No. of Recommendations: 5
GOing around on email...food for thought....

Subject: John Kerry, man of the common folk.... he understands your pain, really... trust him - lol, yeah - right

The many homes of Democrat Presidential candiate, John F. Kerry.


Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania (Assessed value: $3.7 million)


Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home (Assessed value: $4.916 million)


Washington, D.C - Georgetown area (assessment: $4.7 million)


Nantucket, Massachusetts waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.18 million)


Boston, Massachusetts - Beacon Hill home (Assessed value: $6.9)


oh, and he sold this estate in Italy to activist actor George Clooney, just before announcing his running for president. I guess he thought it might not sit well with the common man. ($7.8 million)


other foreign property ownership by John Kerry is unknown... because he denied repeated requests for this information.


____________________________________________________


And this is the guy who is going to claim to be in sync with the rest of America? With $20 million in real estate? Ski lodges and summer houses and houses in Europe and the 'city house' and the beach house???? EAch multi-million dollars?

You really think he feels your pain when his chauffuer fills up his cars with gas? Or that he worries about the heating bill in his 20 million dollars worth of real estate, where the taxes are probably a 1/2 million or more each and every year????? Or worries about medical insurance since ALL of his is provided free by the gov't?????

t.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

At least he can't be bought cheap.

Doug
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
And this is the guy who is going to claim to be in sync with the rest of America? With $20 million in real estate? Ski lodges and summer houses and houses in Europe and the 'city house' and the beach house???? EAch multi-million dollars?

You really think he feels your pain when his chauffuer fills up his cars with gas? Or that he worries about the heating bill in his 20 million dollars worth of real estate, where the taxes are probably a 1/2 million or more each and every year????? Or worries about medical insurance since ALL of his is provided free by the gov't?????


John Kerry worked hard for everything he has. He had to marry TWO heiresses to get all that money. It isn't easy being a kept man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don't get it. It's ok for GW to be rich, but it's not ok for Kerrey to be rich?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't get it. It's ok for GW to be rich, but it's not ok for Kerrey to be rich?

Please name the private sector job that Kerry has held (besides gigolo).
I can name several that GWB has held.
There's a big difference between marrying for money and working for it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don't get it. It's ok for GW to be rich, but it's not ok for Kerrey to be rich?


Kerry is the one saying ' I feel your pain'...type stuff...when he hasn't ever felt any financial pain, and lives the life of luxury with condos on the ski slopes, vacatin villas in Europe, the 'main house' in Boston, plus the 'beach house' in Nantucket next to the Kennedys, and others....

When he/wife have million dollar a year real estate, and can spend several million a year on 'life style', his pleadings that 'I feel your pain' are aboslutely silly.

He doesn't pump his gas, pay 'taxes' (the accountant takes care of all of that), worry about food bills or insurance or medical care or prescriptions.

He hasn't got a clue when it comes to 'feeling your pain'. He can't relate.

At least President Bush doesn't make that pretense, and he lives more like the natives of his state on a ranch ( and not a 'fancy one' at that) in central texas. Resort living? Hardly....working ranch....in a small town.....

Remember, Kerry is spending 'other people's money'...that is the cry of the democrats...... tax the rich, NOT US......let them pay for all our gov't handouts and giveaways.....


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
At least President Bush doesn't make that pretense, and he lives more like the natives of his state on a ranch ( and not a 'fancy one' at that) in central texas. Resort living? Hardly....working ranch....in a small town.....


Oh, puh-leeze.... This is the same guy that was raised by the man who'd never seen a supermarket scanner..... Remember that? Common man, indeed. <snort>

Now take this discussion back to political asylum or the early retirement board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So basically, we should vote for the guy we know doesn't relate to us and doesn't care to, instead of the guy making the attempt.

Gotcha.

So how does this relate to this board, exactly?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Heck, Prez bush ranch house is the size of my 4 bedroom house in the suburbs....2500 sq feet or so....mansion? think not....

the post was marked "POL" which means you can ignore the thread and not miss any retirement topic.

t

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So how does this relate to this board, exactly?

YOu want the country to be run by a businessman, who is interested in keeping the economy going by having a favorable business environment,

or

do you want some union backed goon, determined to enlarge the welfare state with more give aways and more programs to make work, not money?

My investments will do a lot better with someone interesting in keeping AMerican companies competitive, the tax environment favorable for companies and trade,and for investment.

They will suffer with higher taxes, more regulations, more 'labor laws' restricting what can and can't be done, reciprocal arrangements where our 'insourced jobs', like car factories, get withdrawn in retaliation for our curbs on 'free trade' etc.

Bush - better results from investments - keep the terrorists running - promoting free trade and reducing barriers worldwide so OUR companies can sell more overseas into more markets.....

Kerry - stifle the economy....slow productivity...get us into trade wars....play coward in world politics....isolationist....will hurt trade, the economy, and the investment environment.....

I live off my investments....as most retired folks do.

That's what.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
huge difference between these two,

To paraphrase Jay Leno, "We've got a real diversity in our choice for President this year, We can pick a Skull and Bones member of Yale FROM TEXAS or we can pick a Skull and Bones member of Yale FROM MASSACHUSETTS ... and we almost went way out on a limb and went with just a plain ol' Yalie from Vermont ...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 35
Of course, none of this changes the fact that Bush is a crappy president and needs to go.

Kerry has a lot of money and married a rich woman. So what? I wish I had done the same.

Bush rode his daddy's coat tails in business and got a cushy ride in the National Gaurd to boot. Kerry on the other hand fought in Viet Nam.

If it wasn't for his family connections, Bush would probably be selling cars somewhere.

Post all of the silly right wiong crap you want, there is no way on God's green earth I would vote for Bush
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course, none of this changes the fact that Bush is a crappy president and needs to go.

Kerry has a lot of money and married a rich woman. So what? I wish I had done the same.


So, you figured the post was so useless you had to import people to rec it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Post all of the silly right wiong crap you want, there is no way on God's green earth I would vote for Bush

Gonna vote for Bush-D instead?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, you figured the post was so useless you had to import people to rec it?

How does one do this?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Please name the private sector job that Kerry has held (besides gigolo).
I can name several that GWB has held.
There's a big difference between marrying for money and working for it.


All of Bush's businesses lost an astonishing amount of money, except for the Texas Rangers which required an infusion of several hundred million tax dollars.

Although I give him credit for figuring out a way to suckle at the public teat, his record as a businessman is horrific.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Gonna vote for Bush-D instead?

"The difference between 'bad' and 'worse' is much sharper than that between 'good' and 'better.'"

Yep. I'd vote for the town drunk over Bush -- the drunk would sleep, he'd be better....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Remember, Kerry is spending 'other people's money'...that is the cry of the democrats...... tax the rich, NOT US......let them pay for all our gov't handouts and giveaways.....

Maybe his wife won't even vote for him :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Yep. I'd vote for the town drunk over Bush -- the drunk would sleep, he'd be better....

I think I might too.

However, the Democrats are not nominating the town drunk.

They are nominating a guy who promises to:

* Undo and/or apologize for the few things Bush has done right;

* Enhance and enlarge the many things Bush has done wrong;

* Add a list of major mistakes of his own;

* Do some mutually contradictory things, such as not taking military action without international approval while simultaneously not waiting for international approval before taking military action.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
* Do some mutually contradictory things, such as not taking military action without international approval while simultaneously not waiting for international approval before taking military action.

I think you're mistaking nuanced thinking for lack of thinking. Kerry is treating a complex situation as complex. I think all his answers to all the many questions on this issue add up to "I'm keeping my options open so I can do what looks like the best thing when I get in there." Given how fast the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, the best thing is going to change. If he gives any soundbite answer now, three months from now it will be completely inapplicable.

Regarding your other objections: sounds like you and I probably disagree on some issues, but really, I don't think that's the point. To me the point is this:

Our current President is going to go down in history as the most inadequate, plutocratic puppet since Warren Harding. And that is saying a lot.

Literally, I would vote for a random guy on the street; the random guy could probably read, at least. If George W. Bush were a paid agent for an enemy power, I don't believe he could do this country more damage than he is doing.

Kerry is smart, genuinely civic-minded, and experienced in governing. He was my Senator for years in Massachusetts; I've seen him operate and I'm comfortable with putting the country in his hands. The next President will inherit a very nasty mess, and a smart and nuanced thinker seems to me a much better choice than the current Howdy Doody doll.

</soapbox>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Kerry is smart, genuinely civic-minded, and experienced in governing. He was my Senator for years in Massachusetts; I've seen him operate and I'm comfortable with putting the country in his hands. The next President will inherit a very nasty mess, and a smart and nuanced thinker seems to me a much better choice than the current Howdy Doody doll.

I also had him for a Senator in Taxachusetts, and also as Lt, Governor under Michael Dukakis (Remember him?), one of the the absolute worst governors the state had. The only good point of his governorship was that it didn't send him to the Presidency.
As a Senator, Kerry has looked for more and more ways to take money from people that are earning it (notice he never tries to get a tax on inheirited wealth?), and give it to people that are not earning it. Just because someone else exists does NOT constitute a requirement on my part to take care of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
(notice he never tries to get a tax on inheirited wealth?),

Not that I stand to inherit anything because all of my family is dirt poor, but this type of statement has always made me wonder why some people think that inherited wealth is bad, and why it should be taxed so much that the government ends up with most of it. I mean, this is money that has already been taxed as income to the decedent, so why does it somehow belong to the government if that person dies? If that person were alive, he could choose to spend it or give it to charity or give it to anyone he chooses. I wonder what makes it more acceptable to take this money when someone dies and why it is not considered OK for someone to inherit money? I would think that if people could inherit money, they wouldn't need other services from the government like Medicaid because they'd have money to spend on themselves.

Why is it OK to treat inherited money in a socialistic fashion where it is deemed better for it to go to the government than to the intended heirs?

Just curious.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not that I stand to inherit anything because all of my family is dirt poor, but this type of statement has always made me wonder why some people think that inherited wealth is bad, and why it should be taxed so much that the government ends up with most of it. I mean, this is money that has already been taxed as income to the decedent, so why does it somehow belong to the government if that person dies? If that person were alive, he could choose to spend it or give it to charity or give it to anyone he chooses. I wonder what makes it more acceptable to take this money when someone dies and why it is not considered OK for someone to inherit money? I would think that if people could inherit money, they wouldn't need other services from the government like Medicaid because they'd have money to spend on themselves.

Why is it OK to treat inherited money in a socialistic fashion where it is deemed better for it to go to the government than to the intended heirs?


I have absolutely no problem with inheirited wealth. What I have a problem with is someone that has married and inheirited their wealth saying that those that have worked for their wealth have to be taxed out of the world.

That comment was in direct reference to the fact that both he and his wife married and inheirited their money, and are calling for taxes on "the rich" meaning those that earn over 200k a year, never on those that inheirited their money as they did.

The comment refered to their hypocracy with it, not as a smear against those that have inheirited. My apologies if it offended you, 2Gifts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The comment refered to their hypocracy with it, not as a smear against those that have inheirited. My apologies if it offended you, 2Gifts.


It did not offend me. I was simply looking for clarification, and you have provided it, so now I do understand what you meant. Thanks for taking the time to give the additional info.

And now that I understand, I will say that I still disagree. Even if the taxes he proposes are passed and those who make over 200k are taxed with income taxes, when they die, their money will have already been taxed, so I still see no reason to tax it again because they died. It just feels too socialistic to me, but that's just my opinion. Others will see it differently, I am sure.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement