Kerry a Republican in disguise??

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by axeman, Mar 18, 2004.

  1. CNN news snippet:

    John and Teresa Kerry are staying at their $4.9 million home in Ketchum, a mountain resort town near Sun Valley, about two hours north of Boise. The home is along the Wood River on the northern end of the town. It's a massive seven-bedroom, six-and-a-half bath, luxurious residence. Teresa's name is on the Idaho deed. In fact, of the five homes they have, the senator's name only appears on the public records for their Boston home.

    I really dislike both parties, but man oh man, them Dems
    are serious hypocrites :D

    Think Kerry is housing some Democratic homeless people
    in that huge house when he isnt using it? :D
    Of course he is! LOL!


  2. WOW... "...While Kerry and his wife's homes in the United States are worth at least $23,733,705,...."

    Now why in the world havent these bleeding hearts
    donated at least 20 million of that to the homeless?? :D

    Surely they could get by on 3 million :D


  3. Maverick74


    NO, no, no, you got it all wrong. They want to take 3 million from YOUR money to give to the homeless, not theirs. Kerry wouldn't toss a homeless bum a dime if his life depended on it. That's what taxes are for. If he knows he can steal your money, why should he spend his.
  4. Mav, I thought $3mm was peanuts. This was your argument against the estate taxes.

    Kerry is wealthy. What President in recent history wasn't ? (Well, Nixon GOT wealthy through politics, but let's leave him out of this for now, I had a bad lunch and am a bit nauseous as is).

    Remember, (even after Nixon raised his pay by 100%), not ONE President was not willing to take a pay cut by running for the office.

    I really think it's funny to hear from AAA and Maverick about Kerry's money. Only Republicans are supposed to be rich?:confused: Remember the Kennedys? Johnson? Carter? Even Clinton? Though Clinton did not have "old money" like these others, he certainly could have made a FAR greater living outside of politics.

  5. RS:"Only Republicans are supposed to be rich? Remember the Kennedys? Johnson? Carter? Even Clinton? Though Clinton did not have "old money" like these others, he certainly could have made a FAR greater living outside of politics."

    Just more hypocrisy :)


  6. Maverick74


    NO RS, you got it all wrong. I have nothing against wealthy politicians or Presidents for that matter. But don't you think it's hypocritical for a man to be worth that much money, but then decide to solve all the nation's problems by taxing us and taking our money instead of using his? I mean Bush is rich but he's a conservative, he actually wants to cut taxes. He's not trying to get into my wallet.

    Think about this before responding OK? If Kerry decided to stay in the private sector instead of running for President, think of all the good he can do with all his money to help those less unfortunate. Don't you think he could get more accomplished by spending his money vs spending ours? Think about it and get back to me.
  7. Along with the Republicans spending like drunk Democrats :D

    Welcome to the United Hypocrites of America :D

    Were just like that SouthPark episode painted us.
    Say one thing, do another. :D


  8. Kerry needs serious money to have a chance in the election too, I guess. Just goes to show the absurdity of the election process. He will sure make the world take notice of how he is going to protect US jobs, and further aggrevate the problems.

    Bush sure is a conservative, and he doesn't really care about other's wallets - as long as his own wallet and those of his friends doesn't shrink.

    Still, wealth is admired by almost everyone because it implies accomplishment and success. Well, perhaps not when you were a drunk and inherited it - or you married money. So, not so admirable any of them, really.

    In 4 years time, with constitutional change in order for non-US born citizens being able to run for president, because the US population is rapidly changing, we will hear the echoes from the californian governor halls -- "I'll be back ...". Perhaps they'll all vote for the real action-scare for terrorists.
  9. OK Mav, I have "thought about it". Here are a few questions I would like you to answer so I can make an informed opinion of my own.

    First off, what makes you believe that Kerry would "tax us"? I know this is what the Bush campaign is saying (900 Billion...can't miss those TV commercials). But did Kerry say this?

    Bush cut taxes for who? Who did it help? Who will it help? Do you believe in "trickle down economics"? George Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics". What really works?

    You say Bush is a "conservative". From where I am standing, I don't see him as having any political convictions at all. What makes him a conservative? Is he fiscally conservative? No. He ran as a "compassionate conservative". What has he done that has demonstrated that he is that (whatever a "compassionate conservative" is).

    All I see is a guy that wants to get elected. He panders to the religious right. He is a "borrow and spend" big government "conservative"? I mean WHAT THE HECK IS HE????

    I will answer whatever questions you have. Maybe bad answers. Probably answers you would disagree with.

    But Kerry being rich is a non factor in this or any other Presidential election. Poor people can't run for President.

    BTW, Reagan's 1986 tax reform (what the Repulicans billed as a tax cut) cost me a TON. Still does. But you know what? I don't really care. I am only stating facts.

    #10     Mar 18, 2004