FarenHYPE 9/11

[theski]

The Kernel wrote

1) Kerry is a hell of a lot more moderate then Bush. This is simply a fact. I don't see Kerry openly pandering to a lot of left wing extremists whereas that's pretty much ALL Bush has been doing the past four years.

Kerry is a moderate....maybe to you and DU .. but not to me again this is all about where you sit on the sliding scale

2.

2) If reelected, Bush is going to pack the SCOTUS with more Scalias. If Kerry makes the appointments, he's going to have to push through moderates with a GOP controlled Congress (but OTOH, it's not like a Dem has ever appointed a dangerous left winger to the SCOTUS

He still has to get them through the Approval process...Look how much trouble he has had with that... Its not as easy as you make it out to be

3.

3) Gridlock in government is going to reduce spending. If you are a fiscal conservative, this point should be very important for you

Agreed..

4.

4) Kerry does not have anyone like Tom DeLay fighting a war in Congress for him in order to make the Congressional body the White House's lap dogs. Furthermore, Bush hasn't stopped there and now he wants to take control of the third branch of government with all his talk about "activist judges". We need balance for fuck's sake, not one party ruling all three branches.

If Kerry wins he will and you know it.. That is the perks of WINNING>.. if the Dems want it back ... get the votes its that simple.

THen you had better motovate your base and win the election then.
[/quote]

[The Kernel]

Kerry is a moderate....maybe to you and DU .. but not to me again this is all about where you sit on the sliding scale

Show HOW to me why he is not a moderate. Pull one of his campaign proposals off his website and show me something that he is proposing that is too liberal for you. If you want to call him too liberal, SHOW ME WHY.

He still has to get them through the Approval process...Look how much trouble he has had with that... Its not as easy as you make it out to be

It's not easy, but with a GOP dominated Congress, it's easier for Bush to appoint a right-winger (possible) then for Kerry to appoint a super-lefty (which is impossible).

If Kerry wins he will and you know it.. That is the perks of WINNING>.. if the Dems want it back ... get the votes its that simple.

What is that supposed to mean? Even when the Dems controlled Congress, they never played dirty with the other side the way the current GOP dominated Congress does.

Besides, the Dems are not going to recapture the House this year and it would take a miracle for them to get the Senate back.

THen you had better motovate your base and win the election then.

We are talking about what is best for America here, not petty partisanship. If Bush is elected, that would be BAD for America for the reasons I've specified. You are basically saying "well too bad!" which is not an attitude you should be taking if you want what's best for our country. This isn't like a sports game, if your candidate wins, we can still all lose.

[Darth Wong]

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

Ok Mike I will play... You give me a "Conservative" idea or policy that you agree with and I will give you a liberal one, because I think you are as much of a knee jerk liberal as you claim I am a conservative

Tax cuts to stimulate an economy ... when the tax rate is too high. That's why I voted for the Conservative Party three times in a row in Ontario where the tax rate was among the highest in the country, and they did as promised, lowering taxes while simultaneously cutting spending in order to slash the deficit and balance the books. The only problem is mindless drones who assume that if a little of something is good, then a LOT of it must always be better, and who skew tax cuts to the wealthy rather than spreading them around.

Now your turn: give me a liberal policy that you agree with.

[theski]

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

Ok Mike I will play... You give me a "Conservative" idea or policy that you agree with and I will give you a liberal one, because I think you are as much of a knee jerk liberal as you claim I am a conservative

Tax cuts to stimulate an economy ... when the tax rate is too high. That's why I voted for the Conservative Party three times in a row in Ontario where the tax rate was among the highest in the country, and they did as promised, lowering taxes while simultaneously cutting spending in order to slash the deficit and balance the books. The only problem is mindless drones who assume that if a little of something is good, then a LOT of it must always be better, and who skew tax cuts to the wealthy rather than spreading them around.

Now your turn: give me a liberal policy that you agree with.

Womans right to choose... I am supporter of the "Right to choose" for women.. It is not my place as a man or the Government to tell woman what to do with their bodies... But I don't support Partial Birth Abortions.

Next...

[Darth Wong]

Womans right to choose... I am supporter of the "Right to choose" for women.. It is not my place as a man or the Government to tell woman what to do with their bodies... But I don't support Partial Birth Abortions.

Next...

The Canadian gun registry is a complete waste of time and money and should be scrapped. Your turn again

[theski]

Womans right to choose... I am supporter of the "Right to choose" for women.. It is not my place as a man or the Government to tell woman what to do with their bodies... But I don't support Partial Birth Abortions.

Next...

The Canadian gun registry is a complete waste of time and money and should be scrapped. Your turn again

Copy of my earlier answer to Iceberg

Ok.. Welfare is a needed part of a Governments committment to its people. There should always be a safety net in place for those who cannot support themselves

[Darth Wong]

Copy of my earlier answer to Iceberg

Ok.. Welfare is a needed part of a Governments committment to its people. There should always be a safety net in place for those who cannot support themselves

Sorry, doesn't fly. Even the Republican party has never promised to abolish welfare; the dividing line between liberal and conservative policies on welfare relates to how generous it should be and what kind of limits should be placed on its use.

[theski]

Copy of my earlier answer to Iceberg

Ok.. Welfare is a needed part of a Governments committment to its people. There should always be a safety net in place for those who cannot support themselves

Sorry, doesn't fly. Even the Republican party has never promised to abolish welfare; the dividing line between liberal and conservative policies on welfare relates to how generous it should be and what kind of limits should be placed on its use.

Trying again... Raise the Tax rates on all Income over 500,000 per year to 45% and over close biz loop holes for ofshore tax breaks..

[Darth Wong]

Copy of my earlier answer to Iceberg

Sorry, doesn't fly. Even the Republican party has never promised to abolish welfare; the dividing line between liberal and conservative policies on welfare relates to how generous it should be and what kind of limits should be placed on its use.

Trying again... Raise the Tax rates on all Income over 500,000 per year to 45% and over close biz loop holes for ofshore tax breaks..

I'll see your tax rates for rich folks and raise you by "family values" tax breaks aimed at encouraging people to have kids at a younger age (major Conservative party platform plank here in Canada; dunno if it's cropped up down there but if it did, I'm sure it would sell).

PS. Note that I'm assuming the rates you cited are similar to the leftist position on preferred tax rates for the wealthy, rather than being just a shade off the Republican position. I'm not familiar enough with American tax rates to know what they currently are.

[theski]

Sorry, doesn't fly. Even the Republican party has never promised to abolish welfare; the dividing line between liberal and conservative policies on welfare relates to how generous it should be and what kind of limits should be placed on its use.

Trying again... Raise the Tax rates on all Income over 500,000 per year to 45% and over close biz loop holes for ofshore tax breaks..

I'll see your tax rates for rich folks and raise you by "family values" tax breaks aimed at encouraging people to have kids at a younger age (major Conservative party platform plank here in Canada; dunno if it's cropped up down there but if it did, I'm sure it would sell).

I think you are running out..

Trim the military budget... close some bases.. pull out of Germany and South Korea... Dump that money into Renewable Energy and Building more Nuke plants.

You have the floor

[Darth Wong]

I think you are running out..

Trim the military budget... close some bases.. pull out of Germany and South Korea... Dump that money into Renewable Energy and Building more Nuke plants.

You have the floor

Increase the Canadian military budget. Next!

[theski]

I think you are running out..

Trim the military budget... close some bases.. pull out of Germany and South Korea... Dump that money into Renewable Energy and Building more Nuke plants.

You have the floor

Increase the Canadian military budget. Next!

I call BS... anything is a increase in the Canadian Military

[Darth Wong]

I call BS... anything is a increase in the Canadian Military

So? Anything is an increase in US tax rates on rich fatcats too, but I let that slide.

[theski]

I call BS... anything is a increase in the Canadian Military

So? Anything is an increase in US tax rates on rich fatcats too, but I let that slide.

Carefull your Class envy is showing.....

Heading off to Fleece the Rich.. Will contine in the AM>>>.

[Yarcamos]

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

It's entirely possible however that you can lead towards one side or the other, and that would of course make you one or the other.

[The Kernel]

Are you planning to totally ignore my rebuttal theski? Do you have any specific evidence of Kerry's extreme liberalism?

[Darth Wong]

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

It's entirely possible however that you can lead towards one side or the other, and that would of course make you one or the other.

Only if you subscribe to black/white fallacies

[Darth Wong]

I call BS... anything is a increase in the Canadian Military

So? Anything is an increase in US tax rates on rich fatcats too, but I let that slide.

Carefull your Class envy is showing.....

Heading off to Fleece the Rich.. Will contine in the AM>>>.

The funniest part of this is that you have unwittingly undermined your own argument against Kerry. If you admit that "liberal" does not necessarily mean "bad" (which you have basically done by acknowledging that you are willing to vote liberal on many issues), then you also admit that you can't prove Kerry has been doing a bad job in the Senate by simply show that he ahs voted "liberal". Ergo, you must point to specific votes on his part which you strongly object to, and which prove him to be a less competent leader than the current Monkey-in-Chief.

[BoredShirtless]

theski, not coming up with real answers to our questions shows two things:

1. You've been brainwashed
2. You are weak

I feel sorry for you.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

theski, not coming up with real answers to our questions shows two things:

1. You've been brainwashed
2. You are weak

I feel sorry for you.

What if he's happy?

[Durandal]

Zogby said he expects Kerry to win on The Daily Show earlier tonight. Too bad Stewart didn't ask him about the cell-phone voter deal.

[BoredShirtless]

What if he's happy?

I think he is. But what does that have to do with anything? People with Downs Syndrome can also be happy; doesn't mean I'd like them voting on how the world works.

I just can't get over this. How can a person can be so STUPID that they'd support ABK BEFORE Kerry has even had a go! We still don't know what kind of President Kerry would be. You COULD say "he'd probably make a lousy President" but he's never been President before so you don't really know. Shithead, on the other hand, has provided 4 years of PROOF that he IS lousy at the job!

So the question is this; why vote for a proven incompetent, when there is a qualified unknown waiting in the wings? It's just amazing.

[theski]

theski, not coming up with real answers to our questions shows two things:

1. You've been brainwashed
2. You are weak

I feel sorry for you.

Ummm

1. Nope can think for myself Thanks... and Have been away from the computer..

2. Coming from you.... That is a laugh..

[jegs2]

So you'll STILL be voting for Bush? Even after all the threads exposing him as a liar and an idiot? Why vote for an idiot? Are you an idiot too? Is that what you're saying? I just don't understand.

Already did, via absentee ballot, but alas, mine was a Broward County, FL ballot and I'm in the Army, so they'll probably just throw it out anyway.

[BoredShirtless]

1. Nope can think for myself Thanks...

The fuck you can. Your posts in this thread prove otherwise.