Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Happy birthday to Hudson the wonder dog, as our beloved pooch turns four years old today. She's a constant source of joy, and is also probably helping to save my life, as without our daily walks, the most exercise I would get around here would be from lifting the remote control. The neat thing about a dog's birthday of course, is that you can shop for presents at the supermarket. I'm thinking I'll get her a steak... I'll probably get myself one too (hey, no one likes to eat alone!).

Play Time: Squirrel Name Generator. Thanks Ant, err, Admiral Bushytail. I am Scratchy McNutt.
Story of the Day: Police: Drunken man drives home with decapitated friend. Thanks mtnlover and Graham.
Talking Dutch toilets flush with comments. Thanks Christopher.
Jet-powered wheelchair surprise. Thanks Chris Johnson.
Science!: Tennis: With Few Exceptions, the String Remains the Same (registration required).
Scientists want research papers freely available.
Image of the Day: Its Done.
Lunation. Thanks Enahs.
Thanks Mike Martinez

View
141 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Older >

141. Re: No subject Sep 6, 2004, 22:28 John
 
Who said they are?

There are plenty of evil republicans and independants as well.

 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
140. Re: No subject Sep 6, 2004, 11:33 JediLuke
 
One Police officer was beaten in NY by a protestor.

Well there you go folks, all democrats are evil! QED!

~Steve

 
http://stevegoldbergmusic.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
139. Re: No subject Sep 3, 2004, 00:03 John
 
What really scares me about these hardcore republican Bush fanatics is how they completely reject the option of maybe checking if the things they say are actually true.

The hardcore democrat Kerry fanatics don't do the same? The protestors are some of the biggest fanatics. One Police officer was beaten in NY by a protestor. And when the media talks negative about RNC speeches, but don't about the DNC speeches, it does make them sound liberal. Each side attacked the other, that's what they always do.

..and calling you and Kerry unpatriotic.

Kerry said he was called that, but I didn't hear it. And he also said that Cheney called him unfit for office, but that too I didn't hear.

But anyways.. the convention is over now and I'm glad. Maybe this discussions will end for a while.

 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
138. Re: No subject Sep 2, 2004, 20:56 NSi
 
What really scares me about these hardcore republican Bush fanatics is how they completely reject the option of maybe checking if the things they say are actually true. They simply find sources to defend and prove the point of view of the republican party and their "talking points". I never see them trying to find multiple sources and trying to evaluate which one would be more trustworthy for a specific issue, what motivations there are behind certain sources, or even better, working out an average representation from multiple, varying sources. They mostly just blindly accept the republican line and never consider that maybe it's not completely true and perfect.

"What, Kerry is a flip-flopper? understood sir, everytime I hear the name "Kerry" I will incesantly repeat "flip-flopper", and completely ignore verifiable examples of republican administration members doing the same things." Repeat ad nauseam.

This is why you usually see most people who are voting for Kerry, like myself, have a grayer (as opposed to black-and-white), more ambiguous and realistic image of the man. Most of us know he's not perfect, he surely has made some mistakes, because we try to understand data from all sources to get a more adjusted, better picture of reality. I gather that is what a hardcore republican would call "flip-flopping". By the same rationale of analysis of multiple sources and facts, Bush and his administration look decidedly incompetent, underhanded, antiethical and unsuccessful, especially when it comes to world policy and economy (they are collectively filthy rich and getting richer, I meant every other american's economy). Bush fanatics completely ignore this process and start from the fact that he, his administration (ok, Cheney's administration) and republicans are perfect, and then proceed to fight to the bitter end to prove their starting argument: Bush is perfect and not only that, he IS SAVING THE WORLD. Nothing else matters, and nothing ever changes that perception, not even established, proven facts. To them facts are just things to be argued, muddled and fought against, not things to be incorporated into reasoning. They tend to execute the same tactics all the time to protect their thesis.
This is my typical experience trying to discuss things with hardcore republican conservatives:
You want to explain why you are voting for Kerry by explaining how you feel Bush the Administration should be voted out by talking results, they answer by attacking Kerry the man. If you attack Bush the Man in response, they say you are low, call you a mudslinger and ask you to talk results. You point out the you started by talking results and they call you a liar and then proceed to dispute your results with arguments manufactured by the same sources that protect Bush The Administration while waving an american flag and calling you and Kerry unpatriotic. When you point out the fact that their sources are not credible or have been proven factualy wrong in the past, they call you a left-wing hippie nutcase, attack Kerry the man again, blame Clinton, quote 3 more talking points, tell you that their results don't lie, Bush is awesome and don't believe the "liberal media" unless it's Fox news.

If you keep arguing eventually they will either quitely back down from debunked republican lies and concentrate on attacking Kerry the Man (as if that makes Bush better somehow), or finally say something like "we agree to disagree" on an incontrovertibly established fact.

A month later you see them on another board (or another barbeque) arguing with Bush critics with the same original facts you clearly pointed out to them as being not true, like it never happened.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
137. Re: No subject Sep 2, 2004, 20:11 NSi
 
JosephBlowski:
"The USA backed a coup in the oil producing nation of Venezuela, then financed a recall campaign against the president after the coup failed."

Your other arguments are at least interesting scenarios, but when I hit the line quoted above I get bumped into reality and see how cooky the world of the conspiracy afficionado can be. I am sure there are some half truths and supporting facts that allow you guys to construct all those evil conspiracy theories, and maybe some of them are even partly true (most surely aren't, or are insanely exaggerated)...
The thing is.. I am venezuelan (and american). My family is still in Venezuela. Members of my family have been publically assassinated on the street by known supporters and members of the inner circles of the "president" - I am talking a 60 year old lady singing a song with a venezuelan flag in her hand surrounded by other unarmed civilians in a pacific protest. This "president" is a proto-Fidel Castro who manipulates every left-leaning conspiracy fanatic looking for validation everywhere in the world by screaming "CIA! BUSH! USA YANKEE EMPIRE!!" everytime THE PEOPLE try to overthrow or vote out his liberty-suppressing government supported by hate, force, ignorance and lies. And trust me, you couldn't begin to understand the undercurrents of the Venezuelan situation in 10 years of reading and studying. You HAVE to have lived there the past 10 or 15 years to understand what's going on. Don't think because you read a manifesto from a black activist who thinks the venezuelan situation has ANYTHING to do with race or an essay from some poli-sci professor in Berkeley that you have any idea what is really going on. Trust me, by the quoted phrase, I know you don't.

I'm just putting that out there as feedback on your comments, don't mean to personally offend you, I have appreciation for people who examine the situation and act accordingly.

This comment was edited on Sep 2, 20:13.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
136. Re: No subject Sep 2, 2004, 11:14 Heather
 
And I won't be right all the time. But the point here is to learn. For the record, I'm a moderate... I'm pretty fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal. I used to be on the conservative side of things, but recently I've swung more toward the left. Probably in large part due to playing devil's advocate against the public view and my wife is definitely more liberal than I am (you know you are hon!).

Never denied I was. I have more skin in the game, if you will.

Speaking of, I'm all behind this site: http://www.mob.org.
 
Beauty is truth; truth beauty - that is all ye need to know on earth...except TCP/IP.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
135. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 19:10 John
 
You must be watching a different convention.

Since when does 9/11 have to do with Kerry? I know they've been talking a lot about it, but that isn't bashing anyone.. except maybe the terrorists. Damn those terrorists and their sneaky ways. heh

And Kennedy may have been the only one to mention Bush, but others made references about him without saying his name. Not that it matters anyways.

 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
134. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 17:58 JoeCool
 
Yeah, as if the DNC wasn't a "Hate Bush" campaign.

Only person to even mention Bush was Kennedy.

And there actually hasn't been much Kerry bashing at all besides Gulliani's (sp?) speech. At least out of the 4 major speeches so far.

You must be watching a different convention.
Nothing has been said for their plans of the future. Only 9/11, 9/11 9/11. Mainstream America cares about other issues too. But hey, maybe bringing up the deadliest attack on U.S. soil every 5min. and saying that it was the highpoint in a his presidency while holding it in the same city, where amputees outnumber their supporters

This comment was edited on Sep 1, 18:09.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
133. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 17:46 John
 
/Yawn let me know when the RNC gets a plan and changes their campaign from a "Hate Kerry" to a "Good for the Country" stance.

Yeah, as if the DNC wasn't a "Hate Bush" campaign. And there actually hasn't been much Kerry bashing at all besides Gulliani's (sp?) speech. At least out of the 4 major speeches so far.

Its been 4 years and he hasn't won my vote over yet.

Kerry has had 10 years in the Senate and hasn't won my vote. I won't tell you why to vote for Bush because you wouldn't change your mind anyways. My reasons are mainly religous as I stated before.. so I won't go into that again. And no, I'm not a one-issue voter either.

 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
132. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 17:09 Zathrus
 
Thanks for arguements with thought behind them

I'd rather have substantive discussions than pointless flames any day.

And I won't be right all the time. But the point here is to learn. For the record, I'm a moderate... I'm pretty fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal. I used to be on the conservative side of things, but recently I've swung more toward the left. Probably in large part due to playing devil's advocate against the public view and my wife is definitely more liberal than I am (you know you are hon!).

Private funding/research is unaffected.

Great. Want to guess where we'd be in health care if everything was like that? What about the space program? Railroads? The Internet? There's a ton of examples here. The costs are too large for private industry and the results too far off. We're talking billions of dollars for a couple decades. Private industry is simply too short term focused at this point to do that, at least in any substantive form. Yeah, they'll throw some money at it, but it's chump change compared to Federal funding.

And yes, I know, that sounds horribly socialistic there. But if you look at things historically we can show repeated examples of nothing happening in a high cost industry until after government paid for the basic research costs and pitfalls. In an idealized world that wouldn't be necessary, but we have to live and deal with reality, not idealism.

There are 49 publically committed coalition members at last count and probably more helping behind the scenes.

Yeah, with such austentacious ones as Costa Rica, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. At least 80% of that list can be crossed off as being utterly inconsequential. Listing Afghanistan is a bad joke at best. Oh, and we're down to 31 countries left in the coalition. Yup, 18, over 1/3rd, have pulled out. And if you count the money and troops in Iraq it's a much more sobering -- out of roughly 133,000 troops, 112,000 are US. That's 84%. (Source: BBC News, July 20, 2004 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3873359.stm). The next highest is the UK, with around 9500 troops in or around Iraq. This is not sounding like much of a coalition to me.

Compare that to Afghanistan, which has roughly 15,000 non-Afghan troops, of which around 8,000 are non-US (Source: CentComm, August 30, 2004 - http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Coalition/joint.htm). That, to me, is much more of a coalition.

After negotiations, they ultimately voted for the last UN resolution after the US made concessions in the language (we accomodated their desires on the issues - not exactly unilateral action

Uh... note the date on the referenced article? Well over a year after the invasion. For all intents and purposes the war in Iraq was a unilateral action. It was not endorsed by the UN... there wasn't a vote on the issue purely because the US retracted the bill before France, Germany, and Russia could veto it. And no, the prior UN resolutions did not give authorization either. They were worded to say that the UN could decide to authorize further action, but did not state what that action would be or (IIRC) place a time restriction on compliance.

The UN and the vast majority of the world's nations thought Saddam had WMDs

No question. But what does that say in retrospect about our intelligence community with regards to the Middle East? That it sucks. That we, for all intent and purpose, have no reliable intelligence in the area and that we're acting blind. Until that situation is fixed (which will take years or decades at the least) maybe we should rethink our actions in the area?

I understand some thought we rushed into war, but I am willing to cut the administration a little slack on the timing - I'm sure none of us are privy to all of the information/discussions held among world leaders on these issues.

Of course not. Guess what -- when we started the Iraqi invasion I was supportive of it. Because I felt very clearly that we must have some damning evidence that clearly showed that Hussein and Iraq were a threat. Because anything else was nothing short of insane. We were forfeiting most of the goodwill we had garnered from 9/11, we were acting in direct contradiction to both old and new allies, and we were going into something we've never done well (natiionbuilding; not that anyone's done it well... it's pretty much impossible even in culturally similar areas, and the Arab peninsula is about as alien a culture as exists on this planet. We have more in common with the Chinese than we do with the Arabs. Yes, I've done my research here, and I'll happily discuss it at length if you wish).

(and then watch everyone fight about what ISN'T documented)

Yup. Oh, and this wouldn't be such a bloody issue if Kerry didn't keep on bringing it up as a qualification. Frankly, neither Bush nor Kerry have strong enough military records to talk about them, and they both occurred so long ago as to be laughable. If it was Clark v Bush it'd be another matter, but that's not what it is.

I am not overly familiar with this legislation

Take a look into it. It was pushed heavily by the administration, while being loathed by traditional conservatives (big government, defeceit spending, etc) and liberals (not big enough pretty much). Here's the 50k foot view though -- if eligible you can get a discount card. The discount cards are offered by roughly 30 different private companies, all of which must be approved by the Health and Human Services Administration. Each card has different enrollment costs and discounts, you can only have one card at a time, you can only change plans once a year. Plan benefits can change at any time. Not all plans cover all drugs. The federal government does not negotiate for discounted drugs with any pharmaceuticals; instead that's up to the 30-odd discount plans to negotiate on their own.

The AARP signed on to this for one and only one reason -- thhey didn't think they'd get anything better in the near future. They've been pretty well blasted for that stand point.

My understanding is that this program was less expensive than the democrat-sponsored alternative, but again, I am not sure.

I believe so as well, but a better solution than either still could've been found. Lower benefits, but more involvement in setting prices. If there was a single entity buying drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, intead of thirty of them, then you pretty much get to tell the phamaceutical companies how much you'll pay rather than the other way around. Yes, that has its problems too, but pharmaceutical costs in this country are absolutely out of control. Americans are basicaly having to pay for the rest of the world to have cheap drugs, and there's something very deeply wrong about that. Yes, there's a lot of cost involved in developing a new drug, but the drug companies aren't exactly going broke. To be fair, we also need to reform the FDA approval process and some of the other elements that make pharmaceutical R&D so expensive. It's tricky.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
131. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 15:22 JoeCool
 
So anyone wanna tell me why I should vote fro Bush?

Its been 4 years and he hasn't won my vote over yet.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
130. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 15:16 Warhawk
 
Z-

Thanks for arguements with thought behind them.

Because you support embryonic stem cell research.

The only thing blocked by Bush is federal funding for research on additional stem cell lines. Private funding/research is unaffected.

I agree that something should've been worked out to allow some additional research to continue. Apparently Bush has strong opinions about this after his research/discussions with advisors in many areas affected by this decision. I disagree with him on this, but can understand his position. I can also understand if you feel strong enough about this issue to sway your vote to Kerry. I do not.

Because we need to work with the international community against terrorism, not against them. Do you really, honestly, believe that we are better off with only our troops, only our intelligence services, only our resources against terrorism? Wouldn't it be better to work with other countries who are equally threatened by these forces? You can't possibly tell me that Russia doesn't have some issues with terrorism. Is it better to fight alone or with allies? Kerry thinks the latter, as do I. After 9/11 we had the backing of virtually every country that wasn't supportive of terrorism... and even some that were borderline. Now who do we have supporting us? Which was a better situation to be in? And I believe Kerry is more likely to mend those relationships than Bush.

It is always better to work with the broadest coalition of allies possible to "spread the risk" and lend credence to your "side". There are 49 publically committed coalition members at last count and probably more helping behind the scenes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

This isn't exactly "acting alone". France, Russia and Germany are still our allies but are not supporting the war for financial reasons. After negotiations, they ultimately voted for the last UN resolution after the US made concessions in the language (we accomodated their desires on the issues - not exactly unilateral action).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23393-2004Jun7.html

The UN and the vast majority of the world's nations thought Saddam had WMDs (with a unanimous 15-0 vote in the UN on the last resolution demanding action by Saddam or face serious consequences - there are 17 UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq).

I understand some thought we rushed into war, but I am willing to cut the administration a little slack on the timing - I'm sure none of us are privy to all of the information/discussions held among world leaders on these issues.

Again - Saddam had complete control over the events that took place and decided not to comply.

As opposed to "I pulled strings to avoid going to Vietnam and was then absentee for at least three months of my short and cushy posting"?

I, too, would like to see ALL records released on both sides so everyone can see, once and for all, exactly what is documented (and then watch everyone fight about what ISN'T documented). Right now, the latest I heard is that Kerry has refused to talk about that issue (that it was a non-issue) and Bush has publicly praised Kerry for his service.

Kerry did try to avoid going to Vietnam:

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wkerr07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html

the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (which was championed by the administration) is utterly and completely irresponsible

I am not overly familiar with this legislation, but agree that adding to our debt with programs like this are wasteful and harmful to the economic health of our nation.

Historically, many (most?)of the public assistance programs have been promoted by democrats and few, if any, ever had realistic budgets attached to them. As you say, a "strawman argument in any case, on both sides" for bloated public assisstance programs. I do wish we could shift to more personal responsibility and less federal assistance, but the public demands it. I don't like it. My understanding is that this program was less expensive than the democrat-sponsored alternative, but again, I am not sure.



*************
* Warhawk *
*************

The new Quake-43 game blows my mind. It is even better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher.
Doom 3
 

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
129. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 14:46 Scottish Martial Arts
 
As opposed to "I pulled strings to avoid going to Vietnam and was then absentee for at least three months of my short and cushy posting"?

Correct if I'm wrong but wasn't Kerry commisioned in the Naval Reserve? While there is no excusing Bush's absense it doesn't change the fact that neither chose to go active duty, one was deployed and the other wasn't.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
128. Re: Bush Sep 1, 2004, 14:41 JoeCool
 
Oh and from the past 2 days the entire rnc has been nothing but "Terror" "Terror" "9/11". They need to start talking about what they plan on doing and not just have a "Kerry-Bash"

and anyone who thinks he speaks to god, shouldn't be in the whitehouse. America deserves better and it will get it in 2 months.

This comment was edited on Sep 1, 14:43.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
127. Re: Bush Sep 1, 2004, 14:39 JoeCool
 
/Yawn let me know when the RNC gets a plan and changes their campaign from a "Hate Kerry" to a "Good for the Country" stance.

Anyway, I'm voting kerry because the past 4 years have probably been the worst since the 70's. Bad econommy, lower wages, net jobs-loss and that Iraq mistake.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
126. Re: No subject Sep 1, 2004, 13:48 Zathrus
 
I'm tired of the outright lies by those like Halsy.

He's gone off the deep end again. Occasionally he can actually be talked to, but apparantly now is not one of those times. Halsy continuously accuses people he disagrees with of ad hominem attacks, while dishing out his own liberally (feel free to take the pun there), and throws out inane statements about others believing that "they're always right". Pot, kettle, black. He's been proven wrong repeatedly, but damn does he have a Messiah complex.

When he is rational, however, he does make interesting points and is worth arguing with.

Anyway.

WHY SHOULD I CONSIDER VOTING *FOR* KERRY? Not anti-Bush, but for Kerry.

The two are pretty closely tied... in American politics you only have two sides, and they pretty rarely take the same side of the issue. So it can be fairly difficult to discriminate between voting against someone and voting for. That said, I do believe a lot of the push for Kerry is purely because of "Any Body But Bush". He's really not a great candidate. But frankly, neither is Bush. Which is why we continue seeing a near 50/50 split on polls.

That said, why vote for Kerry?

- Because you support the freedom of choice. You do not support constitutional amendments that revoke rights rather than grant them. So far we've only had one amendment that did that (revoke a right) and it was repealed less than 15 years later.

- Because you support embryonic stem cell research. The vast majority of researchers agree that there are some diseases (such as juvenile diabetes) that will not be treatable without embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, while many diseases may be treatable with non-embryonic, we're still at the basic research stage and the research will go faster with embryonic research. The current state of research is non-viable. All of the stem cell lines approved for Federal funding are tainted with mouse DNA. Modern techniques eliminate that. And while I agree that there are moral and ethical issues to be discussed, that discussion is simply not happening right now. Several members of the Bioethics advisory council that had differing views were simply removed and replaced with new members that didn't. Instead we're leaving the basic research to other countries, some of whom we know do not value human rights as much as we do. Are we going to have a cure for any disease or affliction in the next 5 years? Ten? Twenty? Probably not. But not doing the research doesn't make that get any closer.

- Because we need to work with the international community against terrorism, not against them. Do you really, honestly, believe that we are better off with only our troops, only our intelligence services, only our resources against terrorism? Wouldn't it be better to work with other countries who are equally threatened by these forces? You can't possibly tell me that Russia doesn't have some issues with terrorism. Is it better to fight alone or with allies? Kerry thinks the latter, as do I. After 9/11 we had the backing of virtually every country that wasn't supportive of terrorism... and even some that were borderline. Now who do we have supporting us? Which was a better situation to be in? And I believe Kerry is more likely to mend those relationships than Bush.

- Both candidates have said that they're going to be in Iraq until it's finished. Which is the only thing we can do at this point. Both have stated that they have no desire to remain there longer than necessary. So you can hardly use this as a point for either candidate.

(I was a war hero for 4 months and got myself discharged with medals I wrote myself up for and pretended to throw away


Ok, now responses to other things you said.

As opposed to "I pulled strings to avoid going to Vietnam and was then absentee for at least three months of my short and cushy posting"? BTW, more than 30 days AWOL constitutes a deserter. As for the SBVT, several of them are lying. They have stated things in support of Kerry in the past (as recently as last year), and now directly contradict their statements. The various other officers tthat served with him are guilty of perjury in one way or another -- either they signed false mission reports during Vietnam, or they signed false affidavits for SBVT. Frankly, they should've stuck to the real issue, which is what Kerry said and did after he left Vietnam. They have a valid point there, but instead they're making accusatory remarks that are utterly impossible to refute because it's a he said-she said case. And frankly, that's slimey. (And, to be fair, the same is true for Bush's service and his alleged drug and alcohol (ab)use. If you'd like to continue going down this path, fine. Be prepared to answer questions that the President refuses to.)

He consistently changes his stance on many subjects

What a load of crap. Show me a politician that doesn't. What was that about not getting into nationbuilding at Bush's innauguration? Uh huh.

refuses, to this day, release his war records to clear up all the questions regarding his injuries and medals.

And Bush refuses to do the same. I know the form you're speaking of. Neither one has signed it. Strawman argument in any case, on both sides.

As for the voting against the funding in Iraq -- if nothing else Halsy actually posted a proper link here. That article discusses the issue fairly and evenly. Yes, he did vote against the bill that went to the floor, but because it was basically unfunded. That $87B is now going onto the national debt because there is no money to pay for it.

Speaking of which... here's a Bush bash for you. Bush isn't a Republican. I don't know what the hell he is, but he's pretty much the worst combination of both parties. Traditional conservative Republicans do not run up the national debt as badly as he has. Yes, we're at war. Given that I could certainly allow some things to slide (like the $87B bill above), but the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (which was championed by the administration) is utterly and completely irresponsible. It places a huge tax burdon upon us, the taxpayers, and provides little to no real benefit to those who it targets. In fact, I'd argue that its worse than what we had before (nothing at all) because it's a horribly confusing plan (esp. for seniors) and it will impede actually getting something useful in place -- or if you just think that Medicare is completely wrong, well, now you have an even larger entitlement program to try and get rid of. Oh... and there is that little minor issue of the administration surpressing the real cost numbers prior to it being passed -- because they knew they'd lose the vote if the classic conservative Republicans knew it was going to cost nearly 20% more than claimed.

There's plenty of other reasons I could list to vote against Bush/Cheney, but you didn't want them, and I can understand that. It's much better to vote for someone than to vote against someone.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
125. Re: Bush Sep 1, 2004, 11:37 Scottish Martial Arts
 
If you still don't understand by now why you should choose Kerry over Bush, you're hopeless.

Why should I choose Kerry? Because he has an identical Iraq policy? Because he believes that by virtue of not being Bush our relation with Europe and the UN will magically be fully healed? Because he'd rather I work a manufacturing job than be an entrepeuner (I work a union, blue collar job now and let me say it is more than enough to motivate me to work my ass off in college)?

Kerry's only virtue is that he is not Bush, if you can't see that you're hopeless.

Truth hurts, Scottish? Oh, boo hoo hoo. That's typical right-wing moaning as well.Can dish it out, but can't take it. All you guys do is attack and smear, and the moment someone gives you a taste of your own medicine you start pissing and moaning like an old lady.

Oh so you admit then that that report was politcally motivated in calling conservatives mentally defective? Frankly all I've seen from the Democratic party for the past four years is "pissing and moaning like an old lady". Seriously, if you guys lose the election, which looks like more of a possibility each day, you're gonna need fucking therapy.

Where did I start crying? I only said that the certainty with which you believe you are right, and the certainty with which you believe those who disagree with you are wrong, is quite scary. Accusing those who disagree with you as being unaccepting of others viewpoints, thus against the public discourse of political opinion that is vital to America, and then telling them if they don't like it to leave sounds an awful lot like a politically correct

gg hypocrisy.

Ironic that you'd accuse of hypocrisy in a post where you demonstrate your own.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
124. Re: Red Vs Blue Sep 1, 2004, 11:13 kanniballl
 
Actually, in all honesty I'm a plastic guy myself. The handles make it easier to carry.

Ditto.

I use the plastic bags as small "garbage bags" for the garbage cans I have lying around the house.

It makes it so much easier to handle taking out the trash when you can just grab the handles of the pastic bag and throw away the whole thing into a large trash bin on garbage day. It's easier to carry and I don't have to worry about trying to shake the few stubborn items out of the bottom of the little trash cans.




"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama

This comment was edited on Sep 1, 11:13.
 
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
123. Re: Red Vs Blue Sep 1, 2004, 11:10 Warhawk
 
Paper - you can grow more trees. Oil is essentially a finite resource.

*************
* Warhawk *
*************

The new Quake-43 game blows my mind. It is even better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher.
Doom 3
 

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
122. Re: Bush Sep 1, 2004, 11:08 Warhawk
 
Halsy-

Accuse the person you're arguing with they're ducking the question when they're not. My statement holds direct relevence to the topic at hand.

See, maybe you think you addressed the question I asked, however, if you bothered to re-read my post, you'd realize you addressed nothing I posted, you went off on a tangential rant. Your responses, if given to *you* to dispute *your* claims, would draw your wrath as unsupportable posturing and bluster (we've all seen it before on this board).

Again:

Why should I vote FOR Kerry? Simple, simple question. Not against Bush, for Kerry. C'mon, give me something.

1. Give me a consistent voting record. Oh, that's right, he doesn't have one.

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439

2. Give me a straight story on his service, his medals, and his wounds. Never mind, he can't do that either.

http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php

The group has even asked Kerry to clarify his record and they will stop their ads.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131019,00.html

By the way, don't say I am disrespecting his service. I have never questioned Kerry's service or patriotism, and neither has Bush. I question his ability to tell the truth and stick with it.

3. Tell me about his dedication to the ongoing protection of this country. Well, he doesn't bother to attend the intelligence briefings to find out what the threats even are. (link posted earlier)


So again, Halsy, you keep ducking the issue and ranting about social-political doublespeak and thinking you'll bluff your way through a discussion.

Halsy - you are an intelligent guy and I believe you truly think your positions are correct (in your own little worldview), as do others on this board. I think your positions are misguided and not right for America. Has Bush made mistakes, yes. Did Clinton do a few good things, sure, but I'd be hard pressed to name any that didn't spring from the Republican Congress and their "Contract with America" (which you willprobably now proceed to bash as an evil, misguided attempt to help corporate America continue to subjugate the poor, unwashed masses, or some other nonsense).

I (and others) are asking a very simple, easy to comprehend question. I'll even repeat it to make sure you get it right:

Why should I vote FOR Kerry?

Can you answer that?


*************
* Warhawk *
*************

The new Quake-43 game blows my mind. It is even better than Super Turbo Turkey Puncher.
Doom 3
 

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
141 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo