[Nullifidian]

Personally I just think you're in denial about Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lieing SOBs in the history of the USA. You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.

Let's not go crazy here, a large number of conservatives are pissed off at bush. Besides the tax breaks, he really is no different then a democrat when it comes to goverment spending. The democrats probably had a really good chance, too bad they only gave their delegates a choice between 5 or 6 of the looniest mother ****ers on the planet. Hell I would have switched over and voted for liberman if the opportunity had been there.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Personally I just think you're in denial about Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lieing SOBs in the history of the USA. You desperately want to vote Republican so you refuse to let anything tell you something negative about your party's candidate.

I wouldn't say that at all. I'd rather have a good Libertarian candidate on the ticket. I like Bush personally, but I'm not at all happy with a number of his positions.

Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lying SOBs in the history of the USA? You're kidding right? You can't be that left! This is exactly what I'm talking about...people believe that crap.

Tell me, what intelligent person would not notice fault with the fact that this supposed non-partison, unbiased, fact checking website / organization will negate one person's opinion, simply because there is another person with a different opinion (or came to different conclusions). I'm not saying that everything they say is BS. There is some definite truth in there about GWB and Cheney. You cannot deny the facts as you state above, BUT you'd have to be an ignorant fool not to notice the blatant bias and the extremely flawed logic behind many of their rebuttals, especially when it comes to undermining one person / organization's opinion because one other person / organization says different. You'd have to be a waterboy (bobby bouchet...adam sandler) to believe that crap! Ma...ma...ma...momma says...

[Nullifidian]

I'm not really left at all.

I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.

There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.

When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.

When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.


So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm not really left at all.

I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.

There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.

When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.

When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.


So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.

Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

I'm not really left at all.

That's good

I'm for small government. I want a TRUE flat tax (not to be confused with a flat tax rate). I'm pro second ammendment. I firmly believe if someone wants to own an assault rifle they should be allowed. I want the government to butt out of my business and stop telling me what to do. However this means I'm pro choice since the government shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. I'm obviously for legalization of all drugs. I'm also for harsher criminal penalties for crimes committed under the influence.

I agree with you here for sure!

There are a few government organizations that I think are important (even if they step outside of their bounds a little too often). The FDA is one such organization. I also believe the FDA should enforce accurate label claims on all supplements. I do not however think it is their job to tell us that we aren't permitted to take those supplements.

I agree here as well, we need to know what we're taking /using, but they shouldn't tell us whether or not we can.

When it comes to immigration, I'm very conservative. I think we need to tighten up the borders bigtime. We need a wall between us and Mexico and we need to increase border patrols. I think illegal aliens caught stealing welfare or social security should be thrown in jail for a very long time and all of their money stripped.

This seems to be the one issue that probably 75% of americans can agree on.

When it comes to how we handle a war I'm definitely not liberal. For example, I think the only thing wrong with Abu Graib is the fact that any information leaked. In warzones, drastic measures need to be taken. This means not only defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it means more importantly defeating their spirits. They need to have their will broken.

Good, then you'll be happy to know that we "outsource" many of our captured terrorists to foreign governments who make Abu Grahib look like a day care facility.

So no, I am not liberal. I just hate Bush. I see the problems he has caused, I see the situation we are in, and I see more disaster in the near future if he gets re-elected.

That's good you're not liberal, I think you're a) falling for the liberal spokesmouth's BS or b) a devote internationalist. Those are the only reasons that I can think of a conservative would choose Bush over Kerry when given the choice.

I'd advise you to read Shadow War by Richard Miniter. I personally am going to read the whole thing when school allows it; you may have a better outlook on the administration. I'm comforted (in an odd way) that Al Qaeda plotted to assasinate our president, because it shows that they are afraid of him...The guy who wrote this book started out under the assumption that the war on terror was going to hell b/c of Iraq, etc, but over the course of his travels, research, etc, etc he changed his mind.

What bugs me is this guy had the perfect rebuttal of undisputable facts to the F*cked up BS that Kerry / Edwards were talking about when referring to Tora Bora saying that we lost Bin Laden b/c we outsourced the fight to warlords...those POS!! If anybody had any idea how nasty the terrain, caves networks, etc of Tora Bora are, they'd understand how "we were working with" the warlords as a necessity and it was damn smart! How do ppl think the USSR lost in Tora Bora? B/C of Afghanistan's great army? ROFL!! (you can't compare Tora Bora to vietnam, we had political pressures which held us back from flattening north vietname, communist ussr went all out!!

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.

exactly!

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

I wouldn't say that at all. I'd rather have a good Libertarian candidate on the ticket. I like Bush personally, but I'm not at all happy with a number of his positions.

Bush and Cheney being some of the most amoral POS lying SOBs in the history of the USA? You're kidding right? You can't be that left! This is exactly what I'm talking about...people believe that crap.

Tell me, what intelligent person would not notice fault with the fact that this supposed non-partison, unbiased, fact checking website / organization will negate one person's opinion, simply because there is another person with a different opinion (or came to different conclusions). I'm not saying that everything they say is BS. There is some definite truth in there about GWB and Cheney. You cannot deny the facts as you state above, BUT you'd have to be an ignorant fool not to notice the blatant bias and the extremely flawed logic behind many of their rebuttals, especially when it comes to undermining one person / organization's opinion because one other person / organization says different. You'd have to be a waterboy (bobby bouchet...adam sandler) to believe that crap! Ma...ma...ma...momma says...

Of course, Edwards was talking about fines levied over things that happened when Cheney was CEO. The Fact Check article was not about that at all, but noted that a Kerry ad distorted facts on Cheney's companstion package. Same adversaries, different issue. That meant Cheney had no real retort to Edwards attack (which factcheck points out).

Seems to me that if the Veep recommends it, and it gives a message you don't want to hear about the veep, the only logical thing to do is engage in cognitive dissonance....


If he'd only sent folks to the Limbaugh site....


Cheney is (Pick one):
1) Careless in making this critical argument in front of the Nation

2) Hoping you wouldn't check it out

3) Secretly wanting Kerry/Edwards to win so he sabotages himself

4) too busy practicing hunching over and wringing his hands to do his own fact-checking

5) All of the above.

INFOHAZARD

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

That's good
I agree with you here for sure!
I agree here as well, we need to know what we're taking /using, but they shouldn't tell us whether or not we can.
This seems to be the one issue that probably 75% of americans can agree on.
Good, then you'll be happy to know that we "outsource" many of our captured terrorists to foreign governments who make Abu Grahib look like a day care facility.

That's good you're not liberal, I think you're a) falling for the liberal spokesmouth's BS or b) a devote internationalist. Those are the only reasons that I can think of a conservative would choose Bush over Kerry when given the choice.

I'd advise you to read Shadow War by Richard Miniter. I personally am going to read the whole thing when school allows it; you may have a better outlook on the administration. I'm comforted (in an odd way) that Al Qaeda plotted to assasinate our president, because it shows that they are afraid of him...The guy who wrote this book started out under the assumption that the war on terror was going to hell b/c of Iraq, etc, but over the course of his travels, research, etc, etc he changed his mind.

What bugs me is this guy had the perfect rebuttal of undisputable facts to the F*cked up BS that Kerry / Edwards were talking about when referring to Tora Bora saying that we lost Bin Laden b/c we outsourced the fight to warlords...those POS!! If anybody had any idea how nasty the terrain, caves networks, etc of Tora Bora are, they'd understand how "we were working with" the warlords as a necessity and it was damn smart! How do ppl think the USSR lost in Tora Bora? B/C of Afghanistan's great army? ROFL!! (you can't compare Tora Bora to vietnam, we had political pressures which held us back from flattening north vietname, communist ussr went all out!!

All I know is that a guy I know who was at Tora Bora who voted for Dubya in 2000 wants nothing more than to get him out of office. Another person (my boss) was a doctor at Abu Ghraib (after the **** hit the fan). He calls Iraq a "quagmire." Before he went, he was basically a war supporter. Now he thinks we should just leave now because the outcome will be the same except for the dead Americans.

And I'm a veteran; I care for veterans for a living and I'm a firm second amendment supporter. Bush ****ed up. It's the fate of all ideologues. It's just a question of how many dead bodies pile up before the idealogue goes down in flames.

INFOHAZARD

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

Cheney is (Pick one):
1) Careless in making this critical argument in front of the Nation

2) Hoping you wouldn't check it out

3) Secretly wanting Kerry/Edwards to win so he sabotages himself

4) too busy practicing hunching over and wringing his hands to do his own fact-checking

5) All of the above.

INFOHAZARD

I picked a winner

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Who do you think is closer to your core beliefs Bush or Kerry? Kerry is for increasing taxes-Bush cut taxes, the party that is adamantly against the second amendment is the democrats, on immigration neither side is really doing anything. Unfortunately we are stuck voting for the lesser of to evils. If those really are your positions on issues why the hell would you vote for Kerry.

Bush is just passing the bill for the big budget run-up to the next president down the line, to the inflation that is coming (how's your fuel bill lately?) and to our kids.

What we really need is a parlementary government that would create an environment that actually encourage more than two parties and which forces coalition and compromise. Having an all-or- nothing electoral system that only supports two parties (and there is an active push by the DeLay machine to make it single party) leads to a sickness of extremes.

You know, we left Japan and Germany with Parlementary governments. We didn't give them one exactly like our own. The people who did that were wise. Where are they now?

While no where in the Constitution is the idea of political partisanism is even mentioned, the only way we could change our government to allow for a multitude of parties would be to have a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, that would be opening Pandora' s Box. As likely as not, we'd end up with a Born-Again Theocracy instead.

INFOHAZARD

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

All I know is that a guy I know who was at Tora Bora who voted for Dubya in 2000 wants nothing more than to get him out of office. Another person (my boss) was a doctor at Abu Ghraib (after the **** hit the fan). He calls Iraq a "quagmire." Before he went, he was basically a war supporter. Now he thinks we should just leave now because the outcome will be the same except for the dead Americans.

And I'm a veteran; I care for veterans for a living and I'm a firm second amendment supporter. Bush ****ed up. It's the fate of all ideologues. It's just a question of how many dead bodies pile up before the idealogue goes down in flames.

INFOHAZARD

I've got family and friends in the military. My cousin just got home from Afghanistan not that long ago. He told me that he hates what the media is doing and is voting for Bush. He's a smart guy. He was a good student, etc. and could have had scholarships all over, but he's always wanted to be a lifer ever since he was a kid, so that's his deal. His friends tell me the same thing. They don't "officially" poll military persons on their political beliefs, but "unofficial polls" suggest about 75% of military people support GWB over John Kerry.

Now, if your friend wouldn't mind being slaughtered in Tora Bora, then fine, he should hate GWB. But if he values his life, he should thank him...not only that, but GWB doesnt' control what goes on, on the ground! He takes recommendations from his generals and gives them what they need! So, he's hating the wrong person for that.

Imagine being in somebody's private maze...this person wants to kill you and can be lurking around any corner or hiding in any crevice. There is another person who is a resident and swears to guide you. Would you take their help or would you be slaughtered? I think that's a fair analogy as to what happened in Tora Bora. The americans took help and in those thousands upon thousands of square miles of hideously unfriendly terrain, they had to track a few people, all of which knew the terrain like the distance between their zipper and their ****!! They lost them...pity, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that the admin carelessly lost UBL. It's ridiculous to think that they're not keeping that their top priority. But, hate does blind people.

If Bush is an idealogue, what is Kerry? What is every politician?

Kerry is much more dangerous, despite what he says, and then says he didn't say, and then says again, he's a devout internationalist and our pseudo-allies in Europe will be more responsible for our safety than ever. That's very uncomfortable to me. Maybe he doesn't think that he is what people say he is, but if he does, he probably hasn't read his own voting record!!

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

I picked a winner

No, you picked a loser.

INFOHAZARD

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

Bush is just passing the bill for the big budget run-up to the next president down the line, to the inflation that is coming (how's your fuel bill lately?) and to our kids.

Why do people believe that if a government isn't taxing the hell out of people, were going to just increase debt indefinately? Totally absurd! We'll see. It's very likely Bush will be pres again come november. By mid 2005 we should already see declines in the budget deficit. We'll see...

Raegan increased the deficit b/c he had to break the 11% unemployment mess that taxing the hell out of people created under Carter and the rest of the communist democrats. (76% taxation is communist to me). We had a historic high of 6% deficit, yet our deficit began to sharply decline because businesses had the money to operate, government had to spend less (welfare, etc, etc.) and that continued UNTIL the gulf war, then it rose again. Then the internet and the stock market boom took full effect (not in any way related to Clinton's policy's despite what liberals want people to believe)...eventually, the rising costs of doign business (thanks to the taxation policies of clinton) started bringing down business and a recession took place even with our "surplus" (Clinton-Gore recession of May (?) 2000, their policies were directly responsible for this and there was nothing the current admin could do to change them.) then 9/11 happened, the stock market fell, two wars began, low and behold we're at a 3.8% budget deficit, with virtually no inflation, 5.4% unemployment (same as when clinton left office), highest home ownership in history (especially of minorities), budgetary predictions as of this year are ahead of schedule, and we're in such a horrid mess arent we??? You can argue that we are still at a net loss of jobs and that's true. However, people never take into account the internet and technology boom creating 20M jobs, many of which will be/ were replace by technology itself, that were "destined to fall in number evenetually. We never expereinced anything like that before. It was "stupid" for Bush to think he could make 6M jobs; that's for damn sure, but it's not his fault we lost jobs. If it wasn't for Bush, Im positive we'd be down many more jobs than we are currently however.

What we really need is a parlementary government that would create an environment that actually encourage more than two parties and which forces coalition and compromise. Having an all-or- nothing electoral system that only supports two parties (and there is an active push by the DeLay machine to make it single party) leads to a sickness of extremes.

I agree 100% here.

You know, we left Japan and Germany with Parlementary governments. We didn't give them one exactly like our own. The people who did that were wise. Where are they now?

They dont want to lose their power...bunch of hypocrites!

While no where in the Constitution is the idea of political partisanism is even mentioned, the only way we could change our government to allow for a multitude of parties would be to have a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, that would be opening Pandora' s Box. As likely as not, we'd end up with a Born-Again Theocracy instead.

INFOHAZARD

Possible, but I highly doubt it. Just like I don't think we'd have a facist (yes, the left in this country are very facist) left-wing government in place. I think it'll never happen becaue both parties would rather duke it out between the two of them, rather than introducing more parties to the system. Especially the democrats who do everything they can (as the equality party...WTF??) to keep Nader down and out.