Thank You Mr. President

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

from the page:

Americans should drive the cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks of their choice, but that these vehicles can be safer, more efficient and affordable. Kerry believes that we should increase our fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 and will also provide tax incentives for consumers to buy the vehicles they want and incentives for manufacturers to convert factories to build the more efficient vehicles of the future. Taken together these proposals will enhance national security, strengthen the American auto industry, and protect and create jobs.

The current hybrids dont even meet those standards??????

Yes, they do. 42 miles to the gallon, albiet not the 56 their claiming. Did you know Toyota is coming out with a Hybred SUV NEXT YEAR that's supposed to get 36 MPG?

2. While John Kerry believes our nation needs a strategy to reduce dependence on oil today, he knows we can harness technological innovation and ingenuity to develop a hydrogen-based economy for the future. Hydrogen has great promise as a clean, domestic, and reliable energy source for the future. It has the potential to power our cars at 100 miles per gallon without pollution and, with the right technology, can be produced efficiently from natural gas and coal. Eventually, John Kerry believes that we can build a truly clean and secure economy based on hydrogen -- a clean fuel that we can eventually get entirely from renewable sources from our farms, the wind, solar energy, hydropower and geothermal sources

Didnt Bush already put resources into this?????

One thing Kerry and Bush agree on.

The American economy is twice as efficient today as it was some 30 years ago. In part, that’s because we accomplish more with less through efficient technologies. But studies by the Department of Energy and other agencies show that we can save significantly more energy through advances in energy efficient technologies – heating, lighting and manufacturing – that only need to be implemented. John Kerry believes that the government should promote the efficient use of energy in the places that we work and live. Kerry will cut the Government’s energy bill 20 percent by 2020 – saving the Federal government $8 billion over the next ten years - and will challenge municipalities, corporations, universities, small businesses, and hospitals to do the same. He will also provide tax credits for energy-efficient buildings and homes.

Hes going to try to get the government to conserve? He's been in a better position of power even now to do this than president.... I dont understand?

Have you been to DC lately? Just by upgrading some of the buildings, they'll end up saving the initial energy cost in about 10 years. Things like windows, AC, heating etc. Some of the buildings are still using steam for heat!!!

anything else? other than asking other people to do stuff?

Conservation is cool.... but what about

Acreage of wind power and where

Acreage of Solar power and where

Something a lil substantive other than (hey people, lets conserve) cause we've never tried that before .

Well, in Mass, they're looking at putting up a wind farm out on the cape. the ocean isn't considered acerage, neither is the great lakes. They'll install them in places where the average windspeed is high.

Solar power is easier. We're not talking solar panels either. There is a test bed in death valley where they foucs mirrors onto a collector plate which heats to around 1 million degrees. This heat turns water into steam and it powers turbines, similar to nuclear power. Stuff like this.

Bear, there's answers to all of them. Read some more on his site, hopefully you'll come back with more questions.

[Thiebear]

I understand there are easier things.

I understand like pot the paper manufacturers stopped the production.

I understand there is a 96mpg car at the tip of someones tongue but the union/auto industry will not let it happen.

I am just asking as one person to another.... what does your guy bring to the table that mine doesnt bring?

I want to drill a little bit... I think that will help more than 156k troops in IRAQ. I want independance to do what is right without worrying about what is in the middle east to influence the answer??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just cause im a conservative, doesnt mean I'm a republican. I want this done right from beginning to end... I Expect more from a Republican and WILL hold them to a higher standard... I expect a resignation from the disgraced like Newt. I expect no less. I this turns out to be a fustercluk there will be hell to pay!

[NoCalMike]

For clarification, the whole "war for oil" thing was never based on US citizens getting cheaper gas. That wasn't what anyone was claiming the war was for, what the "war for oil" rant was all about, was the fact that the oil companies would become more rich and powerful and their assets would quadruple.

[tex]

These folks wouldn't want $40 a barrel oil . . . . . would they?

The Bush administration's ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.

The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it, according the Center for Public Integrity.

"There's no denying that this is an oil administration," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group that conducted the study of Bush's campaign finances. "You can't talk about the career of any George Bush -- father or son -- without talking about oil."

But talking is one thing; determining exactly how the ties to the oil industry affect domestic and foreign policy is another. How much influence does the oil industry have? Is the U.S. bombing Afghanistan in part because -- as antiwar critics have claimed -- the industry wants to clear a path for oil and gas pipelines? Will the Bush administration steadfastly avoid confrontation with Saudi Arabia -- home of 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers -- because it doesn't want to upset ExxonMobil and the other oil companies with a deep Saudi stake? Or, even more intriguingly, could the close ties between Bush and the Saudis lead to increased U.S. pressure on Israel to create a peace settlement?

Or is this too simplistic? Since at least World War II, the oil industry has often been forced by the U.S. government to serve foreign policy objectives, rather than the other way around. Presidents have generally accepted oil's economic significance, its role as the grease that makes capitalism go. But even the most conservative administrations have regularly emphasized geopolitical objectives -- Soviet containment, for example -- at the expense of oil industry interests. Aspects of Bush's energy plan suggest that even this administration will not break the give-and-take pattern.

The problem, however, is that this pattern, the so-called "cheap oil strategy" looks more and more like a failure. Foreign oil dependence has risen over the past decade while now -- with anti-American sentiment growing in the Arab world -- foreign oil supplies are looking increasingly insecure. More than ever, some kind of national policy pushing both conservation and the development of renewable energy resources seems eminently prudent, if not necessary.

And that's where the current makeup of the Bush administration becomes crucial -- not because Bush-Cheney and company plan to invade Iraq to make it safe for ExxonMobil, (although that's not totally beyond the bounds of possibility) but because these are the last men and women in the world to expect radical change from on questions related to energy. Their friends, finances, and worldviews are all oil-drenched.

George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay.

It's a Bush family affair

The fusion of oil and politics is a Bush family tradition. For generations, the Bushes and their friends have been shuttling back and forth between energy industry boardrooms and Washington's hallowed halls.

Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, initiated the pattern. Shortly before winning a Connecticut Senate seat in 1952 he helped his son George raise $350,000 to start what would become Zapata Petroleum.

Sen. Bush also regularly looked out for the oil industry and his son's interests while in Washington. His biggest single favor, according to Herbert Parmet's book "George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee," came a year into his first Senate term, when he opposed legislation that would have federalized offshore resources -- including oil -- to raise money for education. In the name of states' rights and free enterprise, the bill's defeat helped both the oil companies and gave Zapata just what it needed to expand. In fact, soon after the legislation failed, Zapata moved into offshore drilling -- eventually one of Zapata's most lucrative ventures

George Bush made millions during the '50s and '60s Texas oil boom, and he also made many friends, most notably James Baker, who became Bush's company lawyer in 1963 after Zapata merged with Penn to become Pennzoil.

Bush later brought his friends to Washington, first as a representative in the House, then as head of the Republican National Committee and finally as vice president and president. He didn't stock his administration as full of oilmen and women as his son has, but like Prescott Bush, he didn't mind doing the industry's bidding either. His most public act for oil came in 1981. While serving as Ronald Reagan's vice president, he departed from the White House's official stance and visited Saudi Arabia to plead for an end to sliding prices. Bush argued that he was simply trying to protect American security interests by protecting domestic producers, who have higher costs than their Persian Gulf counterparts. But higher prices had another benefit: by protecting domestic oil jobs, they helped shore up support in Texas for what would eventually become his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

Higher prices also directly helped Bush's son, George W. Bush. George W.'s oil career started in 1978 -- 12 years after his father first entered Congress -- when several of his father's friends invested in his firm, Arbusto ("Bush" in Spanish). Unlike his father, George W. spent much of his oil career in the red. As Joe Conason pointed out in Harper's last year before the election, the company's original investors and others bailed out his firm at least three times. But after a final act of corporate CPR -- a merger with Harken Energy in 1986 -- Bush's connections to power really paid off. Two years after the merger, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a former director of Saudi Arabia's income tax department, purchased an 11 percent stake in Harken through his company Traco International. That same year, Harken won a contract for oil-drilling in Bahrain.

"Harken had no international experience at the time," says Eisner at the Center for Public Integrity, which published a detailed account of Bush's rise to power titled "The Buying of the President: 2000." "It was their first out of country contract."

Press reports at the time questioned Bahrain's motivations. Even the normally reserved Wall Street Journal reported in 1991 that the contract "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son."

The Bush family countered that the contract was well deserved. Regardless, the deal in the Persian Gulf gave Bush a direct tie to the Saudi elite and set Bush on a suddenly successful path.

"It's not just the matter of a single contract," Eisner says. "It also has to do with converting Harken into a player that was then converted into a stake in the Texas Rangers and a run for governor. It's not incidental. The Bahrain deal is central to Bush's life."

Some experts suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a presidential family so steeped in oil knowledge, given the importance of oil to both national security and the domestic economy. But Bush has shown a pervasive willingness to let oil interests define energy and environmental policy. After accepting millions from the industry during his run for governor, he signed into law tax breaks for state energy producers, and in 1997, he gave them a hand in writing their own rules. Upon hearing that Texas' state environmental agency planned to end an exemption that allowed power plants built before 1971 to avoid complying with state pollution laws, Bush tapped two people to come up with an alternative plan: Vic Beghini, an executive with Marathon Oil Inc. and Ansel Condray, an executive with Mobil.

The plan they came up with initiated a voluntary pollution reduction program that didn't punish companies for noncompliance and thus essentially failed. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund published six months after Bush announced the program revealed that only three of the 26 companies had actually cut their emissions. Two years later, under increasing public pressure, Bush signed a bill forcing power plants to cut their emissions in half by 2003 -- but the essential exemption, as the industry wanted, still stands.

The Condoleezza Rice-Chevron-Central Asia connection

The politicos surrounding Bush also have enjoyed warm government/oil-industry connections. While Bush used his elected position to help friends in his former industry, Cheney employed past government connections to improve his own bottom line.

Iraq provides the most dramatic example. Cheney, intentionally or inadvertently, went against his own edicts in order to pad his company's profits. He told Sam Donaldson in August 2000 that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999. Cheney, who collected a $36 million salary before becoming vice president, essentially profited from the destruction of Iraq that he oversaw as secretary of defense during the Gulf War. And while the oil-rig and equipment sales were legal -- a 1998 U.N. resolution gave Iraq the right to rebuild its oil industry -- Cheney's firm sold through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," according to a November 2000 Financial Times report.

Cheney also helped Halliburton obtain a windfall of U.S. government loans. He secured $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed financing for Halliburton -- a massive increase over the $100 million loan it received during the five-year period before Cheney took over. And while Cheney has claimed that Halliburton's rise to power had nothing to do with his political stature, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times suggest that U.S. officials assisted Halliburton both in Asia and Africa. Even the domestic defense-contracting arm of Halliburton -- Brown & Root -- saw its fortune change drastically once Cheney took over. The company booked $1.2 billion in contracts between 1990 and 1995; with Cheney at the helm, contract awards spiked to $2.3 billion between 1995 and 2000.

Other Bush administration officials have also profited from past government experience and influence. Bush's father and his then Secretary of State James Baker -- the lawyer who fought for Bush during the Florida election fiasco -- work for the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that until recently collected investments from the bin Laden family and other members of the Saudi elite. Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz sat on the board of Chevron before the arrival of Condoleezza Rice.

Rice joined the Chevron board in 1991, after serving for a year on Bush Sr.'s National Security Council. There, she earned a $35,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for every meeting she attended and stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to SEC documents. She was reportedly hired for expertise in the former Soviet states, and long before U.S. planes started dropping bombs in nearby Afghanistan, she spent much of her time at Chevron working on prospective deals in the Caspian region. Chevron (with Mobil) already produces 70 percent of the oil coming out of the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, according to Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban," and the company has been working hard to secure a pipeline that would allow more oil to be produced. In 1993, with Rice on the board, the company pulled together a pipeline project to carry oil to a Russian port on the Black Sea. Russian opposition eventually postponed the plan indefinitely but Chevron still holds a 45 percent stake in the project -- and given the present state of improved Russian-American relations, many suspect that project will eventually get off the ground.

The slowly improving relations between the U.S. and Iran could also help Chevron. When negotiations over pipelines from Tengiz broke down a few years ago, Chevron turned its focus toward the Islamic theocracy, asking the Clinton State Department for a "swapping" license. Approval would have allowed oil from Tengiz to be shipped across the Caspian to Iran while, in exchange, Chevron would be able to sell an equal amount of Iranian oil that would be shipped from the Persian Gulf. The proposal was never approved, but given Rice's ties, many have suspected that Chevron will soon play a larger role in American foreign policy, whether in Iran or the Caspian.

Critics of the Bush administration point out that a stabilized Caspian region could benefit Rice's friends at Chevron, and if she returns to the board, Rice herself. They also argue that maintaining dependence on Saudi oil could benefit Cheney's old firm and Bush's father, and ultimately, the president himself when an inheritance comes his way.

But there is no clear evidence, right now, of oil company desires affecting current U.S. foreign policy. If anything, the terrorist attacks have reduced the energy industry's influence. Before Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia was reportedly pushing the U.S. to pressure Israel into Palestine peace concessions and, according to a Newsweek story, Bush was beginning to comply. But after Sept. 11, the chance that the U.S. would accede to Saudi requests evaporated, given the numerous Saudi connections to the attacks.

In that sense, the trajectory of oil influence over foreign policy has continued upon its historical path. A review of the evidence suggests that over time, the oil industry has progressively lost power. But that still doesn't mean that the current administration is likely to do anything radical to alter U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- barring the unlikely event of Bush pulling a Nixon-visit-to-China shock, and using his oil ties to force a real commitment to renewable energy and conservation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

2 questions.

There are a few solutions.

1- We can drill for oil in our own country. But Kerry and the Dems oppose it.

Kilmer, do you know the opposing viewpoint on this? Do you know why they don't want to drill for oil? Do you know what this is all about? I'll give you a hint, it's not oil. Another great spin game.

Here's the counter argument.

There is at best, only 6mo. supply of oil and it will take 10 years to begin extraction. This will do absolutely nothing to lower the cost or impact of forign oil. They will aslo be giving away federall wildlife preserve to oil companies. It's a federal land giveaway to big oil with the excuse of drilling as the underlaying belief that Americans will back it. Well, 67% of Americans think we should not be drilling in Alaska.

2- We can create Alt Energy sources (WInd is the best. Clean, Free supply). But Kerry and the Dems oppose it. You see, it would be an eyesore from the porches of their mansions in Marthas Vineyard.

A complete and outright lie, look above. Somebody posted Kerry's platform on energy.

Under Bush, Alternative Energy funding has been reduced by ovr 60%. How would it make sense when you have big oil people on the energy commission sinking money into a competing source? This is what happens when you have industry deciding on the laws and policies to govern themselves.

3- What has Kerry said he would do to lower gas prices? NADA. He has no plan, no idea, nothing. All he and the hate Amercia crowd can do is whine about how bad things are without offering solutions.

And Bush has promoted lowering the prices? Come on now, Bush is the one that doesn't offer solutions. Weather it's energy, the enviornment, terrorism, Iraq, education or any other number of things he's completely screwed up for this country, he continues blindly down the same path, unable to differentiate between a mistake and a success story, and he won't change his policies even when everyone knows we screwed up.

The other thing you have to diferentiate is the difference between the hate America crowd and the ABB crowd. Just because you think Bush in an inept and pititful leader, doesn't mean you hate America. It in fact means the opposite, you love your country and you're trying to do the best thing for our country. Removing this revolting leader from power and starting to undo all of the crap he's done over the past three years is what it's all about, not hating America.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

I understand there are easier things.

I understand like pot the paper manufacturers stopped the production.

I understand there is a 96mpg car at the tip of someones tongue but the union/auto industry will not let it happen.

I am just asking as one person to another.... what does your guy bring to the table that mine doesnt bring?

I want to drill a little bit... I think that will help more than 156k troops in IRAQ. I want independance to do what is right without worrying about what is in the middle east to influence the answer??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Just cause im a conservative, doesnt mean I'm a republican. I want this done right from beginning to end... I Expect more from a Republican and WILL hold them to a higher standard... I expect a resignation from the disgraced like Newt. I expect no less. I this turns out to be a fustercluk there will be hell to pay!

Bear, if you want, I will tell you what my canidate brings.

Leadership. We aren't talking about sitting on the rubble of 9-11 and claiming those who are responsible will pay, but actually doing something about it. We started out in Afghanistan, but we never finished the job. It's so obvious that we were using the war on terror to go after Hussen, this is utterly indefensible in my eyes. Everyone says, we used the best intellegence available, but that's an outright lie. There were a LOT of intellegence agencies saying there wans't a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There were numerous reports saying Al Qaeda wasn't state sponsered terrorism. I could go into this aspect, but it's not what my post is about.

Tax shelters/loopholes for the ultra elite in America, which pushes the tax burden on a lower class. Under Regan, the ultra wealthy paid 40% in taxes, it made sense, since they owned 70% of the wealth. From the 80's to now, the ultra wealthy have decreased their tax burden to on average 15%, which has place the burden of paying taxes solely on the middle and lower class. Kerry believes in cutting the taxes for middle and lower class. Everyone who makes under 200K will recieve a tax cut, those who make over 200K will recieve a rollback to pre Bush levels in taxes. This is when the country was booming, because the middle man now has more disposable income to put back into the economy. Now, under the new tax laws, AMericans have less moeny, yet they are paying more for things such as gas, milk, taxes etc.

This is an example for what the tax cut did to everyday Americans.

The Middle Class Squeeze under George Bush

George W. Bush likes to talk about tax cuts. But the truth is since George W. Bush took office, families have been taxed far more than ever before –they are paying higher college tuition higher health care costs, and higher prices for gasoline – and they are receiving lower incomes. They are also paying more in state, local, and property taxes.

· Income Decrease: $1,462. Under President Clinton, family income increased $7,202 from 1992 to 2000. Under President Bush family income has declined $1,462 from 2000 to 2002. [source: U.S. Census Bureau]

· Tuition Increase: $1,032. Nationally, four-year public college tuition and fees increased by an average of $1,032 since Bush took office, a 28 percent increase, the highest three-year increase on record. [source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2003-04 compared to 2000-01]

· Health Increase: $793. Health care costs have increased by an average of $793 since Bush took office, a stunning 49 percent increase. [source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003, www.kff.org]

· Gas Increase: $245. The average U.S. household has seen an increase of $245 annually in gasoline prices and an average household with children has seen an increase of $289 in gasoline prices since Bush came into office. [source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration]

· State and Local Tax Increases. Since the beginning of the Bush administration 32 states have been forced to raise taxes and fees by a total of $16.2 billion. At the local level, county and city governments have been raising taxes as well. In 2002, property tax collections were rising more than 10 percent. [source: Blueprint Magazine, “Bush’s Tax Shakedown,” June 30, 2003]

In the end, the average American has paid more under the Bush tax cuts. They've been unemployed, overworked and underpaid, but this is what Bush wants. Cheap labor for large corporations, because it increases the bonus' for his supporters, the CEO's and CFO's of large corporations.

Read his platform and decide for yourself if you argee or disagree with him. He's touting a pretty good platform with a mix of both conservative and democratic values.

[Thiebear]

chomerics quote:

Bear, if you want, I will tell you what my canidate brings.

I read your entire RANT and have no idea still what:

KERRY has stated.

you went off on Bush again.

Just stop it and state what Kerry is GOING to actually do!

[Thiebear]

I appreciated my money given back.

the 600 bucks i got back in cash

the 1000 bucks or so for the 2 kids

the lowering in percentage of my income tax

I am considered upper middle class and I didnt take the brunt of the taxes...

Unlike Teresa H. Kerry I havent paid 700,000.00 dollars in taxes.

To say the wealthy don't pay their fair share is just STUPID!

I dont think I'll pay that much in my entire lifetime so STOP saying they dont pay.... I think she alone covered my entire neighborhood..

People like Arnold Swartzenaeger(sp) paid 9 million last year.

You have got to be kidding me? that is an incredible amount and I thank him for it. I dont say well you made 30 so you should have paid 20 million....

AGAIN:

Question 1: how much per year is rich?

Question 2: how much should the pay?

1 million in earnings = 500,000 in taxes? wow...

[Kilmer17]

Bush has proposed drilling in ANWR. What has Kerry proposed? I realize there are issue with it. I realize it may kill animals. I realize it may distrurb pristine environments. And I dont care. Im not upset about gas prices right now. But if it came down to a choice between cheaper energy and moose screwing in private, I want cheap gas.

And you need to do some research on the Cape Winds project that Kennedy and the Dems have blocked because the windmills will create a glare on the water in front of their houses on Marthas Vineyard.

Maybe Kerry will "Reach Out" to our Middle East friends and ask them to lower prices. That's about all he knows how to propose. The rest of his and ALL the dems can say is "Bush is bad" without offering a solution of their own.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

And you need to do some research on the Cape Winds project that Kennedy and the Dems have blocked because the windmills will create a glare on the water in front of their houses on Marthas Vineyard.

I know all about the proposed downfalls to the cape project. Living in Mass, I am informed on the issue. The reasons for backing it haven't been founded as solid evidence, but they are doing studies as to how it will hurt the enviornment (birds).

The majority of democrats are supportive of the measure, as well as a number of republicans. Even the tree huggers are for it, it's extreme movements like PETA and Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound which oppose the matter. The Kennedy's are against it because it would be right off their back yard and visible from their compound. One of the reasons I'm not too crazy about Ted or RFK Jr.

468MW of electricity is a huge amount, it's viable and it will get done. To say the democrats are against it is just plain wrong.

[mark327]

Originally posted by chomerics

I've asked him this may times, he doesn't have a clear answer, he only posts some newsmax piece about how Kerry was a traitor for giving up medals.

I guess he likes chickenhawks, kind of fitting seeing how he's a Ravens fan.

i bet i have the answer , he hates that clinton got a BJ from his long lost love monica :laugh:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

chomerics quote:

Bear, if you want, I will tell you what my canidate brings.

I read your entire RANT and have no idea still what:

KERRY has stated.

you went off on Bush again.

Just stop it and state what Kerry is GOING to actually do!

Actually, if you read my last line. . .

Read his platform and decide for yourself if you argee or disagree with him. He's touting a pretty good platform with a mix of both conservative and democratic values.

I tell you to do the reasearch yourself.

I could sprout his platform and start another debate on issues republicans are against, abortion being one of them. I'll let you decide why he's not right for America. Here's a start on what I agree with Kerry.

Taxes

Iraq

Jobs (I'm for stoping tax breaks to outsourcing companies)

Terrorism

Renewable Energy

Tobbaco Buyout

Veterans Health Care

Compensation for Soldiers and their Families

College Affordability

Earned Legalization

Fix testing methods in NCLB act

Alternative Energies

Reasert US as the leader in Global Enviornment

Rid the US' unilateralism policy

Increase troops to Iraq

Put more full time troops in Iraq (not Reservists)

Increase Energy security

Raise Minimum wage

Affordable Prescription Drugs

Tax Breaks for companies that stay stateside

These are a few of his platform beliefs I believe in. Now, look them up to debate the topic, otherwise you're wasting both of oour time.

[Thiebear]

I already posted from his own website what he is proposing:

Hydrogen and alternative which is cool but some is already out there.

And conservation: that never works other than the sluglines going to the pentagon in the morning....

Give me a direct QUOTE from Kerry that says what HE wants to do.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

I already posted from his own website what he is proposing:

Hydrogen and alternative which is cool but some is already out there.

And conservation: that never works other than the sluglines going to the pentagon in the morning....

Give me a direct QUOTE from Kerry that says what HE wants to do.

As President, Kerry said he will lead where George Bush has failed and push real solutions for families squeezed at the gas pump and by other every day costs. His comprehensive plan will move America towards energy independence and provide immediate relief by suspending filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, working more effectively with OPEC and enacting simpler and cleaner national fuel strategies. In addition to gas costs, Kerry will offer 98 percent of families a tax cut and provide additional help with other rising costs, like health care and college tuition.

John Kerry’s agenda to promote universal access to college—including $50 billion of tax cuts for college. John Kerry is pushing for a College Opportunity Tax Cut – substantial tax relief to help families pay for college.

2 starters for you.