In article , (The
Watcher) claimed Kerry no better than Bush:

Yo, Watcher, Kerry IS better than Bush, the way a dog turd from a
constipated dog smells better than from a dog with diarrhea.

On international trade, Bush & Clinton were on the same side, & so is
Kerry. Kerry like Bush will support Clinton's WTO catastrophe, & jobs will
continue to flood out of America to places where the same stuff can be
done by people earning pennies a day. America will continue down the road
of "service economy" meaning Wetbacks really are our enemies, getting all
our servant jobs.

So on International Trade: Bush bad, Kerry bad.

As Dean kept saying back when he still thought he might gain by telling
the truth, Kerry supports Bush's tax policies. He's NOW saying he'll tax
only the rich, but every candidate says that. A promise to roll back tax
cuts for the rich is really just a promise to raise taxes, period. I do
believe Kerry will pull up the reigns on Bush's crazed spending sprees
that favor the wealthy, but there'll be no money to assist the poor if the
deficit is actually supposeed to come down. So like both Clinton & Bush,
public services will continue to erode unless local government can
continue to find new taxes to pay for things regionally. The ultimate
effect is to continue policies that mean higher overall taxes locally so
that Bush can pretend he lowered taxes for the middle class when he has
never done so, & so Kerry can pretend he heightened taxes for the richest
2% when this will never happen (remember at the Iowa caucus Kerry promised
NOT to reverse corporate tax cuts, for which Dean jumped all over him --
now Dean too supports a bad cause because Bush is even worse, but Kerry is
not good news when it comes to tax policy -- ordinary people WILL pay
higher taxes &the rich will still have loopholes to evade their share).
All that will for sure happen is local taxes, including hidden taxes like
entry fees & parking fees in parklands, will continue to rise & rise &
rise, & they will not lower even if Democrats do succeed in raising the
federal taxes as is now promised.

So on taxation policies, Bush bad, Kerry bad.

Women's rights issues, human rights issues, & gay equality. Bush just
wants to whittle away at women's rights a bit at a time, giving fetuses
the rights that corporations have as human entities, while otherwise
having no respect for constitutional rights for anyone, gay or straight,
not even a right to privacy for what we check out of the library -- but
that fetus has rights! That corporation has rights! It's women -- & men --
who don't desere rights. Kerry any better? For the right of abortion,
Kerry has stated clearly, "Life starts at conception," & his stance is
essentially the Catholic one -- he has said that abortion is presently
legal & he would uphold the law of the land, he has not said he would
protect this right for women. Gay equality? He doesn't think this should
be regulated federally -- meaning he doesn't believe gay rights should be
equated with human rights that ARE federalized. He supports STATE
decisions on these matters -- some states have now & will continue to have
laws making homosexuality an imprisonable crime, while somen cities
already have gay couples rights for at least state employees. Kerry
supports both ends of that game -- he does not support gay equality.

How about the Patriot Act? It undermines very basic human rights. Yet
Kerry voted FOR it. He has made very vague promises to change that in the
future -- but in the main supports the Patriot Act's
high-intensity-invasion-of-privacy privileges of the government without
going through a judge to prove legitimate need. Kerry has promised to make
the Patriot Act "smarter." What the **** does that mean? It means nothing.
He's on record supporting it & now as a typical lying candidate he can
only come up with the idea of making it "smarter" -- smart enough to not
look so obviously like what it is & will remain? Smart enough to trick us
dumb americans into believing giving up even a vestigial right of privacy
would be good for us?

So on the full spectrum of equal rights, Kerry is bad. For gay rights he
would he would leave it to the states individually to restrict gay rights,
but Bush is VERY bad because he would do away with rights federally &
constitutionally. Yet for every man, woman, & child's right to privacy,
Kerry supports Federal law that does away with it, so what at first looks
like BAD for Kerry and VERY BAD from Bush, boils down ultimately to very
little distinction at all, because Kerry when push comes to shove does
support even federal restrictions on basic human rights.

On separation of church & state? Bush is against it. Kerry would be making
decisions from the White House based on or influenced his personal faith,
under papal threat of never being given communion if he decides against
what the Pope commands. He does believe in a separation of church & state
more broadly, so presumedly that's better.

So on sepaeration of church & state, Bush is PERSONALLY in touch with God
& acts according to god & doesn't have to listen to anything outher than
that schizzy voice inside his psychotic brain. Even so, he has not
suggested the separation of church & state is a bad thing. Kerry has said
the separation of church & state is a GOOD thing, but he will still make
decisiosn based on his PERSONAL faith, as is his personal right. On this
issue, both men score a big black BAD, the only distinction being if their
lipservice on this issue addresses fundamentalists or not; & one believes
God talks to him personally while the other believes God talks only to the
Pope. Big difference my ass. They're both superstitious wackjobs & they
have both made past decisions inspired by superstition.

On Stem Cell research: Kerry claims to be for it, but as Dr Robert Lanza
(at Advanced Cell Technology) has pointed out, Kerry's claims that life
starts at conception & other statements that come from his Catholic faith
& his bid for at least a FEW conservative votes has muddied the issue;
Kerry's stance "confuses things" said Dr. Lanza. Bush by contrast is
against stem cell research because to be against it panders to the
anti-abortion conservatives, but in reality he has permitted a great
amount of this research to continue on the basis of stem cell cultures
already in existance.

So in all, Kerry's stance on stem cell research not nearly as supportive
as it needs to be to progress, & Bush's stance is not sufficiently against
it to stop the research. They're both ultimately middle-of-the-road about
it, they just have different political language to shape the greater
reality that they are equally stumblingblocks to this research. Both score
a Bad.

On war: Bush will have American lads & a few lasses the primary warriors.
Kerry will be more inclined to submit to whatever it takes to have Germans
& the French & so on go to war also. Both support war. Both are BAD.

If it matters that Kerry's heart is in a better place when he makes evil
decisions, but Bush has no heart when he makes the same decisions, then
vote for the big heart that does wrong. I do believe the horrors will be
fewer under Kerry. But I look at the issues one by one & politicians do
all somehow end up, in the last ditch, doing the exact same things, no
matter the party.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com