat tiring. You call Bush a moderate with no examples of bills where he reached way across party line to more than one token congressman. You say that Bush and Rumsfield could be trusted to spend a little extra money properly w/ no oversite...what's your basis of proof? All the fine economic strategies that he learned while he ran companies into the ground during the 80s? You refer to Kerry as an elitist, can you throw me a fact to follow that up? What makes Bush different, they both were born with the proverbial silver spoon but at least Kerry didn't use daddy's connections to dodge a war, I'd say that hiding behind name and money sounds a bit more elitist to me. And how am I against personal accountability by wanting the Enron leaders to pay for destroying thousands of lives? I'm just sick of blue-collar criminals getting the book thrown at them (deservedly in most cases) while white-collar crooks ***** about having to sell one or two of their ten homes! I never said anything about "loving" trial lawyers, I love my family, I love reading, I love fishing and pheasant hunting (probably too much - wait, there's no such thing!) but I really can't say I "love" lawyers of any type. Did some spittle fly out of your mouth when you typed that? Your best arguments by far are when you cut and paste clips from articles, then you have something as a basis of support for your beliefs, but don't just start randomly attributing beliefs to people that you disagree with, I've seen others on this forum do that to you and you sure didn't care for it. Golden rule, Bob. After what you said to me, your reply to MT was definitely the pot calling the kettle.


----------



## MSG Rude

MT,

Some times my brother you make me laugh out loud!

:rollin:


----------



## Bobm

Fisher asks


> You call Bush a moderate with no examples of bills where he reached way across party line to more than one token congressman


Drugs for seniors, and Ted Kennedys so called education bill are Huge recent examples
Fisher asks


> You say that Bush and Rumsfield could be trusted to spend a little extra money properly w/ no oversite...what's your basis of proof?


They are men of integrity and good character. And the proof of that is that there political enemies have tried their best to get some dirt on them and can't because is doesn't exist. 
*I TRUST THEM*
Fisher asks


> All the fine economic strategies that he learned while he ran companies into the ground during the 80s?


BS thats not true
Fishers says


> You refer to Kerry as an elitist, can you throw me a fact to follow that up?


 Lets see when hes not going to one of his 5 mansions or out sailing on his yatch, Hes throwing on blue jeans and trying to look like a good ol boy, hes a phony eliteist trying to act like one of us
Fishers asks


> And how am I against personal accountability by wanting the Enron leaders to pay for destroying thousands of lives? I'm just sick of blue-collar criminals getting the book thrown at them (deservedly in most cases) while white-collar crooks b#tch about having to sell one or two of their ten homes! I never said anything about "loving" trial lawyers


You are right I said liberals like you love them you said you would prefer trial lawyers in the White house meaning *Edwards who is the perfect example of a ambulance chasing trial laywer that is driving up the cost of insurance and most everything else.*
Fisher you say


> don't just start randomly attributing beliefs to people that you disagree with, I've seen others on this forum do that to you and you sure didn't care for it.


 Your correct I did'nt like it, but when you make statement like preffering trail lawyers (who as a group are dishonest and doing a lot of damage to this country) and inferring that somehow Bush is responsible for the crooks in Enron *you are stating positions that could only be held by someone with those beliefs and I still think they apply to you. *You are a leftist liberal and I'll continue to attribute those beliefs to you unless you can convince me your not. 
You make a lot of unsupportable claims about Bush and Cheney's character and I find your insinuation that they are corrupt or somehow to blame for Enron or that Rumfield destroyed compnies in the 80s because you don't agree with their policies is shameful. Your entitled to your beliefs but at least my comments about Kerry are based on hard facts about his record, not innuendo about Enron ect.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

There is no inneundo that Enron, along with all the largest fossil-fuel production companies, got to sit in during the formation of our energy bill. They wrote themselves a check. There is no innuendo that tape transcripts of Enron execs show how they cheered the wildfires in Caifornia, knowing the disgusting profit that they could reap from the disaster. There's no innuendo that Enron gave over $890,000 to presidential campaigns in 2000, $810,000 to Bush, along with the jet he used to campaign with. He stopped campaigning so he could watch Kenny-Boy throw out the first pitch at Enron Field! That's a clear-cut connection of vast proportions, not innuendo.
The prescription drug bill was not what the other side wanted, which is why an alternate bill why ten times the bipartisan support is in committee right now. Look it up.
Plenty of dirt exists, you just deny all of it, what you call integrity I call a man who needs to try working for once. It's not innuendo that Bush took more vacation days in his first two years than most 20th century Prezs took in entire terms. This includes 38% of his first eight months. Hard at it, huh?
And how much money does W have? It's okay for him to play like a cowboy in front of cameras but Kerry's "elitist"? That's all your opinion, and I know of many ranchers back home that have nothing for contempt for the rich people that "play" cowboy. If Bush gets tired of fixing fence someone will do it for him. My friends can't say the same.
I stand by my statement, you believe what you want, your trial lawyer comments could've come directly off of Rush's show, with not one example to back you up, but since I expressed opinion I'll stand by it. And calling Kerry an elitist because he wears blue jeans isn't really hard fact, Bob, in that case I know of a lot of damn poor elitists. Guess I better give my Levi's away, wouldn't want to be all "elitist!"


----------



## Bobm

People in the oil industry should have some be asked for their imput on oil industry policies, thats how you make policies that actually are workable. _Who would you ask the bakers of america???_  
Just because a candidate gives some attention to a contributor by no means makes him anypart of the company decisions, you liberals have repeatedly tried to make a Enron connection *but all you have in innuendo no proof* even though both the leftist media and the law has investigated the hell out of it. Find something else, *Oh I forgot your sides been trying and can't find anything.* :eyeroll: I guess its hard for Democrats after being Clinton supporters to believe someone is honest and means what he says. Bush is and does.

*SW Fisher the superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of your hero John Edwards uke: , which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, have been built on "junk science,"* according to legal and medical experts .
*You want some examples of his dirty work read away*.

Edwards, , continues to cite one of his most lucrative legal victories as an example of how he would stand up for "the little guy" if elected.

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.

Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation, Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C., firm of Edwards & Kirby.

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina tells a different story

*"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it,"* said the source, who did not want to be identified.

The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century. Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. *Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.*
Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is conceivable for a doctor's incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an infant. "There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. *But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," *Goldstein said.

*"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," *Goldstein added.

The medical and legal experts with whom were consulted said each case of cerebral palsy had to be evaluated on its own, but that medical science was increasingly exonerating the doctors involved in the labor and delivery where cerebral palsy resulted.

Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., also believes there is little obstetricians can do to prevent cerebral palsy during delivery. "Most cases of cerebral palsy are not due to asphyxia," Freeman said .

*"A great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child before birth," *Freeman said. "That is the cause of the premature labor and the cause of the [brain] damage. *There is little or no evidence that if you did a [caesarean] section a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral palsy," he added.*

'*Heart wrenching plea'*

But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, *he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries *that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Said Olson

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift," Olson added.

However, Olson believes *trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain scientific evidence.*
"[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said.

*'Junk science in the courtroom'*

Peter Huber, a lawyer and author of the book, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, believes *juries are typically manipulated with emotional arguments to aid the plaintiff's case.*

"The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up for misinterpreting sequence as cause," Huber wrote.

According to Boisseau, *the growing body of scientific studies showing that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases has done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million dollar court settlements. Those settlements are reached, Boisseau said, even though "a lot of the plaintiff's expert science is unsupported, essentially junk science."[/b]
Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science or the origins of cerebral palsy because "90 percent of suits for obstetrical malpractice are settled" out of court, noted Freeman of Johns Hopkins Hospital. :******:

Huber does not expect cerebral palsy cases to fade away, despite the growing body of scientific evidence exonerating doctors.

"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these [medical malpractice] claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote. 

The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms.( yeah hes really relating to the little gys isn't he) uke: Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win "more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone. The legal profession recognized Edwards' achievements by inducting him into the prestigious legal society called the Inner Circle of Advocates, which includes the nation's top 100 lawyers. Lawyers Weekly also cited Edwards as one of America's "Lawyers of the Year" in 1996.

'The kids and families I've fought for'

Edwards has shifted his emotionally charged speeches from the jury box to the presidential campaign trail and is fond of re-telling the story of how his firm sued on behalf of a cerebral palsy-afflicted boy named Ethan Bedrick in 1996.

Ethan, born in North Carolina in 1992, allegedly developed cerebral palsy after a botched delivery. Edwards has explained to audiences at presidential campaign rallies that suing Ethan's insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Co., to cover the boy's physical therapy was necessary because "Ethan's family had no choice.

"[The family was] forced to go to court to get their son the care he needed," Edwards has said of the case, which his law firm won.

Edwards has repeatedly cited Ethan's case as an example of "the kids and families I've fought for," and in the minds of many political observers positioned himself as the classic David against the insurance industry's Goliath.

However, Edwards has also repeatedly failed to mention that he had represented Ethan Bedrick in a lawsuit against the boy's obstetrician a year earlier in 1995. Edwards had alleged that the doctor was negligent in failing to prevent the boy's oxygen deprivation during labor and therefore had caused the boy's cerebral palsy.

Edwards settled the malpractice case with the doctor's insurance company less than three weeks into the trial, enabling Ethan's family to get a reported $5 million for medical and living expenses. The case was reportedly the largest medical malpractice settlement in North Carolina history.
'I'm proud of that'

Edwards is not shy about defending his legal career and says he would gladly put his record up against that of President Bush in this year's general election.

"The time I spent in courtrooms representing kids and families against, you know, big insurance companies and big drug companies and big corporate America -- I'm proud of that," Edwards told the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes in December 2003.

But Edwards' critics have a different view of the man; they say he has repeatedly acted to enrich himself. 

"John Edwards' spin is always -- I am helping the little guy. But he screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were going to make him richer," said the source with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career.

Dr. Lorne Hall, one of the physicians with whom Edwards reached a confidential settlement in a malpractice case involving cerebral palsy, agreed, telling The Charlotte Observer in 2003 that "[Edwards] knows how to pick cases, and he knows the ones he can win."

Hall said Edwards was "very polished, very polite, dressed to the T's, smiling at the ladies." But the anonymous source for this story said Edwards displayed a "belligerent attitude" toward the medical profession.

"He sued nurses, doctors, hospitals. The reputation he had was -- he never wanted to hear that nobody did anything wrong. If you even walked by the door of an alleged malpractice incident, you were gong to cough up money too," the source said.
But John Hood, president of the free-market, Raleigh, N.C.-based John Locke Foundation said Edwards tailored the evidence in his court cases for maximum impact. 

"In pursuing his client's cases he did what many other trial lawyers do. He bent the available evidence to fit what he wanted to say," said Hood . "That is the nature of an advocacy system," Hood added

Hood does not fault Edwards for the strategies he used as a trial lawyer.

"He was an advocate for his clients. It was his job to make the best possible case for them," Hood said.

Many legal observers agree that Edwards was simply doing his job and doing it very well.

A North Carolina newspaper, The News and Observer, said Edwards "forged a reputation as one of the most skilled plaintiff's attorneys in the business."

Retired North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, who heard many of Edwards' arguments in court, had nothing but praise for the abilities of the former trial lawyer, turned senator.

"He was probably the best I ever had in the 21 years I had on the bench. Lawyers would come in to watch him, to see what he does," Farmer told the Chicago Tribune in December 2003.

'Scientifically unfounded'

Olson said lawsuits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage "may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation." Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about 8,000 infants annually in the U.S.

But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits "scientifically unfounded," Olson explained. He contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery. 

"A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can't be because the nation's capital gets only bad neurosurgeons. It's because it's too tempting to file against the competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their patients," Olson added.

Edwards, who opposes legislation that would cap damages in liability lawsuits, would not respond to repeated requests through his campaign offices for comment. 
Now isn't that a surprise, SW Fisher if you look up to slick lawyers thats fine, I don't. I think they are ruining the country.

You distorted what I said about the elitist stuff with your blue jeans comment which I guess shouldn't surprise any of us because you know Kerry is a North East liberal phony as well as we do and distortion is all you have. Catch a big fish this weekend fish is brainfood and you need a lot of it :lol:*


----------



## Southwest Fisher

I understand why you think that lawyers are ruining the country, I just wish you'd understand why I think greedy corporations and execs that don't believe that too much money is ever enough are the worst problem. We have no corporate responsibilty, all that matters is profits, the more obscene the better, but nobody cares about either the little guy nor the big picture, and that is the state the US will be in not too far down the road when our society becomes so extremely opposite. I don't want any company that bilked it's own employees out of their well-deserved retirement funds having any say on any US energy plan, no matter what their business or how good they are at it, because if they'll fu** over their own employees they'll sure have no problem in doing that to the gov, which them costs me and you money. And don't even get me started on all the governemnt subsidies that Wal-Mart receives. Look at all the money they clear every quarter, unGodly profits, why do we subsidize them?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You know I was watching tv the other day, and it was stated that there is an odd 40% of Americans who will NEVER vote democrat. I think bob is one of them.


----------



## zogman

Count me in too :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

I don't think all lawyers are greedy bums. Likewise I don't think big businesses are any worse. Likewise the poor of our nation are not inherently good or bad. Perhaps it isn't the profession at all, but the simple greed present in most people. I get a kick out of the comment about nobody cares about the little guy. How many of you see yourself as the little guy? This political ploy works so well because most people see themselves as the little guy, and Americans have all grown up pulling for the underdog. The business man that makes $100,000 a year looks at the million dollars his neighbor pulls in and thinks of himself as the little guy. The million dollar a year business man looks at the Ten million a year business and thinks he is the little guy, and on and on. When politicians say they are for the little guy 90% of the people think they are talking about them. We subsidize many things including agriculture which perhaps is the biggest cost to the taxpayer. Politicians all buy votes. Republicans give money back to the rich who earned it in the first place, and democrats rob the hard working to buy votes from the lazy. None of them are perfect, still it shouldn't be that difficult to see which is more fair. I'm with you zogman, until I have to vote for governor this fall, that going to hurt.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

SWF

Who is the little guy?

Is it the construction worker that is making $2.00 an hour less because of increased liability insurance?

Is it the small business owner unable to keep health insurance because of the rate increases due to frivolous malpractice suits and obscene awards?

Is it the worker in a mfg plant that is without benefits because the cost of staying in business for the plant owner has went through the roof due to unrealistic EPA requirements?

Or is it the families who are on the third generation of welfare and have not had the wiliness to brake the cycle?

Or the drug addict that is living on the street because of his choice in life?

These are just a few examples. I really would like your definition of a little guy and how anything Kerry has proposed is going to change the situation without it hurting the rest of the little guys!

Please no rhetoric but programs that will work etc. To this point I have not heard anything from him. On the news today they reported that 4 million Seniors are now getting prescriptions for less because of Bush and his promise during the last campaign to finally do something about it. Another 25,000 are signing up daily. These are the most needy. Clinton did nothing in 8 years but campaigned on it.

On education Bush has brought forth the No Child left behind. While the Dem's are saying it is underfunded the true fact is that 60% of the money has not been touched. Why you may ask is because the teachers union oppose teacher accountability. Tenure is good but not when it keeps and protect incompetent teachers in class rooms with our young.

How about his initiative to help retrain displaced workers? Getting them help with financial aid to get retrained in jobs that are in demand. Once again common sense approaches to getting people back to work.

His eliteness has said he will create 10 million new government jobs, that means I and you when you get out of school will be paying for these people to work less than 40 hours a week have 3-5 weeks of Paid time off, and have to do a minimum amount of work to avoid getting the axe. Nothing like the real world the rest of us work in.

He wants to raise taxes on small business owners the largest segment of the economy that crate jobs.

Those are the only two clear things he has said that I have read or heard.

Then add in history on gin issues and it is a no brainer for me and most of the guys I know.

One more thing how about the fact that Bush acted on the Iraq nucleur threat which the 9/11 Commision and the Britsh intel service investion have proven to be real?


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Here's an example of what I'm NOT about:

The Al Smith dinner, hosted by Archbishop Edward Egan, is a traditional forum for presidential candidates, although in past years, the abortion issue has kept some candidates away.

The event is named for the former New York governor who was the first Roman Catholic ever to be nominated for president.

The presidential candidates came well-armed with jokes, often poking fun at themselves.

Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

I often dream that I could be in that position, saying the same thing at a Denny's or a TGI Friday's (especially on Long Island Tea Saturdays).


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Nice reply with the rhetoric, now can we have some substance please?


----------



## Plainsman

SW

I guess I don't get your point. Is it that people who are financially successful are bad people? Like I have said before rich people are not automatically good or bad, likewise poor people are not automatically good or bad. Liberals I have noticed are always trying to create class warfare. They continuously refer to the wealthy as greedy, etc. , but they are some of the riches people in our congress. When I talk to wealthy conservatives I find that they respect people who work no matter how much or how little they make. When I talk with wealthy liberals they are the ones who do not respect the less successful workers no matter how hard they work. They commonly think of them as the great unwashed masses. No mater how much or how little a worker in America makes every working person deserves respect. They have mine, conservative or liberal. The more holy than thou attitude is what keeps me to the political right. That attitude manifest itself in words like tolerance. I have listened to this liberal psycho babble for a long time, and finally I am hearing many other people becoming tired of it also.


----------



## Bobm

Here's a brief list of the threats Kerry poses to our country, not necessarily in the order of their severity.

*1. Kerry is soft on sovereignty*. As Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero says: "Never has the dilution of U.S. Sovereignty been so boldly forecast." This is a man who said that the United States should not deploy troops overseas *without the "permission" of the United Nations*. He made no exceptions. *He stated it as a hard and fast rule*. Do we want a president who seeks the permission of the United Nations before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States? *Oh .. to be sure, Kerry wouldn't dare make this statement today. He's running for office! *Tell me ... just when do you think a person speaks his true mind? Hint: It's not when he's in the middle of the campaign. Remember ... Kerry has instructed Democrats to hold back on their anti-war statements during the convention. He knows that many of the voters he wants to convince approve of the liberation of Iraq. He also knows that most of the voters don't think the UN should have veto power over US military deployments. Believe him now at your peril.

*2. Kerry is an appeaser*. Kerry knows that many of the principal members of the European Union want to build the strength of that body on the declining weakness of America. The leaders of these countries are quite upset over George Bush's show of strength in the Middle East. They knew the threat was there, but it was a threat they didn't have the courage to face. The US did. The US is showing strength, Europe is showing weakness. Naturally this is going to breed bitterness toward our country. Kerry wants to address and moderate this bitterness by weakening America through a policy of appeasement.

*3. Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal. *Just recently Microsoft announced that it was going to distribute $32 billion ... that's with a "B" ... in Microsoft cash to shareholders via a dividend. Give Kerry his way and the dividend, which has already been taxed by the Imperial Federal Government, will be taxed again when it reaches the shareholder. How nice. Kerry's spending plans, if enacted, would essentially double the size of the federal government. Virtually every economist out there not working for the government credits Bush's tax cuts with our economic turnaround. Raising taxes is a good way to stop our economy in its tracks.

*4. Kerry sends a message of weakness. *Islamic terrorists are emboldened when they believe their enemies to be weak. Disagree if you wish, but there's a school of thought out there which believes that the election of John Kerry would send a signal to the wonderful world of Islamic terrorism that America is once again ripe for an attack. I attend that school. How many Americans will die when Kerry brings us the era of appeasement?

*5. Kerry sends a message of government dependency*. Whatever you need, the government is there to provide it for you. Kerry is pressing the concept of health care as a right. This means that the person in need of health care would have, under a Kerry regime, an enforceable right to a portion of the life of some health care provider somewhere. If health care is a right, what else? The right to a home? The right to a job?

We're in the middle of World War IV. Bin Laden has pledged to kill as many Americans as he can. He has even set a goal of four million. Will you be one of those? How about a member of your family? The Democrats are going to nominate a man who was opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. A man who voted for the Iraq war, and then voted to deny the funding our troops needed to pursue that action. The Democrats are nominating a man who believes that the United Nations should have veto power over American military moves. A man who would weaken the American economy through ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and the imposition of tax increases on the very people who are now powering our economic revival.

*Kerry is dangerous. *Anyone who would put him in power is dangerous. Islamic jihadists are dangerous. The question as to which group presents a greater threat to our Republic, to our freedoms and economic liberty is a valid one. I suspect that some Kerry voters are just a wee bit uncomfortable with the possible consequences of their actions.


----------



## Plainsman

Are all of you listening to the Democratic convention. I guess they confirmed my suspicions about more gun control. They want the assault weapon ban renewed. The problem is Fienstien has added many guns to that list. Do you think you Remington 870 is an assault weapon? I don't . Bill is continuing in his old tradition. His book should have been called my lies. Many of his points were refuted months ago on fact check.com. But----I guess if you listen to only one side you think these things are the truth.


----------



## indsport

Just a note to plainsman and others on this thread, I support the second amendment and think most of the gun laws are bs, but how does one reconcile the following congressional website information. It has to be reviewed and approved by the US Senate clerk, the library of congress and approved in writing by the appropriate senator before posting
http://feinstein.senate.gov/exempted_guns.html. To all who are on either side of the gun debate, I don't listen to either side unless they can quote me chapter, section and page from the congressional record and/or the appropriate bill legislation. Call me paranoid about the media, the NRA, the Brady bunch, the talk shows, they all spin the information to make their case. Printed public record is my main source of information.


----------



## Plainsman

Indsport

I can't get the web site you listed to come up. It says no such address, check to see if address is correct. Anyway, I did read about Fienstien in I think my very last NRA publication. It said she would add firearms, but her attempt to attach the assault weapon ban bill with added firearms to another bill had been blocked twice. But, put that all aside. Why are my hunting publications, and all my gun magazines, critical of the direction the liberals are going on gun control? Who have been the initiators of most of the gun control bills historically? Who brought up gun control last night at the democratic convention? And I hope you are not telling me that none of these people want to add more evil guns to their hit list. Partisanship aside could anyone honestly say it is the republicans? Could anyone honestly say they don't think the democrats want more? They said so last night. Isn't this common knowledge? We would have to have our head buried in the sand to believe otherwise. Like I have said before the state of denial is becoming one of the largest in the U.S. Denying that liberals want more gun control is simply unrealistic.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The ten year rise of Devil Lake and and Dem's wanting to take away our guns are both figments of our imagination! :******:

One is controlable one is not!


----------



## indsport

Plainsman, I am checking to see why the link worked up until yesterday. 
As to your question about why alll the publications you read are talking about the liberals and gun control is because that is their job to do so. It drives readership and membership. After Reagan was shot, there were calls for gun control from both sides with conservatives asking for better enforcement (I agree) and liberals viewing gun control as a better avenue.
As to the democrats, it depends on which democrats you are talking about. The coastal democrats and big city democrats want gun control but not the vast majority of rural democrats because the problems with guns are in the big cities and on the coasts. After all, look at the sponsors of the current extension bill, the democrats are from coastal states as well as Lincoln Chaffee a republican from Rhode Island.


----------



## Bobm

> because the *problems with guns *are in the big cities and on the coasts


This is the real problem the Democrats have, they cannot hold the individual responsible.... there is no problem with *guns*!!!! *The problem is with the irresponsible people that use them incorrrectly.* As for the rural Democrat's not supporting gun control that is BS too because if you support the current ruling eliteist leaders of the Democrat party then you support gun control because that is their current position. If you don't replace them with some conservative Democrats and rebuild the party, with that in mind. Currently if you are in favor of private gun ownership you should vote Republican.


----------



## indsport

Bobm, you state the problem with voting a straight party ticket for any party quite succinctly. If someone blindly voted Republican in Rhode Island and quite a few other locations around the country for senators and representatives, that person would end up voting for a Republican that supports gun control. I never, ever, vote for a candidate based solely on party affilliation but rather on their individual stand on the issues.


----------



## Bobm

Indsport, you missed my point in two ways First, I was saying you are falling victim to the way liberals refer to guns as a problem rather than individuals. Second while certain individuals in the partys may not reflect, the main stance the party has on an issue, the real thing to look at is how the leadership feels about an issue because they determine how the votes go, and the leadership of the Democrats is decidedly anti-gun except during the election cycle. So if your a gun owner and you support the current democrats you are hurting yourself. The current leaders of the Democrat would take away your gun tomorrow if they could.


----------



## pointer99

well......

i'm a conservative but i am also an independent. i would vote for a democrat for president if they would nominate a guy like sam nunn.

i always lean to the right on most issues. that is until the shootin starts.
then i try to get to the center. the center right behind bobm that is.

you got my back? right bob?

pointer


----------



## indsport

Bobm, you missed my point also. I was not talking strictly about national agenda of either party. If, hypothetically, I voted in Rhode Island, voted republican for the national election, and republican completely down the line, I would then be voting for a republican senator who is one of the 12 co sponsers of the extension on the assault weapons ban with Diane Feinstein from California. I would still fulfill your requirement for voting for the party that appears to oppose gun control and end up with a senator that supports gun control. That is illogical regardless of the "intent" of the national leadership. Second, to start another problem, how come on the George Bush official website, it plainlystates George Bush supports the extension of the assault weapons ban. Is this too, just a statement made during the political season, as you so aptly put it? I cannot reconcile the positions of either party on guns.


----------



## buckseye

> > >
> > > BEWARE
> > > Following is a brief background on Mrs. John Kerry .
> > > She hates being called that, by the way:
> > > Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz
> > > Kerry. Married Senator Kerry in 1995. She only took
> > > his name eighteen months ago and she is an "interesting"
> > > paradox of conflicts.
> > > If you thought John Kerry was scary, he doesn't hold
> > > a candle to his wife! Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-
> > > Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique, the
> > > daughter of a Portuguese physician, was educated in
> > > Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages,
> > > she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva
> > > in the mid-60's when she met a "handsome" young
> > > American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in
> > > Geneva. He told her his family was "in the food business."
> > > They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh
> > > where his family ran the giant H. J. Heinz food company.
> > > He was elected to the US House of Representatives in
> > > 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms
> > > in the United States Senate. A Republican, he wrote a
> > > burning diatribe against some of the causes backed by
> > > young House member John Kerry.)
> > > Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his
> > > plane collided with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a
> > > Philadelphia suburb. The senator, his pilot, and copilot, and
> > > both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed. He was survived
> > > by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons.
> > > Four years later, having inherited Heinz's $500 million
> > > fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal
> > > then-junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a
> > > registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization
> > > was set in motion.
> > > Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she
> > > required Kerry to sign a prenuptial agreement before they
> > > were married. John Kerry may not have check writing
> > > privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is
> > > certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it.
> > > A lot of hard-earned money, made through many years
> > > of hawking catsup, mustard, and pickles has fallen into the
> > > hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneur-
> > > ship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of
> > > wealth.
> > > So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's
> > > money?
> > > Just one example:
> > > According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence
> > > newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-
> > > 2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization
> > > called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides
> > > Foundation do with John Heinz's money?
> > > They support numerous antiwar groups, including
> > > Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has
> > > offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried.
> > > They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint
> > > venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger
> > > George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease
> > > restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states.
> > > They support the Council for American-Islamic
> > > Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to
> > > the terrorist group, Hamas.
> > > They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as
> > > a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their
> > > attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a
> > > client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with
> > > terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the
> > > 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
> > > They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic
> > > group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona,
> > > California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico.
> > > These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit,
> > > through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation,
> > > from the generosity of our would-be first lady, the wealthy
> > > widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife
> > > of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th
> > > President of the United States.
> > > Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for
> > > America, regardless of your political views.
> > > If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and
> > > see the real Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate
> > > her position as ultra rich fairy godmother of the radical left.
> > > They will not want to imagine her laying her head on a
> > > pillow each night inches away from the President of the
> > > United States.
> > > Hopefully they love this country enough to decide that
> > > the only way these two will ever be allowed into the White
> > > House is with an engraved invitation in hand.
> > > Instead of deleting this, pass it on. Let everyone know
> > > these people are unfit to represent this great nation. The
> > > uninformed will never hear the truth from the press, who
> > > wants Kerry elected!
> > > Those who buy the Kerry facade, beware what you
> > > vote for - - - you may regret that you got it!


----------



## Bobm

Indsport, I don't know what to think of any politicians of either stripe anymore, with few exceptions they are motivated primarily by getting re-elected. Bush has done a lot of stuff I'm not in agreement with but as you all know the terror issue is the big one for me and I think hes handling that correctly, not perfectly but correctly, there is no perfection on these types of issues. I hope the 9-11 recommendations help and are implemented, you sometime have to wonder if the damn federal govenment really is capable of radical change....for my childerens sake I hope so.
My guess is the Bush stance on the so called assualt weapons bill is to keep the status quo and not add any more guns to the list for political cover to try and get the middle of the roaders critical to get re-elected. In otherwords do nothing to rock the boat on that issue. Everything they are doing and saying right now is part of their strategy to get re-elected. Or to try and get elected in Kerry's case. Its a lot of BS.


----------

