John Kerry 2Follow

He will have less ties to big business. The more ties you have to big business, the less you think on your own, and the less you do for the country.

Wow... Okay everyone... go easy on him...

Ken Lay not Kevin

The Bush administration denied governmental aid to Enron. Lay asked, but was refused.

Hey, what are friends for. :)

"He will have less ties to big business. The more ties you have to big business, the less you think on your own, and the less you do for the country." --DeanoTyler

You can easily change that to, "He will have ties to the _____ (trial lawyer, ketchup industry, every special interest group known to man) industry. The more ties you have to _____ (trial lawyers, ketchup industry, every special interest group known to man), the less you think on your own, and the less you do for the country."

If nothing else, ties to business help the economy in general, something which should appeal to every one of you who cherishes having a job and an income.

Totem

Ok. Let's look at it objectively, shall we? Under what kind of government will business flourish: one with an anti-business outlook complete with heavy tax burden and onerous labor laws or one where the tax burden is light and makes laws which stimulate commerce?

Now ask yourself which party has traditionally been pro-business?

Totem

Perhaps, Deano, but Bush's administration is still pro-business regardless what the individual tax laws are doing. This is not to say that Kerry wouldn't be good for business, but when you consider that he chose a running mate whose former career* was based on destroying business and profiting from it, it leads you to question his stance on having a commerce-friendly political plank regardless what his mouth is saying during the campaign. It's one thing to say you're pro-business, it's another to actually enact legislation which promotes growth.

Totem

*Edwards' specialty was extracting money via juries from doctors and hospitals for babies born with celebral palsy because supposedly they were born naturally rather than by C-section. The science behind these cases has been subsequently debunked, thus showing Edwards to be a money grubbing charletan rather than a crusading trial lawyer whose sole interest was compensating the families. The resulting malpractice insurance and medical costs due to the judicial slight-of-hand of such vermin as John Edwards has cost the American consumer untold oodles of money for health insurance. Thank you, John Edwards. I'd like to say that you were doing less damage in your short stint in the Senate, but that's like saying the fox was better off guarding the henhouse.

Ok. Let's look at it objectively, shall we? Under what kind of government will business flourish: one with an anti-business outlook complete with heavy tax burden and onerous labor laws or one where the tax burden is light and makes laws which stimulate commerce?


In the entire history of the United States it's been the case that the economy has done vastly better under Democrats.

Don't let facts cloud your argument that Republicans are better for the economy though. Just because it's never been true, don't let that stand in the way.

Also, just because they spend more than Democrats don't let that stand in the way of the implication that Democracts will tax higher and spend more money.

Twisted: I used Clinton as the measuring stick as a 'succesful' president in relation to the economy. Bush is not measuring up to that in any way as far as I can tell.

Totem: I want a president who believes in a government of the people, for the people, not 'of the businessmen, for the businessmen.' To paraphrase the great Republican Theodore Roosevelt, businesses are entitled to fairness in every aspect but should not hold the power of a single vote.

Is the Boston Brahmin perfect? Far from it. However, he's more likely to get us off of Middle East oil and more likely to expand health care to the 43 million who don't have it. Those are my deal-breakers, so Kerry it is.

And here's some bedroom reading on Sen. John Edwards.

- Zoelef

I think it is ominous for this election that both Donald Trump and Lee Iacocca have come out against Bush in 2004. Iaccoca had even campaigned for Bush in 2000, yet openly endorsed Kerry recently. I do not think the traditional economic divide works for the parties anymore. Also, Kerry himself is very, very wealthy. (I do not have my sources with me, but feel free to google it; it's all readily available)

What I don't understand is why in the world don't people use all the "free" healthcare that Clinton provided during the 8 years he was in office?? And if you think healthcare is free....LOL

Totem, I was just curious as to whether you carried this around with you all the time:

http://www.budkww.com/partsview.asp?action=lookup&partno=BK482&subject=U4&catpos=2

Thought you might like that.