"Hi. My name is John F. Kerry (or JFK as I like to call myself) and I would like your vote this November as I
run for the office of President of theUnited States. Let me tell you a little about myself and why I should be your next president. I gained a vast amount of military experience when I served bravely in Vietnam. When I came home after my tour, I went to the White House, called my fellow troops baby killers, then threw the medals awarded to me over the White House fence and took pictures with Hanoi Jane.
While He did protest against war, He never took any pictures with "Hanoi Jane". He is pictured in the
BACKGROUND of a picture of Jane (Since She hadnt gone to Hanoi yet, Ill just call her Jane here) at a peace rally they both happened to be attending.Your statment seems to imply that Kerry supports what Hanoi Jane did, which to my knowledge is FALSE.
Then I married Ms. Heinz and claimed her $500 million fortune as my own.
Who cares?
Then I got elected into the Senate with my good buddy Ted Kennedy and together we have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
When did voteing liberal in the senate while representing a liberal state become a bad thing?
Not only will I slash the defense and CIA budget (which, I might add, I voted for many times),
You can get the facts on how false this statment is here :
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=153
Heres a few excerpts:
"It's true that Kerry's 1995 proposal called for cutting intelligence funding by $1.5 billion over five years. The actual amount of intelligence spending is classified, but according to the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and others, the US was spending roughly $27 billion on intelligence at the time. So the $300-million cut would have amounted to a little over 1 percent. Hardly a "gutting."
It's true Kerry's measure had no co-sponsors and died without a hearing. But that's hardly evidence it was "deeply irresponsible" as the President claimed. On the contrary, there was bipartisan support for cutting what was seen as wasteful spending of classified intelligence funds.
In fact, Kerry's proposal came five days after the Washington Post had reported that one intelligence agency, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office, had quietly hoarded between $1 billion and $1.7 billion in unspent funds without informing the Central Intelligence Agency or the Pentagon. The CIA was in the midst of an inquiry into the NRO's funding because of complaints that the agency had spent $300 million on unspent funds from its classified budget to build a new headquarters building in Virginia a year earlier."
Also, the very same day Kerry proposed his $1.5 billion cut, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. Specter made clear he was attempting to recoup $1 billion in unused intelligence funds from the NRO:
It has alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress.
Kerry co-sponsored a companion measure to the Specter amendment, along with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership.
And in fact, the reports of an NRO slush fund turned out to be true. According to former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who led the investigation:
Our inquiry revealed that the NRO had for years accumulated very substantial amount as a 'rainy day fund.'...
You get the point. Just More BULL!@#$.
I will raise the taxes on gas (which I voted for a few years ago[to raise it $0.50 per gallon]),
Look here:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=165
A few quotes:
"Kerry's support for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax happened a decade ago, back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon. Kerry's support was so fleeting that the only evidence of it to surface so far are two old newspaper clips in which Kerry complains that he deserved more credit as a deficit-cutter. He never voted for, or sponsored, legislation to impose such a tax, and he doesn't support one now, when the price is just under $1.76."
And:
"But "wacky?" In fact, the idea of raising gasoline taxes was praised in 1999 by Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, who is now the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers."
Also, Heres Dick Cheney view:
New York Times:
April 6, 2004
Cheney Tax Plan From '86 Would Have Raised Gas Prices
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
ASHINGTON, April 5 — In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.
........
Lets read that one again :
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that
low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation
raise income taxes for the "evil wealthy"
Good. I Also hear He Wants to raise income taxes on the "good wealthy", And yes, even the "nuetral wealthy".
try to set up a government run health care system (like the one in Canada, which works great),
Well I havent heard anything about this, Its a great idea! Care do give me your source?
Get over it. The old "permission from the UN" Bull. I dont care to debate the war in Iraq here ,other than to say its pretty obvious the issue is more complicated than "pandering to the U.N."
and, oh, did I mention, raise taxes.
Yea. You did. But only on people who make over 200K.I guess If you make over 200K, Kerry might not be your guy.But if you make less, you might just get a tax cut.
BTW, If you want to get the truth about Kerry's voting record regarding taxes, look here:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=167
Here a few snippets:
"Bush released yet another attack on Kerry April 1, an ad appropriately named "troubling." The Bush ad recycles a couple of bogus claims we've de-bunked before -- a misleading claim that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times and a claim that "Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion." We pointed out previously that the 350-vote figure is so off base that it actually counts some Kerry votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes." And as we said earlier , the only tax "plan" Kerry has proposed is to repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making $200,000 a year or more, while giving some additional tax breaks to those further down the income scale."
"The Bush lists of 379 votes is padded with scores of votes Kerry cast against tax decreases (which would leave taxes unchanged, not higher), votes to reduce the size of proposed tax cuts (which would leave taxes lower, though not as much lower as proposed), and “votes for watered-down, Democrat ‘tax cut’ substitutes†(which often proposed to distribute the benefits of tax cuts farther down the income scale than Republican proposals). Thus the Bush campaign counts some votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes.""
You know, Kerry and the Dems arent perfect. Why dont you go do a little research and come back with something that cant be rebuked? You might be able to change my mind about bush....
