A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? And where could they probably have picked up that selfish behaviour? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. When you allready got a Lambourghini, a Ferrari and a couple of VW Phaetons, I would believe that your'e allready spending as much as possible... Your answer, Im psychic you see (or was it Psychotic, hmmm...), is that they will invest those money. And some of them probably will. But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. Don't beleive what the US democrats are saying. The Bush tax cut was NOT only for the rich. In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate than the middle class and the poor pay nothing. jan larsen wrote: But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. Maybe the corporations do, but rarely individuals. P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
jan larsen wrote: Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. Don't beleive what the US democrats are saying. The Bush tax cut was NOT only for the rich. In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate than the middle class and the poor pay nothing. jan larsen wrote: But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. Maybe the corporations do, but rarely individuals. P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate. Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? Mike Mullikin wrote: and the poor pay nothing. And what should poor people pay and why? Mike Mullikin wrote: P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? Can't say I ever indicated I was, but I guess that I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. That's one theory. Another theory that has merit in a corporate dominated economy like that of the United States is that when taxes are reduced for corporations and rich people they spend it on hiring more employees, capital projects, research & development, etc. The economy grows and as a result there is a net income gain for the government. I think the real problem is the widening gap between the upper and lower classes. The government can adjust tax rates (just like the Fed does with interest rates) to control the economy. I don't think there's a one size fits all tax bracket for every economic situation. There isn't a magical interest rate either.
-
I'm not talking about corporations. An individuals tax cut wouldn't make much of a difference in a corp., but it would to a small business owner. After Bush's last tax cuts, I renovated our bathroom. That's an investment in our home, which will increase the property and resale value. It has nothing to do with the furnishings.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate. Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? Mike Mullikin wrote: and the poor pay nothing. And what should poor people pay and why? Mike Mullikin wrote: P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? Can't say I ever indicated I was, but I guess that I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Basically, the Kerry quote is a fabrication, or at best a distortion of the truth. The Bush tax cuts actually shifthed the burden more to the rich (in terms of their total share), even though it gave the rich a proportionately larger reduction in their top marginal tax rate. See this[^] reasonably fair anaylisis of the pertinate CBO report (the same report Kerry referenced). It is also important to note that the Bush tax cuts increased significantly the amount of income subject to no taxes at all, which clearly benefits the poor more than anyone else. Notice that the bottom 40% of taxpayers actually get a stipend, rather than paying, after the Bush tax cuts. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Since the rich won't shoulder their share of the enormous deficit that the Bush regime is running up, someone else will have to, that would be the middle class. Rummie and his cronies were testifying a few days ago before Congress, about why they can't provide full health care benefits for reservists fighting in Iraq. It's because there's not enough money. Do you think that the guys dodging RPGs in Iraq are mostly rich, or middle-class? Most of our suffering will be down the road.
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. According to the quote though the middle class, which typically gets little government help, has suffered. This theory doesn't cover that. As an aside, I don't buy the theory either. I can't see how less money in the hands of the public causes a worse economy. The money is spent, whether as investment or a purchase of goods and services. it isn't like the wealthy are stupid enough to simply stockpile the "extra" money in a box under their mattress. They put it to work. It's how they generally got rich in the first place. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. No wonder you have so many fans. Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
-
As CG said, the money's gotta come from somewhere. Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending... but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? As i see it, there are really two possibilities - either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), or there are favors being cashed in. :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending As they should. Much spending is done to "cash in on favors" in the first place. Getting PAC support for re-election, etc.. There is not enough interest in the general public to montior spending though, and so it continues and noone will "take the fall". We are quickly roused during election time and given a few tidbits, but after a few weeks we get bored and tired and any hope of keeping tabs on our elected care takers honest wanes. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy."...Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? Mike, Mike, Mike... "Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy. " You need to quote your sources correctly if we are to take you seriously. This is a paraphrase from only one source I found http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1595887,00.html[^] Kerry didn't say those exact words. Who knows what he actually said so we could grasp his exact context and intended message.:doh: Besides, Kerry outlines his tax plan on his website and it seems like to me he is concerned more about creating jobs from specific corporate tax cuts. So if he did say the middle class suffered I guess it was because Bush didn't provide the correct tax cuts which would be Corporate tax cuts to create more jobs. Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Mike, Mike, Mike... Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link[^] Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests. It is a nation of individuals. That is the way and the reason we were founded and I wouldn't have it any other way. There were several attempts early in our history for communal style living, none of them worked. The early settlers were rugged individualists and the thread of that mindset continues on through today. What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. That, sadly, is changing - I just hope it doesn't change soon. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. No wonder you have so many fans. Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
pankajdaga wrote: Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. Quite a leap in logic here. Precisely what do you base these conclusions on? pankajdaga wrote: No wonder you have so many fans. Who the fuck is running a popularity contest? And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
K(arl) wrote: When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests. It is a nation of individuals. That is the way and the reason we were founded and I wouldn't have it any other way. There were several attempts early in our history for communal style living, none of them worked. The early settlers were rugged individualists and the thread of that mindset continues on through today. What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. That, sadly, is changing - I just hope it doesn't change soon. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses It would seem to me to be a moot point. If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Since the rich won't shoulder their share of the enormous deficit that the Bush regime is running up, someone else will have to, that would be the middle class. Rummie and his cronies were testifying a few days ago before Congress, about why they can't provide full health care benefits for reservists fighting in Iraq. It's because there's not enough money. Do you think that the guys dodging RPGs in Iraq are mostly rich, or middle-class? Most of our suffering will be down the road.
Heard the same whines about the Regan tax cuts. :zzz: Check my previous post: the rich are paying a larger percentage of the burden after the tax cuts: even though they got a bigger percentage break in marginal tax rate, they ended up paying a larger percentage of the total bill. Personally, I would rather see a change to a flat consumption tax like this one[^] which includes rebates to offset the impact on poor taxpayers. One recent proposal that I have heard is to make the rebate payments on a monthly basis, which would essentially gaurantee everyone a minimum monthly wage equal to the poverty level. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
After the tax cuts and even a raise, I am now taking home less money than I was last year because of our skyrocketing healthcare insurance premiums. That's what I did with my tax cut.
Ours didn't go up nearly that much. In the tax cut, I am including the refund we got last year which totalled over $2500. Its the biggest refund I ever received, and we got it because of the increased child tax credit and other Bush policies.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation Actually I do I just have an adversion to centralized power. Remember, we broke away from a monarchy and there is an inherent fear of a strong central power. There has always been a states rights versus centralized government "argument". K(arl) wrote: you seem to consider it as your enemy Not really, just something to be wary of. By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. Nope. That would permit 3 states (New York, California and Texas) to control teh rest of the country. It simply wouldn't work. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Yes, you are correct. The state is closer to the local population and should represent the wishes, desires and dreams of that locale. When it gets to be comething I disagree with I can simply move to a state that more clearly represnets the way I think. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR