PDA

View Full Version : If the election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?



Pages : [1] 2

DolphinDevil28
05-25-2004, 05:23 PM
Who would you vote for President?

iceblizzard69
05-25-2004, 06:03 PM
Gary Nolan. There are more then just two candidates.

t2thejz
05-25-2004, 06:50 PM
Gary Nolan. There are more then just two candidates.
Yes but voting for anyone else is a wasted vote imo.

iceblizzard69
05-25-2004, 07:45 PM
Yes but voting for anyone else is a wasted vote imo.

:rolleyes2

New York will easily go to Kerry, so it doesn't matter who I would vote for. No vote is a wasted vote. You have to vote for what you believe, even if the person has no chance at winning. If I lived in a "Swing State," I would think more about voting for a major party candidate, but I don't, so even if I voted for Kerry or Bush, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

As for the two candidates, I don't like either. Bush sucks on social issues and neither is what I want for the economy. Bush spends too much and Kerry will probably raise taxes. Neither impress me. If I had to vote, I would reluctantly vote for Kerry. Bush's spending will hurt the future generations. If you want to tax conservatively, you have to spend conservatively.

DolFan31
05-25-2004, 08:14 PM
Dennis Kucinich.


But seriously, John Kerry.

ThunderCane
05-25-2004, 08:36 PM
Kerry is the only hope. And that scares me!

DolphinDevil28
05-26-2004, 12:42 AM
I know there are other candidates. Goodness. I'm just taking a poll between the two big ones.

And, I want to do an unbiased poll, so just vote. I don't want to spawn a big debate. I am a true-blue conservative and will vote for Bush, but I'll leave that for another time.

Thundercracker
05-26-2004, 12:45 AM
Kerry.


Bush had his chance, and he screwed this country up completely.

PhinPhan1227
05-26-2004, 01:18 AM
Sigh...I love those who have no concept of economics. I could see knocking Bush if you disagree with Iraq, but Bush has done nothing but good things domestically.

Thundercracker
05-26-2004, 01:57 AM
Sigh...I love those who have no concept of economics. I could see knocking Bush if you disagree with Iraq, but Bush has done nothing but good things domestically.

Here's a list of things about Bush I got in an email

1. The National debt under Bush Jr. has increased so drastically that the average American's estimated share of the national debt will be an astronomical $24,000-compared to $500 when Dubya first took office.

2. Under Bush Jr. there are now 43 million Americans with no health insurance.

3. Responsible for an unemployment rate of 6%. There are now 9 million people out of work in America-3.3 million more than when Bush took office.

4. He cut health care benefits for war veterans.

5. Bush Jr. deserted his unit during Vietnam and was reportedly AWOL for over a year from his assigned unit: The Texas National Air Guard, or as it's referred to by other military outfits, the "Champagne Division."

6. Despite a 13% unemployment rate among those aged 16-24, Bush Jr. proposed to eliminate youth opportunity grants-a program that provides job training to the nation's youth. A $225 million program in 2002 is now being done away with so Bush can have more money for Iraq.

7. He cut funding for 375,000 low income college students and reduced Pell grant amounts to such a severe degree that it effectively caused 84,000 students to no longer be eligible for Pell grants. Pell amounts have been overall reduced for 1.5 million students...It's safe to say that the Bush daughters aren't eligible for financial aid, so this won't affect the opulent lives of anyone Bush Jr. may know.

8. Withdrew from the International Criminal Court.

9. First President in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 elections.)

10. All-time U.S.(and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

11. The Bush administration had twice as many FBI agents fighting the drug war than fighting terrorism prior to 9/11. Even after 9/11, more than 2,000 FBI agents are wasting their valuable time assigned to the war on drugs.

12. His proposed "free trade" agreements would result in the loss of U.S. jobs to foreign markets and the exploitation of third world workers.

13. John Ashcroft

14. He has taken 11 official executive actions to undermine reproductive rights...how long will it be before a woman is stripped of her right to choose.

15. Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."

16. Wasted federal resources on a PR trip to Baghdad where he staged a thanksgiving meal at 6am with troops that were screened based on their political affiliation. And the turkey? It was a prop.

17. His refusal to fire-or even reprimand-Lt. General Jerry "Our Godis bigger than their God" Boykin. Perhaps it's because Boykin said of the President, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of voters in the United States. He was appointed by God. He's in the White House because God put him there."

18. After sending troops of to die in an unjust and unprovoked war, he still has yet to attend any soldiers' funerals.

19. His shameless nepotism for the rich and powerful. Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of ol' Dick) got hooked up with a cool gig at the state department where she was in charge of the $129 million middle east partnership initiative and then was moved over to daddy and Uncle Dubya's campaign payroll.

20. He dropped his dog on it's head.

21. Bush Jr. is the first President in U.S. history to enter the office with a criminal record.

22. Bush Jr. has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest a leader (10 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

23. He slashed funding to the violence against women act.

24. He has invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of one billion dollars per week.

25. He appointed Charles Pickering, a notorious segregationist from Mississippi, as a federal judge and suspiciously did so on Martin Luther King day.

26. Bush has spent over 100 billion on Iraq, leaving states to face the largest budget crisis in decades and forced to cut off public services; now with the federal deficit at a new high Bush Jr. wants to award more tax breaks to the wealthy.

27. Under new Bush legislation (the clear skies initiative), power plants are allowed to emit triple the amount of highly-toxic mercury into the environment.

28. Bush Jr. failed to protect 3 million acres of the Tongass National Forest from logging. The Tongass has the largest concentration of bald eagles on earth and has already lost 700 square miles to logging permits pending. Not even the sanctity of our endangered national bird can compete with Bush campaign contributions provided by the forest industry.

29. He is on pace to have taken more vacation than any president in history, including a 28-day vacation right before 9/11. Bush Jr. has taken 6 months of vacation in total...do you know anyone that gets 6 months vacation?

30. He pulled out of the Kyoto agreement on global warming, which had been agreed upon by 178 other countries.

31. Bush Jr. is endorsed by fundamentalist Pat Robertson who claims that God told him Bush will win re-election and that "it doesn't make a difference what Bush does because God is blessing him." Bush keeps some great company, but keep in mind Robertson was also the nitwit that blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and suggested that we "nuke" the U.S. State Department.

32. He set the record for the most executions by any governor in american history. 152 in total; some of whom were mentally disabled.

33. Has repeatedly stonewalled the public investigation into 9/11.

34. Bush Jr. declined to fully fund the AIDS initiative after promising to do so. The final cuts that resulted were over $2 billion.

35. He suggests that homosexuals are "sinners" and is pushing legislation that would forbid gay partnerships and deny fundamental civil rights on a national and local level.

36. Choked on a pretzel and nearly lost his life while seated in front of a tv.

37. Bush Jr. has gone to great lengths to prevent investigations of his friends at Enron and Halliburton. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

38. Bush Jr. has set the record for the fewest amount of press conferences by a president since the advent of television.

39. Responsible for a 521 billion dollar deficit-less than 4 years after inheriting a 200 billion dollar surplus.

40. He has made repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the national wildlife refuge.

Section126
05-26-2004, 08:30 AM
Here's a list of things about Bush I got in an email

1. The National debt under Bush Jr. has increased so drastically that the average American's estimated share of the national debt will be an astronomical $24,000-compared to $500 when Dubya first took office.

2. Under Bush Jr. there are now 43 million Americans with no health insurance.

3. Responsible for an unemployment rate of 6%. There are now 9 million people out of work in America-3.3 million more than when Bush took office.

4. He cut health care benefits for war veterans.

5. Bush Jr. deserted his unit during Vietnam and was reportedly AWOL for over a year from his assigned unit: The Texas National Air Guard, or as it's referred to by other military outfits, the "Champagne Division."

6. Despite a 13% unemployment rate among those aged 16-24, Bush Jr. proposed to eliminate youth opportunity grants-a program that provides job training to the nation's youth. A $225 million program in 2002 is now being done away with so Bush can have more money for Iraq.

7. He cut funding for 375,000 low income college students and reduced Pell grant amounts to such a severe degree that it effectively caused 84,000 students to no longer be eligible for Pell grants. Pell amounts have been overall reduced for 1.5 million students...It's safe to say that the Bush daughters aren't eligible for financial aid, so this won't affect the opulent lives of anyone Bush Jr. may know.

8. Withdrew from the International Criminal Court.

9. First President in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 elections.)

10. All-time U.S.(and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

11. The Bush administration had twice as many FBI agents fighting the drug war than fighting terrorism prior to 9/11. Even after 9/11, more than 2,000 FBI agents are wasting their valuable time assigned to the war on drugs.

12. His proposed "free trade" agreements would result in the loss of U.S. jobs to foreign markets and the exploitation of third world workers.

13. John Ashcroft

14. He has taken 11 official executive actions to undermine reproductive rights...how long will it be before a woman is stripped of her right to choose.

15. Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."

16. Wasted federal resources on a PR trip to Baghdad where he staged a thanksgiving meal at 6am with troops that were screened based on their political affiliation. And the turkey? It was a prop.

17. His refusal to fire-or even reprimand-Lt. General Jerry "Our Godis bigger than their God" Boykin. Perhaps it's because Boykin said of the President, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of voters in the United States. He was appointed by God. He's in the White House because God put him there."

18. After sending troops of to die in an unjust and unprovoked war, he still has yet to attend any soldiers' funerals.

19. His shameless nepotism for the rich and powerful. Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of ol' Dick) got hooked up with a cool gig at the state department where she was in charge of the $129 million middle east partnership initiative and then was moved over to daddy and Uncle Dubya's campaign payroll.

20. He dropped his dog on it's head.

21. Bush Jr. is the first President in U.S. history to enter the office with a criminal record.

22. Bush Jr. has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest a leader (10 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

23. He slashed funding to the violence against women act.

24. He has invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of one billion dollars per week.

25. He appointed Charles Pickering, a notorious segregationist from Mississippi, as a federal judge and suspiciously did so on Martin Luther King day.

26. Bush has spent over 100 billion on Iraq, leaving states to face the largest budget crisis in decades and forced to cut off public services; now with the federal deficit at a new high Bush Jr. wants to award more tax breaks to the wealthy.

27. Under new Bush legislation (the clear skies initiative), power plants are allowed to emit triple the amount of highly-toxic mercury into the environment.

28. Bush Jr. failed to protect 3 million acres of the Tongass National Forest from logging. The Tongass has the largest concentration of bald eagles on earth and has already lost 700 square miles to logging permits pending. Not even the sanctity of our endangered national bird can compete with Bush campaign contributions provided by the forest industry.

29. He is on pace to have taken more vacation than any president in history, including a 28-day vacation right before 9/11. Bush Jr. has taken 6 months of vacation in total...do you know anyone that gets 6 months vacation?

30. He pulled out of the Kyoto agreement on global warming, which had been agreed upon by 178 other countries.

31. Bush Jr. is endorsed by fundamentalist Pat Robertson who claims that God told him Bush will win re-election and that "it doesn't make a difference what Bush does because God is blessing him." Bush keeps some great company, but keep in mind Robertson was also the nitwit that blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and suggested that we "nuke" the U.S. State Department.

32. He set the record for the most executions by any governor in american history. 152 in total; some of whom were mentally disabled.

33. Has repeatedly stonewalled the public investigation into 9/11.

34. Bush Jr. declined to fully fund the AIDS initiative after promising to do so. The final cuts that resulted were over $2 billion.

35. He suggests that homosexuals are "sinners" and is pushing legislation that would forbid gay partnerships and deny fundamental civil rights on a national and local level.

36. Choked on a pretzel and nearly lost his life while seated in front of a tv.

37. Bush Jr. has gone to great lengths to prevent investigations of his friends at Enron and Halliburton. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

38. Bush Jr. has set the record for the fewest amount of press conferences by a president since the advent of television.

39. Responsible for a 521 billion dollar deficit-less than 4 years after inheriting a 200 billion dollar surplus.

40. He has made repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the national wildlife refuge.

About half of those are conditions that existed in the Clinton Administration and for that matter, since the Eisenhower Administration, and the rest are just plain lies. You obviously subscribe to The Democratic Party / Nazi strategy of tossing out as much negative information as possible regardless of truth, because as Joseph Goebbels and James Carville say: "They have to believe some of it."

Problem is, you post so much crap and lies that it is not worth a response, and I will not respond to a bunch of made up truths.

So I will respond like this:

Do you have any shame?

Section126
05-26-2004, 08:43 AM
Here's a list of things about Bush I got in an email.


If you want, give me your E-mail so I can send you propaganda about how John Kerry is really an Alien from Saturn.

Section126
05-26-2004, 10:41 AM
Dennis Kucinich.



:lolcry: :crazy:

Thundercracker
05-26-2004, 11:53 AM
would you kindly point out the ones that are "lies" ? because I know the important ones are true. Like the deficit that he drastically increased, the 3.3 mllion extra people who have no jobs in his term, spending over 100 billion on an unjust war in Iraq. Those alone should make most people vote against him.

PhinPhan1227
05-26-2004, 12:24 PM
would you kindly point out the ones that are "lies" ? because I know the important ones are true. Like the deficit that he drastically increased, the 3.3 mllion extra people who have no jobs in his term, spending over 100 billion on an unjust war in Iraq. Those alone should make most people vote against him.


This list is just mind dumbingly long, but I'll give it a quick shot.

1. The National debt under Bush Jr. has increased so drastically that the average American's estimated share of the national debt will be an astronomical $24,000-compared to $500 when Dubya first took office.

National debt is just like any other debt. It's only dangerous if not paid back. If the economy rebounds, this debt can be paid back just as JFK's and Reagans debts were paid back.

2. Under Bush Jr. there are now 43 million Americans with no health insurance.

Check the figures...a higher percentage of Americans had no health insurance in 1995 than in 2004. Actual number of people is higher, but so is the population of the country.

3. Responsible for an unemployment rate of 6%. There are now 9 million people out of work in America-3.3 million more than when Bush took office.

Old data...at the current rates of new jobs added, all those lost jobs would be brought back before the end of the year. Also, doesn't account for the artificial employment levels brought about by the dotcom bubble.

4. He cut health care benefits for war veterans.

So has almost every President. We as a nation misuse our vets.

5. Bush Jr. deserted his unit during Vietnam and was reportedly AWOL for over a year from his assigned unit: The Texas National Air Guard, or as it's referred to by other military outfits, the "Champagne Division."

Outright lie. Bush was never AWOL. The Guard doesn't function that way.

6. Despite a 13% unemployment rate among those aged 16-24, Bush Jr. proposed to eliminate youth opportunity grants-a program that provides job training to the nation's youth. A $225 million program in 2002 is now being done away with so Bush can have more money for Iraq.

Education spending is 45% higher under Bush than under Clinton. Some programs have probably been cut, but MANY more added.


7. He cut funding for 375,000 low income college students and reduced Pell grant amounts to such a severe degree that it effectively caused 84,000 students to no longer be eligible for Pell grants. Pell amounts have been overall reduced for 1.5 million students...It's safe to say that the Bush daughters aren't eligible for financial aid, so this won't affect the opulent lives of anyone Bush Jr. may know.

See above

8. Withdrew from the International Criminal Court.

EXCELLENT!! The ICC wouldn't provide assurances that troops INVITED by nations would be protected from spurious charges.

9. First President in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 elections.)

Quick...name how many Presidents DID allow UN elections inspectors

10. All-time U.S.(and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

For now, Kerry is catching (or should I say Ketching?) up quickly. Either way, who cares?

11. The Bush administration had twice as many FBI agents fighting the drug war than fighting terrorism prior to 9/11. Even after 9/11, more than 2,000 FBI agents are wasting their valuable time assigned to the war on drugs.

And how many did Clinton have? Just about the same exact proportion. One other thing...compare how many people have died from drug abuse to how many died on 9/11.

12. His proposed "free trade" agreements would result in the loss of U.S. jobs to foreign markets and the exploitation of third world workers.

VERY arguable. Third wolrd workers are exploited NOW and have always been. Just as much under Clinton certainly.

13. John Ashcroft

Tough times call for tough individuals

14. He has taken 11 official executive actions to undermine reproductive rights...how long will it be before a woman is stripped of her right to choose.

John Kerry just stated that he would appoint Pro-Life judges. While I am Pro-Choice, I don't see Kerry as being a great protector of ANYTHING. As for Bush specifically, I'm against partial birth abortion, so I agree with him there.

15. Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive."

Still working on it.

16. Wasted federal resources on a PR trip to Baghdad where he staged a thanksgiving meal at 6am with troops that were screened based on their political affiliation. And the turkey? It was a prop.

Tremendous moral boost to the troops. And speaking as an ex-soldier, you don't have to screen too many troops to find the Pro-Bush ones. If anything, you would only have to screen for the VERY few Kerry supporters.

17. His refusal to fire-or even reprimand-Lt. General Jerry "Our Godis bigger than their God" Boykin. Perhaps it's because Boykin said of the President, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of voters in the United States. He was appointed by God. He's in the White House because God put him there."

I'm not familiar with this, but a General is a General, not a politician...he is entitled to his opinion.

18. After sending troops of to die in an unjust and unprovoked war, he still has yet to attend any soldiers' funerals.

Tell me how he could do so without it becoming a media frenzy?

19. His shameless nepotism for the rich and powerful. Elizabeth Cheney (daughter of ol' Dick) got hooked up with a cool gig at the state department where she was in charge of the $129 million middle east partnership initiative and then was moved over to daddy and Uncle Dubya's campaign payroll.

Senator John Kerry, even while POW's were still being held there, pushed through a normalization of relations with Vietnam, which his brother then used to secure all the rebuilding contracts. Nepotism? Kerry invented it!


20. He dropped his dog on it's head.

What?

21. Bush Jr. is the first President in U.S. history to enter the office with a criminal record.

Well, if Mr Kerry was telling the truth, he would be the first President to enter office after commiting war crimes.

22. Bush Jr. has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest a leader (10 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

And I care why?

23. He slashed funding to the violence against women act.

I'd like to see proof.

24. He has invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of one billion dollars per week.

Good...lobbing cruise missiles was having such good results under Clinton that 9/11 took place.

25. He appointed Charles Pickering, a notorious segregationist from Mississippi, as a federal judge and suspiciously did so on Martin Luther King day.

And Kerry is supported by Senator Byrd...former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan

26. Bush has spent over 100 billion on Iraq, leaving states to face the largest budget crisis in decades and forced to cut off public services; now with the federal deficit at a new high Bush Jr. wants to award more tax breaks to the wealthy.

Learn to spend wisely.

27. Under new Bush legislation (the clear skies initiative), power plants are allowed to emit triple the amount of highly-toxic mercury into the environment.

I'm not a fan of Bush environmental stance. I'm also not a fan of having no power. Take a look at California.

28. Bush Jr. failed to protect 3 million acres of the Tongass National Forest from logging. The Tongass has the largest concentration of bald eagles on earth and has already lost 700 square miles to logging permits pending. Not even the sanctity of our endangered national bird can compete with Bush campaign contributions provided by the forest industry.

Anti-logging laws resulted in the fires in Colorado a few years back that destroyed millions of acres. Anti-logging laws are frequently worse for the forest they are trying to protect than clear cutting since they prevent brush and dead wood clearing.

29. He is on pace to have taken more vacation than any president in history, including a 28-day vacation right before 9/11. Bush Jr. has taken 6 months of vacation in total...do you know anyone that gets 6 months vacation?

Last time I checked, he gets more work done "on vacation" at Crawford Ranch than many Presidents do in the White House.

30. He pulled out of the Kyoto agreement on global warming, which had been agreed upon by 178 other countries.

Most of which have ALSO pulled out of Kyoto now that they realize the implications to their economies. Kyoto was a PR move, nothing more.

31. Bush Jr. is endorsed by fundamentalist Pat Robertson who claims that God told him Bush will win re-election and that "it doesn't make a difference what Bush does because God is blessing him." Bush keeps some great company, but keep in mind Robertson was also the nitwit that blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and suggested that we "nuke" the U.S. State Department.

And Kerry is endorsed by Teddy Kennedy. Nifty.

32. He set the record for the most executions by any governor in american history. 152 in total; some of whom were mentally disabled.

Once again, good.

33. Has repeatedly stonewalled the public investigation into 9/11.

Again, out of date information

34. Bush Jr. declined to fully fund the AIDS initiative after promising to do so. The final cuts that resulted were over $2 billion.

Not familiar with this

35. He suggests that homosexuals are "sinners" and is pushing legislation that would forbid gay partnerships and deny fundamental civil rights on a national and local level.

John Kerry also opposes gay marriage. No difference.

36. Choked on a pretzel and nearly lost his life while seated in front of a tv.

What moron wrote this?

37. Bush Jr. has gone to great lengths to prevent investigations of his friends at Enron and Halliburton. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

Global Crossing...WorldCom...and were are Mrs Kerry's IRS records?

38. Bush Jr. has set the record for the fewest amount of press conferences by a president since the advent of television.

And?

39. Responsible for a 521 billion dollar deficit-less than 4 years after inheriting a 200 billion dollar surplus.

Completely ignores the facts of the dot-com bubble and 9/11

40. He has made repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the national wildlife refuge.

Which numerous studies have shown could be done with minimal impact to the wildlife involved. In fact, in some case oil exploration has actually helped the local ecology. Oh, and care to guess what gas prices would be if we were pumping a few million barrels of oil out of ANWAR right now?

Section126
05-26-2004, 12:58 PM
25. He appointed Charles Pickering, a notorious segregationist from Mississippi, as a federal judge and suspiciously did so on Martin Luther King day.


A NOTORIOUS SEGREGATIONIST?

Read his BIO!!!!!!!

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR POSTING THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!


As for Judge Pickering's "glaring racial insensitivity": In 1966, after civil-rights leader Vernon Dahmer was killed by a firebomb, Ku Klux Klan commander Sam Bowers was charged with the murder. As a county prosecutor, Judge Pickering, at considerable peril to his life, testified that Bowers had a history of violence. When Judge Pickering was subsequently defeated in a re-election bid for the state legislature, the Klan bragged it had caused his defeat.
Moreover, Judge Pickering said to Mr. Wallace that when racism was rife in Mississippi "we sent our children to the integrated schools, even though there was a good private school less than a block from our home. We supported integrated public education."
As a defense lawyer during the early 1980s, Judge Pickering continued, he took the case of "a young black man who was charged with robbing a young white girl at knifepoint. And it was not a popular case for me to takeon.ButI thought he was innocent and that he needed a defense. I didn't think he would have gotten a good attorney otherwise. He was acquitted."
With regard to the cross-burning case, the fact (as journalists from the New York Times, National Review, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and I have reported) is that Judge Pickering acted in the interest of justice.
Two of the white cross-burners accepted plea bargains and served no jail time. One of them was the ringleader, who had shot into the house before the cross-burning took place and had a history of violenceagainst blacks.
The third defendant, Daniel Swan, who had no such record, was offered a much harsher plea deal with jail time and went to trial instead. Judge Pickering told Mr. Wallace that it was the worst case of disproportionate sentencing he had ever seen.
Accordingly, he pressured federal prosecutors to drop part of Swan's conviction under the federal "hate crime" laws so that Judge Pickering could sentence him to 27 months in jail rather than 7-1/2 years. The National Review reported that one of the prosecutors eventually wrote that "he personally agreed with the judge that the [original] sentence was draconian."
Also on "60 Minutes," Mr. Wallace emphasized that "many black attorneys who practice before him say Pickering is fair and first-rate." One of them, Deborah Gambrell, a Democrat, said she has appeared before him year after year, including representing the NAACP in a case, and was "shocked and appalled" at the charges that Judge Pickering is "insensitive on racial issues."

PhinPhan1227
05-26-2004, 01:04 PM
What do you expect? He's a card carrying Democrat who apparently has no problem that one of his parties leaders is a former Grand Dragon of the Klan(Senator Byrd). I'm a rock solid Independant, but I'll admit that on the national level I do tend to vote Republican just because the Democrat ideology makes me sick.



A NOTORIOUS SEGREGATIONIST?

Read his BIO!!!!!!!

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR POSTING THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!


As for Judge Pickering's "glaring racial insensitivity": In 1966, after civil-rights leader Vernon Dahmer was killed by a firebomb, Ku Klux Klan commander Sam Bowers was charged with the murder. As a county prosecutor, Judge Pickering, at considerable peril to his life, testified that Bowers had a history of violence. When Judge Pickering was subsequently defeated in a re-election bid for the state legislature, the Klan bragged it had caused his defeat.
Moreover, Judge Pickering said to Mr. Wallace that when racism was rife in Mississippi "we sent our children to the integrated schools, even though there was a good private school less than a block from our home. We supported integrated public education."
As a defense lawyer during the early 1980s, Judge Pickering continued, he took the case of "a young black man who was charged with robbing a young white girl at knifepoint. And it was not a popular case for me to takeon.ButI thought he was innocent and that he needed a defense. I didn't think he would have gotten a good attorney otherwise. He was acquitted."
With regard to the cross-burning case, the fact (as journalists from the New York Times, National Review, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and I have reported) is that Judge Pickering acted in the interest of justice.
Two of the white cross-burners accepted plea bargains and served no jail time. One of them was the ringleader, who had shot into the house before the cross-burning took place and had a history of violenceagainst blacks.
The third defendant, Daniel Swan, who had no such record, was offered a much harsher plea deal with jail time and went to trial instead. Judge Pickering told Mr. Wallace that it was the worst case of disproportionate sentencing he had ever seen.
Accordingly, he pressured federal prosecutors to drop part of Swan's conviction under the federal "hate crime" laws so that Judge Pickering could sentence him to 27 months in jail rather than 7-1/2 years. The National Review reported that one of the prosecutors eventually wrote that "he personally agreed with the judge that the [original] sentence was draconian."
Also on "60 Minutes," Mr. Wallace emphasized that "many black attorneys who practice before him say Pickering is fair and first-rate." One of them, Deborah Gambrell, a Democrat, said she has appeared before him year after year, including representing the NAACP in a case, and was "shocked and appalled" at the charges that Judge Pickering is "insensitive on racial issues."

t2thejz
05-26-2004, 04:05 PM
haha can you say OWNED

BigFinFan
05-26-2004, 04:37 PM
Can you spot the Clown in this picture?


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

iceblizzard69
05-26-2004, 05:03 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Section126
05-26-2004, 05:25 PM
You want me to post the picture of Clinton looking through the Binoculars Backwards?

Or the Picture of Kerry holding a baseball bat crosshanded?

Or a picture of Clinton laughing outside the funeral of Ron Brown?

I thought not.

YOU GOT SERVED.

Section126
05-26-2004, 05:28 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


So now you are posting FAKE pics?

YOU GOT SERVED!

iceblizzard69
05-26-2004, 07:01 PM
I posted the picture because BigFinFan posted a picture of John Kerry with a clown. I didn't know it was fake. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if it was real because as we all know, Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I bet that John Kerry's IQ is a lot higher than George Bush's.

ohall
05-26-2004, 08:18 PM
would you kindly point out the ones that are "lies" ? because I know the important ones are true. Like the deficit that he drastically increased, the 3.3 mllion extra people who have no jobs in his term, spending over 100 billion on an unjust war in Iraq. Those alone should make most people vote against him.

The gross national product is up so of course the national debt will be higher as well. That's business 101. Actually America has never had as many ppl employed as it does now. 168 million, that is an all time high as far as gross #'s go. What you and some DEM's do is spin the % #'s.

About the Iraq war being unjust, try selling that to the ppl of Iraq. Polls make it clear they are greatful to Bush for him removing Saddam. However it's only natural for such a proud ppl would want any occupying nation to leave. So save the stuff about them wanting the U.S. to leave. They want the U.S. to leave but when the time is right. It's a very small # of ppl who are trying to regain their old power, that Baath party in particular.

Oliver...

ohall
05-26-2004, 08:25 PM
Here's a list of things about Bush I got in an email


22. Bush Jr. has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest a leader (10 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.


Simply not true. They protested as much if not more against Ronald Reagan when he was fighting the cold war for the entire world. If Europe as a whole hates America IMO we are doing the right thing, not the wrong thing. Europe as a whole is anti-Jew and if we're cattering to that kind of sentiment we would be no better than Europe.

Oliver...

ohall
05-26-2004, 08:26 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

This is good stuff. And I bet Bush #43 would be the 1st to laugh about it.

Oliver...

Section126
05-27-2004, 08:19 AM
I posted the picture because BigFinFan posted a picture of John Kerry with a clown. I didn't know it was fake. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if it was real because as we all know, Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I bet that John Kerry's IQ is a lot higher than George Bush's.


Understood.

I posted a picture of him in the same position with caps off.

There is debate wether the picture is fake, nobody seems to know.

Somehow my picture got replaced with that face, :confused: .

BigFinFan
05-27-2004, 11:25 AM
Understood.

I posted a picture of him in the same position with caps off.

There is debate wether the picture is fake, nobody seems to know.

Somehow my picture got replaced with that face, :confused: .

I will say this about the picture. IF the 4 Star General standing to President Bushes left did not verify that the lens caps were removed prior to use, I am CERTAIN that he got his *** ripped and he did some serious *** ripping too!

I am going to investigate this matter further!

BigFinFan
05-27-2004, 12:19 PM
Okay, this is what I found out IRT the pictures:

Perhaps the photo showing the lens caps on was taken just as he put the binoculars up to his eyes. Anyone can make that mistake.

I'm sure many of you have at one time or another gone to take a photograph with a camera and realized you hadn't removed the lens cap yet.

Subsequent photos show the lens caps have been taken off.

For more info on these pictures:Bush / Clinton Binocular Photos (http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp)

t2thejz
05-28-2004, 04:08 PM
I posted the picture because BigFinFan posted a picture of John Kerry with a clown. I didn't know it was fake. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if it was real because as we all know, Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I bet that John Kerry's IQ is a lot higher than George Bush's.
I bet George Bush has bigger balls than John Kerry

PhinPhan1227
05-29-2004, 02:31 AM
I bet George Bush has bigger balls than John Kerry


That depends...Kerry probably has two sets...depending on what way the polls say he should go... :D

ohall
05-29-2004, 02:52 AM
That depends...Kerry probably has two sets...depending on what way the polls say he should go... :D

And if the Ketchup lady let's him use her set or not!

Oliver...

Marino1983
05-29-2004, 09:45 AM
Sigh...I love those who have no concept of economics. I could see knocking Bush if you disagree with Iraq, but Bush has done nothing but good things domestically.

:rolleyes2

And that is YOUR opinion PP1227 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:shakeno:

Marino1983

Marino1983
05-29-2004, 09:50 AM
I bet George Bush has bigger balls than John Kerry


:escape:

If he does then he better return them to the rightful owner !!!!!!!

:goof:

:roflmao:

Marino1983

Marino1983
05-29-2004, 09:56 AM
That depends...Kerry probably has two sets...depending on what way the polls say he should go... :D


:huh:

Like W doesn't swing his views to the way the polls show public opinion !! :roflmao:

This argument YOU republicans keep trying to make is so freakin laughable !!

Any politician changes his views according to what the national polls show.. This has been going on for decades ...

:goof:

Marino1983

ohall
05-29-2004, 10:33 AM
:huh:

Like W doesn't swing his views to the way the polls show public opinion !! :roflmao:

This argument YOU republicans keep trying to make is so freakin laughable !!

Any politician changes his views according to what the national polls show.. This has been going on for decades ...

:goof:

Marino1983

Not like Kerry. You's have to be either a stupid politician or one with 3 sets of balls to say, "I voted for the war before I voted against it". IMO the guy is use to saying whatever he has to at the moment without the national press being on him every where he goes. In time Kerry will sink his own campaign. At an even bigger rate than Al Gore did in 2000. I've never seen a President bashed the way this one has for 9 weeks by the ELITE liberal media to only see his opponent not move up in popularity. This fact has to have every DEM concerned. Just imagine what's going to happen when Kerry's free ELITE liberal media press stops?!

Oliver...

Marino1983
05-29-2004, 06:10 PM
Well Oliver I respect your political opinions but they are completely clouded by the 250 + million war chest of negative ads from the W campaign !!!!

If you want to talk about flip flopping then let's discuss how W has backed off his MAIN resounding reasoning for entering the war.... WMD

That is ALL W preached about before actual hostilities began ! And as the days turned into weeks and weeks into months the Bush rhetoric turned to the "World is a better place without Saddam H !!! :shakeno:

And as far as the 'liberal media" comment ,,,,, Maybe you should tune into ANY one of FOX's million affiliate tv stations...

Fair and Balanced ......

With a RIGHT WING SLANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:goof:

:roflmao: :roflmao:

:lol:

Marino1983

ohall
05-30-2004, 03:36 AM
Well Oliver I respect your political opinions but they are completely clouded by the 250 + million war chest of negative ads from the W campaign !!!!

If you want to talk about flip flopping then let's discuss how W has backed off his MAIN resounding reasoning for entering the war.... WMD

That is ALL W preached about before actual hostilities began ! And as the days turned into weeks and weeks into months the Bush rhetoric turned to the "World is a better place without Saddam H !!! :shakeno:

And as far as the 'liberal media" comment ,,,,, Maybe you should tune into ANY one of FOX's million affiliate tv stations...

Fair and Balanced ......

With a RIGHT WING SLANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:goof:

:roflmao: :roflmao:

:lol:

Marino1983

This is not the 1st war this country has gone into with certain reasons to only find out what the real reasons were when the war was over. WW2, do you think anyone in this country wanted to go into Europe to save the Jews after we were bombed in Pearl Harbor? Why didn’t we go after Japan and Japan alone? After all they attacked us, Germany and Italy did not. The USA sure made it seem like they went into Europe to save the Jews after the war. Anyone that knows something about those times knows no one had a clue what the Nazi’s were doing to the Jews and others.

FYI, they have found WMD's in Iraq, Mustard and Sarin to be exact. And the President made it clear they were not going into Iraq for WMD alone, but it was their main concern no doubt. I'm not sure why anyone in this country would try and make him pay for good intentions. His intentions are to keep us safe from terrorist.

Do you think he and this administration lied about the facts on purpose just to kill ppl, because they were bored, or have some kind of satanic need? Honestly how far do some ppl need to go, before they understand Bush felt he had to act because of what took place on 9/11. Saddam was known to have large stock piles of WMD and he was linked to paying for homicide bombing on Israeli's. Why is it such a leap to think that the madman Saddam would give or sell some or if not all of those WMD's to attack the USA or Europe thru terrorist?

Let me ask you, if Bush #43 did nothing in Iraq and some years or months later terrorist used some of Saddam’s WMD on the USA and or Europe would you be so understanding then? Be honest now.

And save the whole there were no WMD's. Everyone from Clinton, Kerry, Gore, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia all agreed that Saddam at the very least had CHEM and BIO stockpiles and was well on his way to developing a Nuclear weapon program.

Also why is it no one on the left ever mentions what Libya did several months ago? Libya was very close to having a nuclear program and had tons of CHEM and BIO. Does anyone think Kadafi would have turned his WMD program over to the USA if we did not go into Iraq? Again be honest.

Oliver...

The_Philster
05-30-2004, 02:49 PM
FYI, they have found WMD's in Iraq, Mustard and Sarin to be exact.
Of course they had them...we supplied them and turned a blind eye to them using that stuff on their enemies in the mid-80s because they were our friends at the time.

ohall
05-30-2004, 08:11 PM
Of course they had them...we supplied them and turned a blind eye to them using that stuff on their enemies in the mid-80s because they were our friends at the time.

And this is a problem how?

Oliver...

Section126
05-30-2004, 08:38 PM
Of course they had them...we supplied them and turned a blind eye to them using that stuff on their enemies in the mid-80s because they were our friends at the time.

That has been debunked.

Try another one.


Russia gave them the actual weapons.

We helped them with intelligence during the Iraq/Iran war.

PhinPhan1227
05-30-2004, 08:49 PM
:huh:

Like W doesn't swing his views to the way the polls show public opinion !! :roflmao:

This argument YOU republicans keep trying to make is so freakin laughable !!

Any politician changes his views according to what the national polls show.. This has been going on for decades ...

:goof:

Marino1983


ROFL!!!

#1-I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered Independant. Ask me about a social issue and I'm much more liberal. But people like you always want to label.

#2-Part of the reason that Bush is hated by some people is because he is so opinionated. Clinton never pissed anyone off because he never did enough that COULD piss anyone off. If Bush chased the polls the way Kerry does, he would have pulled out of Iraq months ago.

DolFan31
05-30-2004, 09:10 PM
ROFL!!!

#1-I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered Independant. Ask me about a social issue and I'm much more liberal. But people like you always want to label.

#2-Part of the reason that Bush is hated by some people is because he is so opinionated. Clinton never pissed anyone off because he never did enough that COULD piss anyone off. If Bush chased the polls the way Kerry does, he would have pulled out of Iraq months ago.

The reason why Bush doesn't go by polls is cuz he and the rest of his administration(spare Colin Powell) go by ideology. They're so blinded by their ideology that it doesn't matter to them what they do, whether right or wrong, as long as the religious right and the big corporations and lobbyists get their way. Kerry may be a liberal(not that that's a bad thing), but Im sure he, like Clinton, won't be blinded by ideology. Like Clinton, he may go by the voice of the people, unlike Bush and the Rethuglicans.

However, Im worried that Kerry might be another Al Gore: no message and not quite ready to be President. Id rather have that tho than Neocons running the show.

BigFinFan
05-30-2004, 11:33 PM
I hope and pray that Bush get re-elected!

Our Country will go to Hell in a hand-basket if Kerry is the Commander in Chief!

The_Philster
05-30-2004, 11:56 PM
I hope and pray that Bush get re-elected!

Our Country will go to Hell in a hand-basket if Kerry is the Commander in Chief!
It's been doing that already...how much worse do you think Kerry would actually do?

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 01:25 AM
The reason why Bush doesn't go by polls is cuz he and the rest of his administration(spare Colin Powell) go by ideology. They're so blinded by their ideology that it doesn't matter to them what they do, whether right or wrong, as long as the religious right and the big corporations and lobbyists get their way. Kerry may be a liberal(not that that's a bad thing), but Im sure he, like Clinton, won't be blinded by ideology. Like Clinton, he may go by the voice of the people, unlike Bush and the Rethuglicans.

However, Im worried that Kerry might be another Al Gore: no message and not quite ready to be President. Id rather have that tho than Neocons running the show.

Take a look sometime at the lobbyists involved with Kerry versus Bush. Heck, for that matter, take a look at ANY Senator versus ANY Governor when it comes to lobbyists. Bush has 4 years of lobbyists trying to get into his bed. Kerry has been sucking up to them for DECADES. As for making decisions based on ideology, at least you get a decision out of it. Take ANY leadership course in the military....1st lesson on the 1st day...a BAD decision is still better than NO decision. When the poop hits the fan, I want a leader who will DO SOMETHING. Right or wrong, at least do SOMETHING. I don't want a leader who is going to have to wait until Gallup TELLS him what to do. And while I'm not a fan of the religious right...at least I have protection from them as aforded by the Constitution. If they try and impose their morals on me, I have recourse in the courts. Who do I go to if my President wants to tax me into the poor house? Who do I go to if my President responds to an attack on US soil by sending cruise missiles? Who do I go to if my President wants to turn over our foreign policy to the UN? What protection do I have against that? I'm not a fan of Bush, but he IS the lesser of two evils. The Constitution protects me from most of what he wants to do wrong. The Constitution give me no such protection from Kerry's foibles.

ohall
05-31-2004, 07:55 AM
It's been doing that already...how much worse do you think Kerry would actually do?

I don't know what country you've been living in, but the USA I've been living in more ppl are currently employed than ever before in this countries history, and our nations economy has been booming at any all 20-year high for the last 1.5-years.

Not to mention our military has won one of the most lopsided wars in the history of the world. It's just amazing how this military can invade and occupy a country and only lose 800+ plus soldiers. I've never been more proud to be an Ameircan.

It's a shame the ELITE liberal press is destroying a wonderful American story.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
05-31-2004, 09:07 AM
Take a look sometime at the lobbyists involved with Kerry versus Bush. Heck, for that matter, take a look at ANY Senator versus ANY Governor when it comes to lobbyists. Bush has 4 years of lobbyists trying to get into his bed. Kerry has been sucking up to them for DECADES. As for making decisions based on ideology, at least you get a decision out of it. Take ANY leadership course in the military....1st lesson on the 1st day...a BAD decision is still better than NO decision. When the poop hits the fan, I want a leader who will DO SOMETHING. Right or wrong, at least do SOMETHING. I don't want a leader who is going to have to wait until Gallup TELLS him what to do. And while I'm not a fan of the religious right...at least I have protection from them as aforded by the Constitution. If they try and impose their morals on me, I have recourse in the courts. Who do I go to if my President wants to tax me into the poor house? Who do I go to if my President responds to an attack on US soil by sending cruise missiles? Who do I go to if my President wants to turn over our foreign policy to the UN? What protection do I have against that? I'm not a fan of Bush, but he IS the lesser of two evils. The Constitution protects me from most of what he wants to do wrong. The Constitution give me no such protection from Kerry's foibles.


I disagree. We can't really do anything about what this administration is doing socially. The Patriot Act is a clear violation of our rights, and yet, we can't get rid of it as long as the Bush administration is in power. The only way to fight against the Patriot Act is to NOT VOTE FOR BUSH.

How about all of this FCC crap. I don't want the government telling me if I can listen to Howard Stern or not. It's bull****. Why should the government be allowed to fine people for expressing freedom of speech on the airwaves. If someone wants to curse or say whatever they want on the radio, they should be allowed to.

This administration is trying to take away our rights, and although you think you can do something about it while having them in office, the truth is that you can't. I know that Kerry will get rid of this Patriot Act crap. If Bush is in office for 4 more years, we need to worry about things like abortion as well. Kerry said something stupid by saying he would put a pro-life justice in the Supreme Court (at times he would be better off keeping his mouth shut and letting Bush self destruct with his stupidity), but with Kerry, I think abortion will be safe.

If I could vote in the next election, I would vote for Gary Nolan. I think he is the best candidate. However, if I lived in a swing state, I would probably go for Kerry. You can say Bush protects you from what he does that is against the Constitution, but is the Patriot Act still around? With him in office, we can hope that the Constitution can protect us, but right now it isn't. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed and with Bush in office it won't be even though it is unconstitutional.

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 10:13 AM
Ice, you just gave the #1 reason why voting AGAINST someone is more dangerous than voting FOR someone. John Kerry has PUBLICLY backed the Patriot Act. Everyone in his campaign has stated that they publicly support the PAtriot Act. But apparently you don't KNOW that because you haven't bothered to learn anything about the guy you'd vote FOR, you only know things about the guy you'd vote AGAINST. Patriot Act is here if Kerry wins just as much as if Bush wins. As for the rest, YES, I have recourse. I can sue...I can file a motion...I can stand up for my rights. If YOU have had your civil rights violated, YOU can take action. But again, you're not educated about your government or the candidate you would support. You talk about the FCC like Bush is writing their policy. The FCC is run by beaurocrats. Guys who will have their jobs till they die. If KErry was President tomorrow, Stern would STILL be off the air. The FCC has wanted Stern since Stern was a small time DJ because Stern flaunted their rules and pushed them at every opportunity. That has nothing to do with the PResident...that's a personal grudge between the FCC and Stern. Do yourself, and your country a favor...educate yourself. Don't just be SO blinded by hatred that you think that ANYTHING else would be an improvement.




I disagree. We can't really do anything about what this administration is doing socially. The Patriot Act is a clear violation of our rights, and yet, we can't get rid of it as long as the Bush administration is in power. The only way to fight against the Patriot Act is to NOT VOTE FOR BUSH.

How about all of this FCC crap. I don't want the government telling me if I can listen to Howard Stern or not. It's bull****. Why should the government be allowed to fine people for expressing freedom of speech on the airwaves. If someone wants to curse or say whatever they want on the radio, they should be allowed to.

This administration is trying to take away our rights, and although you think you can do something about it while having them in office, the truth is that you can't. I know that Kerry will get rid of this Patriot Act crap. If Bush is in office for 4 more years, we need to worry about things like abortion as well. Kerry said something stupid by saying he would put a pro-life justice in the Supreme Court (at times he would be better off keeping his mouth shut and letting Bush self destruct with his stupidity), but with Kerry, I think abortion will be safe.

If I could vote in the next election, I would vote for Gary Nolan. I think he is the best candidate. However, if I lived in a swing state, I would probably go for Kerry. You can say Bush protects you from what he does that is against the Constitution, but is the Patriot Act still around? With him in office, we can hope that the Constitution can protect us, but right now it isn't. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed and with Bush in office it won't be even though it is unconstitutional.

iceblizzard69
05-31-2004, 10:39 AM
Ice, you just gave the #1 reason why voting AGAINST someone is more dangerous than voting FOR someone. John Kerry has PUBLICLY backed the Patriot Act. Everyone in his campaign has stated that they publicly support the PAtriot Act. But apparently you don't KNOW that because you haven't bothered to learn anything about the guy you'd vote FOR, you only know things about the guy you'd vote AGAINST. Patriot Act is here if Kerry wins just as much as if Bush wins. As for the rest, YES, I have recourse. I can sue...I can file a motion...I can stand up for my rights. If YOU have had your civil rights violated, YOU can take action. But again, you're not educated about your government or the candidate you would support. You talk about the FCC like Bush is writing their policy. The FCC is run by beaurocrats. Guys who will have their jobs till they die. If KErry was President tomorrow, Stern would STILL be off the air. The FCC has wanted Stern since Stern was a small time DJ because Stern flaunted their rules and pushed them at every opportunity. That has nothing to do with the PResident...that's a personal grudge between the FCC and Stern. Do yourself, and your country a favor...educate yourself. Don't just be SO blinded by hatred that you think that ANYTHING else would be an improvement.

Kerry won't keep the Patriot Act the way it is now. If he gets elected and it stays, it won't be the same Patriot Act.

You say you can take action, but you can't. The best way to take action is to not vote for those violating your rights. Also, Stern isn't off the air where I live. :) Right-wing Clear Channel took him off the air because of his anti-Bush stance. As a company, Clear Channel has a right to do that, although I do disagree with it.

Socially, Kerry would be an improvement over Bush. As I said before, I prefer Gary Nolan over both, but I'll take Kerry over Bush. I never said Kerry was great socially, but he's better then Bush.

Guys like Ashcroft need to go. The only way that will happen is if Bush isn't re-elected. They are trying to take away our civil rights and you can say that you can go to court or file a motion or whatever, but nothing will happen if you do. The best, easiest, and most effective way of fighting for your civil rights is to not vote for Bush. Vote for Gary Nolan instead. ;)

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 11:23 AM
I don't know what country you've been living in, but the USA I've been living in more ppl are currently employed than ever before in this countries history, and our nations economy has been booming at any all 20-year high for the last 1.5-years
more people employed only because there are more people period...To think that the economy is booming? I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell anyone who believes that one

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 11:53 AM
The Patriot Act won't be the same if Bush is elected either. Both sides have promised change. But take a look at what Kerry IS saying he'll keep. In essence it WILL be the same Patriot Act. As for Stern, if I were Clear Channel I would have pulled him too. The FCC can fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars PER station if he screws up. Again, this is between Stern and the FCC. He's been pushing the envelope for years and JAnet gave them the excuse to finally pull him. Bottom line, the Supreme Court ruled a LONG time ago that the airwaves are not free. They belong to the public and CAN be censored. That has been the rule under even the most liberal Presidents and Congresses. And you STILL haven't answered my question. If Bush takes away ANY of my rights...I have recourse. What can I do about the things KErry will take away?



Kerry won't keep the Patriot Act the way it is now. If he gets elected and it stays, it won't be the same Patriot Act.

You say you can take action, but you can't. The best way to take action is to not vote for those violating your rights. Also, Stern isn't off the air where I live. :) Right-wing Clear Channel took him off the air because of his anti-Bush stance. As a company, Clear Channel has a right to do that, although I do disagree with it.

Socially, Kerry would be an improvement over Bush. As I said before, I prefer Gary Nolan over both, but I'll take Kerry over Bush. I never said Kerry was great socially, but he's better then Bush.

Guys like Ashcroft need to go. The only way that will happen is if Bush isn't re-elected. They are trying to take away our civil rights and you can say that you can go to court or file a motion or whatever, but nothing will happen if you do. The best, easiest, and most effective way of fighting for your civil rights is to not vote for Bush. Vote for Gary Nolan instead. ;)

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 11:54 AM
more people employed only because there are more people period...To think that the economy is booming? I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell anyone who believes that one


It was a factual statement. Take a look at the economic figures for the first quarter of 2004. The numbers are the numbers.

ohall
05-31-2004, 01:46 PM
more people employed only because there are more people period...To think that the economy is booming? I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell anyone who believes that one

I guess you missed the last 2 QTR's in this country as far as our economy. It's the BEST 2 QTR's of our economy in the last 22-years. FYI that includes the 8-years Clinton was running this country, and we all know Bush does not have an Internet bubble and Y2K helping his economy.

I agree anyone thinking you have ocean front poperty in Kansas would be a fool. This however has nothing to do with the FACT that this countries economy is BOOMING at an alomost 25-year high. It's running even better in most areas than when Ronald Reagan was President. Now that's saying something.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
05-31-2004, 03:23 PM
The Patriot Act won't be the same if Bush is elected either. Both sides have promised change. But take a look at what Kerry IS saying he'll keep. In essence it WILL be the same Patriot Act. As for Stern, if I were Clear Channel I would have pulled him too. The FCC can fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars PER station if he screws up. Again, this is between Stern and the FCC. He's been pushing the envelope for years and JAnet gave them the excuse to finally pull him. Bottom line, the Supreme Court ruled a LONG time ago that the airwaves are not free. They belong to the public and CAN be censored. That has been the rule under even the most liberal Presidents and Congresses. And you STILL haven't answered my question. If Bush takes away ANY of my rights...I have recourse. What can I do about the things KErry will take away?

You can't do anything about what either will take away. You can try to go to court and say the Patriot Act violates your rights but it won't be taken away if you do that. However, if Gary Nolan is elected, the Patriot Act will go away, but sadly he won't be. :(

ohall
05-31-2004, 03:59 PM
You can't do anything about what either will take away. You can try to go to court and say the Patriot Act violates your rights but it won't be taken away if you do that. However, if Gary Nolan is elected, the Patriot Act will go away, but sadly he won't be. :(

If the patriot act goes away the terrorist will have an easy time again of doing another 9/11 or worse. We're at war, and when you're at war you have to give up some of your rights. It's always been that way, and I hope that never changes in this country.

If and when we as a country feels we are some what safe from the terrorist on our soil I see no reason to keep a patriot act type of law around. However that time is not now.

Oliver...

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 04:18 PM
I guess you missed the last 2 QTR's in this country as far as our economy. It's the BEST 2 QTR's of our economy in the last 22-years. FYI that includes the 8-years Clinton was running this country, and we all know Bush does not have an Internet bubble and Y2K helping his economy.

I agree anyone thinking you have ocean front poperty in Kansas would be a fool. This however has nothing to do with the FACT that this countries economy is BOOMING at an alomost 25-year high. It's running even better in most areas than when Ronald Reagan was President. Now that's saying something.

Oliver...
:roflmao: Sorry, but that sounds like you're basing that on all the poor-paying jobs there are out there right now. I'll agree that the economy is recovering, but it's hardly where we need it to be. Maybe in some areas of the country it's good, but there are areas of the country that bring down that average.

ohall
05-31-2004, 04:23 PM
:roflmao: Sorry, but that sounds like you're basing that on all the poor-paying jobs there are out there right now. I'll agree that the economy is recovering, but it's hardly where we need it to be. Maybe in some areas of the country it's good, but there are areas of the country that bring down that average.

Question, are you implying ppl who get paid not so much shouldn't be counted or are not as important as ppl who get paid more? Weren't those the jobs that were lossed with the Clinton recession?

Sorry personally I don't care what demographic those jobs are coming from, it's better they have those jobs than not having a job.

I'm always amazed how so many DEM's will insult the very ppl who are the backbone of their political party and get away with it. If a REP said the things you just said they would be labeled and slammed for it.

It's like DEM's can insult any racial demographic and it's totally ignored. H. Clinton insults East Indians as a whole and not one word of it is mentioned in the ELITE liberal press. Senator Byrd constantly says flamatory things to this day and he is praised for it. Nevermind the idiot was a leader of the KKK and is still basically selling the same stuff as he did then.

Oliver...

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 04:31 PM
First of all, I was brought up as a republican but have grown out of those narrow-minded views enough that I'm more of a moderate so the party thing isn't a suitable argument. It never should be, either. People who aren't getting paid a living wage are still struggling...barely keeping their heads above water if even that. How anyone can say that the economy is good when those are the jobs that are out there is beyond me. I'm working on getting my degree in computer science but even that won't guarantee me anything. I know many people with college degrees that have been working minimum wage and other low paying jobs. Until we can say that a larger percentage of Americans are making a living wage, it's ludicrous to call the economy good.

ohall
05-31-2004, 04:35 PM
First of all, I was brought up as a republican but have grown out of those narrow-minded views enough that I'm more of a moderate so the party thing isn't a suitable argument. It never should be, either. People who aren't getting paid a living wage are still struggling...barely keeping their heads above water if even that. How anyone can say that the economy is good when those are the jobs that are out there is beyond me. I'm working on getting my degree in computer science but even that won't guarantee me anything. I know many people with college degrees that have been working minimum wage and other low paying jobs. Until we can say that a larger percentage of Americans are making a living wage, it's ludicrous to call the economy good.

It's a GREAT goal to have, but an education is never going to garauntee anyone anything. It's a start and that's all. Instead of you blaming other ppl for your friends not getting a job, maybe you should place the blame where it belongs, on those ppl.

I refuse to ignore that ppl who didn't have jobs 1.5-years ago now have jobs. If you want to be doom and gloom and have a narrow minded POV about this country and where it's going more power to you friend. I know one thing for sure, if this country was under DEM leadership there would be no recovery and no BOOM right now. High interest rates and inflation would be the menu of today after 9/11.

Oliver...

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 04:42 PM
Like I said, party affilation means nothing in the grand scheme of things and if you actually blame people trying to get jobs for the fact that there aren't any out there to get other than minimum wage jobs? :roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 05:22 PM
:roflmao: Sorry, but that sounds like you're basing that on all the poor-paying jobs there are out there right now. I'll agree that the economy is recovering, but it's hardly where we need it to be. Maybe in some areas of the country it's good, but there are areas of the country that bring down that average.

The economic figures are taken across the board. Salaries are up across the country. No, we aren't where we need to be but we ARE getting there. The artificial economy of the 90's coupled with the 9/11 attacks and Enron type scandals takes TIME to recover from. Further, there are levels from the 90's that will NEVER be repeated precisly BECAUSE they were artificial. I'm a recruiter...I saw first hand how some people were being over-paid. Bottom line however, the economy is HEALTHY. It's growing at a steady pace, companies ARE finally adding headcount, and it's all based on solid reasons rather than investor fueled dot com fantasies. Manufacturers have finally recovered from all the over expansion they did...and the record level productivity levels of 2003 have forced companies to finally add headcount. And as to your statement, even during the height of the dotcom boom, there were still parts of the country that weren't doing well. It's never perfect EVERYWHERE. There will always be industries that are being phased out because of technology or social advances. Bottom line, we're in a good place right now and it's only getting better.

ohall
05-31-2004, 05:53 PM
Like I said, party affilation means nothing in the grand scheme of things and if you actually blame people trying to get jobs for the fact that there aren't any out there to get other than minimum wage jobs? :roflmao:

Yes I do. If they need more education then that's what they need to go do. They need to make it easier on themselves to get the jobs they want. There's no point in blaming a President when that Presidents administration is creating jobs for his country. I would 1st blame my local government before I started at the federal level, that's for darn sure!

Oliver...

ohall
05-31-2004, 05:55 PM
The economic figures are taken across the board. Salaries are up across the country. No, we aren't where we need to be but we ARE getting there. The artificial economy of the 90's coupled with the 9/11 attacks and Enron type scandals takes TIME to recover from. Further, there are levels from the 90's that will NEVER be repeated precisly BECAUSE they were artificial. I'm a recruiter...I saw first hand how some people were being over-paid. Bottom line however, the economy is HEALTHY. It's growing at a steady pace, companies ARE finally adding headcount, and it's all based on solid reasons rather than investor fueled dot com fantasies. Manufacturers have finally recovered from all the over expansion they did...and the record level productivity levels of 2003 have forced companies to finally add headcount. And as to your statement, even during the height of the dotcom boom, there were still parts of the country that weren't doing well. It's never perfect EVERYWHERE. There will always be industries that are being phased out because of technology or social advances. Bottom line, we're in a good place right now and it's only getting better.

How do you think Y2K issue played in the late 90's bubble economy?

IMO it played a significant part in creating that bubble. I know I never sold as many PC's as I did in '97-'99.

Oliver...

The_Philster
05-31-2004, 06:42 PM
Yes I do. If they need more education then that's what they need to go do. They need to make it easier on themselves to get the jobs they want. There's no point in blaming a President when that Presidents administration is creating jobs for his country. I would 1st blame my local government before I started at the federal level, that's for darn sure!

Oliver...
:shakeno: I can't take someone seriously who thinks like this...people have degrees but can't get jobs in their fields and it's their fault? And for the record, I'm not blaming the President, at least not exclusively. There's a lot more than one man or party that comes into play for the economy. Maybe some people can't see past political lines but those are the people who are keeping this country from moving forward.

DolFan31
05-31-2004, 08:00 PM
I don't know what country you've been living in, but the USA I've been living in more ppl are currently employed than ever before in this countries history, and our nations economy has been booming at any all 20-year high for the last 1.5-years.

Not to mention our military has won one of the most lopsided wars in the history of the world. It's just amazing how this military can invade and occupy a country and only lose 800+ plus soldiers. I've never been more proud to be an Ameircan.

It's a shame the ELITE liberal press is destroying a wonderful American story.

Oliver...

I cant tell you how many times you contridicted yourself there..

DolFan31
05-31-2004, 09:37 PM
Why do conservatives call the 90's an artificial economic boom? Any economic boom is real. Actually, the boom started before the internet boom. The internet boom was just part of the whole economic boom during the 90's. Sure, many of the internet companies did go bust after 2000, and like you said Oliver, the Y2K scam did play a part in it: it hurt those companies because the scam hurt computer companies as well as the internet companies, both of which had to lay off many employees. But most of the job loss occured under Bush, in early 2001, around the time of the first tax cut, which took our surpluses created under Bill Clinton's presidency, money that wouldve went to programs and such that could help keep unemployment down. By the way, at least 20 million jobs created under Bill Clinton's watch. He had to be doing something right. But anyway, September 11th did cause unemployment to go even higher than it already was. I believe this so-called "recovery" is just those jobs that were lost after 9/11 that are coming back, but jobs that had already been lost under Bush pre-9/11 and with each tax cut and far right-wing ideology driven policies jobs have been and will keep being lost, because our treasury is being robbed blind by these tax cuts that are only keeping people's heads above the water,and now he wants to make them permanent. Like I've said before, Im pro-tax cuts, but only in economically positive times and when our budget and national debts are paid off because that is the responcible thing to do. It is our money, but we pay taxes because it is the price we pay for liberty. When things are going good and we have no debts to pay off, thats when we should get our money back. But if Bush stays or when we a Democrat who wont do these things, like what Clinton was on his way to doing and hoping whoever replaced him would continue this, it will never happen. And dont tell me deficits dont matter. Deficits lead to higher taxes either way you look at it. Democrats will raise taxes on the rich more to pay these debts off while Republicans will leave the burden on the poor and middle class and future generations(like mine) to help pay off the debts. Which choice would you prefer? Taxes on those who can afford to pay it or the poor and middle class who are struggling to either stay alive or keep from sinking to the poor class.

PhinPhan1227
05-31-2004, 09:50 PM
Why do conservatives call the 90's an artificial economic boom? Any economic boom is real. Actually, the boom started before the internet boom. The internet boom was just part of the whole economic boom during the 90's. Sure, many of the internet companies did go bust after 2000, and like you said Oliver, the Y2K scam did play a part in it: it hurt those companies because the scam hurt computer companies as well as the internet companies, both of which had to lay off many employees. But most of the job loss occured under Bush, in early 2001, around the time of the first tax cut, which took our surpluses created under Bill Clinton's presidency, money that wouldve went to programs and such that could help keep unemployment down. By the way, at least 20 million jobs created under Bill Clinton's watch. He had to be doing something right. But anyway, September 11th did cause unemployment to go even higher than it already was. I believe this so-called "recovery" is just those jobs that were lost after 9/11 that are coming back, but jobs that had already been lost under Bush pre-9/11 and with each tax cut and far right-wing ideology driven policies jobs have been and will keep being lost, because our treasury is being robbed blind by these tax cuts that are only keeping people's heads above the water,and now he wants to make them permanent. Like I've said before, Im pro-tax cuts, but only in economically positive times and when our budget and national debts are paid off because that is the responcible thing to do. It is our money, but we pay taxes because it is the price we pay for liberty. When things are going good and we have no debts to pay off, thats when we should get our money back. But if Bush stays or when we a Democrat who wont do these things, like what Clinton was on his way to doing and hoping whoever replaced him would continue this, it will never happen. And dont tell me deficits dont matter. Deficits lead to higher taxes either way you look at it. Democrats will raise taxes on the rich more to pay these debts off while Republicans will leave the burden on the poor and middle class and future generations(like mine) to help pay off the debts. Which choice would you prefer? Taxes on those who can afford to pay it or the poor and middle class who are struggling to either stay alive or keep from sinking to the poor class.

Dude, take a freaking ECON 101 class. The 90's boom WAS artificial. Manufacturing was churning out material hand over fist to support the Internet boom. They geared up massively and that resulted in the jobs being added and the salaries going up. Yes, underneath it all was a healthy economy. Just as THIS economy is healthy. But the PACE of the growth was unnatural and unhealthy. Any economist will tell you that. The amount of money dumped into the economy by venture capitalists was STAGGERING. And once all that money dried up, the bubble burst. But all that overexpansion came with a price, and we paid that price in 2001/2002. You're complaining about the national debt, but debt itself is not a bad thing. In rough times, many of the best companies will borrow money to EXPAND. It's called being aggressive, and that's what this national debt is as well. So long as the economy continues to move upward we will be able to pay down the debt. Just like we paid down JFK's debt, and Ronald Reagans debt. Again, take an economics class and all this SHOULD be expalined to you. As for future generations, if national debt is the worst thing my son has to deal with in 20 years I'll be tickled pink. Maybe because of Iraq and other steps my son won't have to worry about an unstable Middle East. Then again, maybe he will. But I KNOW that Presidents who are afraid to do anything but lob cruise missiles ARE leaving THAT problem for my son to deal with. And that's a MUCH bigger worry for me.

iceblizzard69
05-31-2004, 10:55 PM
If the patriot act goes away the terrorist will have an easy time again of doing another 9/11 or worse. We're at war, and when you're at war you have to give up some of your rights. It's always been that way, and I hope that never changes in this country.

If and when we as a country feels we are some what safe from the terrorist on our soil I see no reason to keep a patriot act type of law around. However that time is not now.

Oliver...

The Patriot Act is a violation of my civil rights. It's an embarrassment to our nation that it is actually law. It is totally what our nation is against, and sadly it was passed. We can fight terrorism without taking away civil rights.

ohall
05-31-2004, 11:59 PM
I cant tell you how many times you contridicted yourself there..

Well go on start, tell me where?

Oliver...

ohall
06-01-2004, 12:00 AM
The Patriot Act is a violation of my civil rights. It's an embarrassment to our nation that it is actually law. It is totally what our nation is against, and sadly it was passed. We can fight terrorism without taking away civil rights.

I disagree, it keeps us safer from terrorist. ANd I'm sorry I don't care about your right during war time. We all have to give things up to win this war on terrorism.

And no we cannot win the war on terrorism without the Patriot act. Please tell me what is your plan?

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 12:22 AM
Well go on start, tell me where?

Oliver...

ok



Not to mention our military has won one of the most lopsided wars in the history of the world. It's just amazing how this military can invade and occupy a country and only lose 800+ plus soldiers. I've never been more proud to be an Ameircan.


The war is not yet won. How amazing is it by losing any soldier? And then you say oh we only lost 800+ soldiers. You act like the number is not low but it is indeed high.



It's a shame the ELITE liberal press is destroying a wonderful American story.


Actually the press was quite pro-war..how liberal.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 12:28 AM
I disagree, it keeps us safer from terrorist. ANd I'm sorry I don't care about your right during war time. We all have to give things up to win this war on terrorism.

And no we cannot win the war on terrorism without the Patriot act. Please tell me what is your plan?

Oliver...

"He who shall give up freedom for liberty deserves neither freedom nor liberty" - Ben Franklin

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:04 AM
There are elements of the PAtriot Act which I disagree with, and which will be adjusted in the next go-around. That's why the Act was passed with time limitations...so it could be adjusted. But at the same time you have to recognize that the PAtriot Act is a response to the OVERLY loose laws we had in place prior to 9/11. Just like anything else the law is almost always a pendulum. It was too loose and porous prior to 9/11. Post 9/11 it has become TOO tight(although there are still loop holes). It will be adjusted more towards the center. But answer this question...what civil right of yours has been violated? Give me a specific instance of your rights that have been curtailed post 9/11 by anything done by Bush or his administration.



The Patriot Act is a violation of my civil rights. It's an embarrassment to our nation that it is actually law. It is totally what our nation is against, and sadly it was passed. We can fight terrorism without taking away civil rights.

Fin_Fanatic
06-01-2004, 06:07 AM
well said phinphan, glad someone is paying attention to the real FACTS

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:38 AM
ok




The war is not yet won. How amazing is it by losing any soldier? And then you say oh we only lost 800+ soldiers. You act like the number is not low but it is indeed high.



Actually the press was quite pro-war..how liberal.

Of course the war is won, the peace is not won. Just another ELITE liberal media lie that too many Americans assume is true without using their God given common sense.

Those #'s are not high. Please do a lil research and see how low that is with the type of military our troops went up against. This is not even close to being a bloody war. Every life is valuable, but one IMO has to be realistic about what is going on here. This is war and it's ugly.

Yes some if not most of the press was very pro-war, but that was only because at the time there were no dead soldiers for them to spin their agenda with. At this time Americans are very unrealistic as far as what the expectation of casualties were going to be in the invasion. In general most Americans are showing off their very short memory. Pre-war conservative casualties rates were any where from 10k to 15k for the coalition. Honestly I'm not surprised you and some others are typing the things you are typing. Most Americans only remember what they are spoon fed at 7 PM on their fav news show.

Oliver...

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:42 AM
"He who shall give up freedom for liberty deserves neither freedom nor liberty" - Ben Franklin

Totally agreed, however no one is giving up their freedom in the patriot act. They are giving up some rights. If you are innocent you can do anything you want to do. As far as I'm concerned if someone is hanging around ppl who are bad they deserve what they are getting during these times. This is not a rare situation during times of war. If you use the logic you are using ppl during WW2 who had to turn off their lights at night would be whinning and complaing like some of you are right now.

Often during times of war the innocent suffer for the safety of the majority. Ask any Japanese American who was housed in internment camps for the duration of WW2 just because they were of Japanese heritige.

Oliver...

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:43 AM
There are elements of the PAtriot Act which I disagree with, and which will be adjusted in the next go-around. That's why the Act was passed with time limitations...so it could be adjusted. But at the same time you have to recognize that the PAtriot Act is a response to the OVERLY loose laws we had in place prior to 9/11. Just like anything else the law is almost always a pendulum. It was too loose and porous prior to 9/11. Post 9/11 it has become TOO tight(although there are still loop holes). It will be adjusted more towards the center. But answer this question...what civil right of yours has been violated? Give me a specific instance of your rights that have been curtailed post 9/11 by anything done by Bush or his administration.

Some ppl can't attend anti-American social groups like they use to, and that pisses off a lot of ppl.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
06-01-2004, 09:58 AM
Of course the war is won, the peace is not won. Just another ELITE liberal media lie that too many Americans assume is true without using their God given common sense.

Those #'s are not high. Please do a lil research and see how low that is with the type of military our troops went up against. This is not even close to being a bloody war. Every life is valuable, but one IMO has to be realistic about what is going on here. This is war and it's ugly.

Yes some if not most of the press was very pro-war, but that was only because at the time there were no dead soldiers for them to spin their agenda with. At this time Americans are very unrealistic as far as what the expectation of casualties were going to be in the invasion. In general most Americans are showing off their very short memory. Pre-war conservative casualties rates were any where from 10k to 15k for the coalition. Honestly I'm not surprised you and some others are typing the things you are typing. Most Americans only remember what they are spoon fed at 7 PM on their fav news show.

Oliver...


I find it funny that you keep on referring to the press as "liberal." Of all the media outlets, the one that is furthest from the center is the extremely right-wing FOX News, which is probably what you watch.

As for the Patriot Act, it hasn't affected me, but it can at any time. The truth is that it shouldn't be law since it violates civil rights. Either the whole thing needs to go or a lot of it needs to be changed.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 10:20 AM
I find it funny that you keep on referring to the press as "liberal." Of all the media outlets, the one that is furthest from the center is the extremely right-wing FOX News, which is probably what you watch.

As for the Patriot Act, it hasn't affected me, but it can at any time. The truth is that it shouldn't be law since it violates civil rights. Either the whole thing needs to go or a lot of it needs to be changed.

Once again, I agree that there are elements which need to be adjusted. But the bottom line is that Congress can pass ANY law they want to. That's why the courts exist, so that if someone has a problem with that law they can make changes. Heck, there are PLENTY of laws which violate your civil rights that have been on the books for years. Every Blue Law is a violation of Church and State. But for the most part they go unchallenged because the people who are effected want those laws. Lastly...Civics lesson...who PASSED the Patriot Act? Who wrote it? Who approved it? Congress makes laws, not Presidents. And if John Kerry were President at the passing of Patriot, he would have signed it into law as well.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 10:25 AM
The law is suppost to protect our rights as well as our safety.

A right is garaunteed. It is not a priviledge. Those who are willing to give up their freedoms for safety are the unpatriotic ones. American soldiers risked or gave up their lives for our rights, not for us to give them up. That is why we disagree with some elements of the Patriot Act. Id rather turn off lights at night to conserve energy to help the war effort or something like that, but not to give up my rights garaunteed to me by the Constitution that so many have died for.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 10:50 AM
The law is suppost to protect our rights as well as our safety.

A right is <i>garaunteed</i>. It is not a priviledge. Those who are willing to give up their freedoms for safety are the unpatriotic ones. American soldiers risked or gave up their lives for our rights, not for us to give them up. That is why we disagree with some elements of the Patriot Act. Id rather turn off lights at night to conserve energy to help the war effort or something like that, but not to give up my rights garaunteed to me by the Constitution that so many have died for.

Ok...rather than throwing out kitche quotes, how about a fact or two? WHICH parts of the PAtriot Act do you feel violate your rights? Lets get specific, because JOhn Kerry has already said that he will support the vast majority of the Patriot Act. Heck HE voted for it in the first place. You complain it shouldn't have been passed? Talk to John Kerry then. Presidents don't vote for laws...they can only shoot them down once someone ELSE votes it in.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 12:36 PM
Ok...rather than throwing out kitche quotes, how about a fact or two? WHICH parts of the PAtriot Act do you feel violate your rights? Lets get specific, because JOhn Kerry has already said that he will support the vast majority of the Patriot Act. Heck HE voted for it in the first place. You complain it shouldn't have been passed? Talk to John Kerry then. Presidents don't vote for laws...they can only shoot them down once someone ELSE votes it in.

You act as if John Kerry is the liberal's savior..

I dont like the part of the Patriot Act where authorities can get a Search Warrant to search your house from secret courts.

I dont like the part of the Patriot Act where authorities can search anyone's library records. What if I wanted to check out a book on planes? Even if I try to explain my case that Im not a terrorist, no matter how innocent I am, they could still consider me a terrorist and a threat to national security. I could then be sent to Guantanamo Bay and have my rights completely taken away. The motive? It could be anything.

The Patriot Act shouldve been written up to help beef up security at airports and seaports and extend wiretaps to KNOWN terrorists and things like that, but not to make every citizen a possible terror suspect.

Look Im no politician(yet), so no I dont have all the answers or solutions but I do feel however that what we're doing right now is the wrong thing. There has to be a better way. There has to be a better way at combating terrorism here and abroad without having to give up certain rights. Just because a terror attack hasnt happened since, doesnt mean that we're a good job. It could mean the terrorists are just waiting it out. But there has to be a better way to prevent another attack, and this cant be it.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 01:21 PM
There will be tighter restrictions on search warrents. Both Republicans and Democrats have already discussed that. As for searching library records, I have no problem with that. If your name comes up as researching airplanes, explosives, and the structural integrity of large buildings, I would wan the government to look into it. If you think they're going to take you to Gitmo ONLY because of what you checked out at the library however, you need to up your medication. Now, if you looked into those books and you were a person with ties to organizations that were known to supprt terrorism, than I would CERTAINLY want the government to find out why you had that interest. In point of fact, that kind of information PROTECTS peoples rights. Without that information EVERY person who donated to a charity that allowed(even without the knowledge of those who have donated) some of those funds to be siphoned off to terrorists becomes a direct suspect. With more information the government can focus it's attention on those most LIKEY to be dangerous, rather than taking a shotgun apporoach. One last thing...a right to privacy is not the same thing as the right to annonymity. When the Constitution was framed, there was no concept that people could access the kind of information we have available without anyone being aware of it. Again, privacy ends at your front door and your physical person. If you conduct public searches at the library or online, that's public domain.




You act as if John Kerry is the liberal's savior..

I dont like the part of the Patriot Act where authorities can get a Search Warrant to search your house from secret courts.

I dont like the part of the Patriot Act where authorities can search anyone's library records. What if I wanted to check out a book on planes? Even if I try to explain my case that Im not a terrorist, no matter how innocent I am, they could still consider me a terrorist and a threat to national security. I could then be sent to Guantanamo Bay and have my rights completely taken away. The motive? It could be anything.

The Patriot Act shouldve been written up to help beef up security at airports and seaports and extend wiretaps to KNOWN terrorists and things like that, but not to make every citizen a possible terror suspect.

Look Im no politician(yet), so no I dont have all the answers or solutions but I do feel however that what we're doing right now is the wrong thing. There has to be a better way. There has to be a better way at combating terrorism here and abroad without having to give up certain rights. Just because a terror attack hasnt happened since, doesnt mean that we're a good job. It could mean the terrorists are just waiting it out. But there has to be a better way to prevent another attack, and this cant be it.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 01:49 PM
There will be tighter restrictions on search warrents. Both Republicans and Democrats have already discussed that. As for searching library records, I have no problem with that. If your name comes up as researching airplanes, explosives, and the structural integrity of large buildings, I would wan the government to look into it. If you think they're going to take you to Gitmo ONLY because of what you checked out at the library however, you need to up your medication. Now, if you looked into those books and you were a person with ties to organizations that were known to supprt terrorism, than I would CERTAINLY want the government to find out why you had that interest. In point of fact, that kind of information PROTECTS peoples rights. Without that information EVERY person who donated to a charity that allowed(even without the knowledge of those who have donated) some of those funds to be siphoned off to terrorists becomes a direct suspect. With more information the government can focus it's attention on those most LIKEY to be dangerous, rather than taking a shotgun apporoach. One last thing...a right to privacy is not the same thing as the right to annonymity. When the Constitution was framed, there was no concept that people could access the kind of information we have available without anyone being aware of it. Again, privacy ends at your front door and your physical person. If you conduct public searches at the library or online, that's public domain.

Thats why I said that I dont mind the government going after KNOWN terrorists or if you have ties to terrorist organizations but the way the Patriot Act is worded makes it sound like they can go after anyone for any reason in the name of national security. Its modern day McCarthyism.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 01:50 PM
Also, if privacy really did stop your front door and your physical person, why do we have laws against drug usage, prostitution, and gambling?

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:17 PM
Also, if privacy really did stop your front door and your physical person, why do we have laws against drug usage, prostitution, and gambling?

We shouldn't. But the majority decided that those civil rights were worth giving up for their personal sense of morality and there you go. But notice...there are no federal laws against prostitution. Nor are there any against gambling. Even with drugs, it's the trafficing that is Federal, not the use. Those laws are State actions.

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 02:18 PM
Thats why I said that I dont mind the government going after KNOWN terrorists or if you have ties to terrorist organizations but the way the Patriot Act is worded makes it sound like they can go after anyone for any reason in the name of national security. Its modern day McCarthyism.

Well that's the slippery slope. But until the law is abused, it will stand because nobody will have cause to challenge it.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:24 PM
Well that's the slippery slope. But until the law is abused, it will stand because nobody will have cause to challenge it.


The problem is, no one will be able to.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:31 PM
Have you read the Patriot Act? It is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:35 PM
Have you read the Patriot Act? It is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes.

I have actually, some of it. Probably though like most laws it contridicts itself in some parts.

Its not that its a bad law or anything for the most part, its just some of it is either unnessasary or unconstitutional.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:35 PM
Also, if privacy really did stop your front door and your physical person, why do we have laws against drug usage, prostitution, and gambling?

Are you saying that what you do in private, behind closed doors, is your own business?

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:36 PM
The USPA was written to protect you - not hurt you!

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:37 PM
Are you saying that what you do in private, behind closed doors, is your own business?

If you arent harming anyone else then yes. What you do in your own home to your own body(when youre an adult) is your business and no one else's.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:38 PM
The USPA was written to protect you - not hurt you!

Thats what we all thought until some of us actually took a look at it and realized how much power was given to authority who have been notorious for abusing their power. What will stop them now?

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:39 PM
But I think John Kerry needs to step up and speak out more against USPA and be more specific about what he wants to remove from it instead of just attacking the act itself and leaving out the details of what exactly he wants to do with it.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:42 PM
If you arent harming anyone else then yes. What you do in your own home to your own body(when youre an adult) is your business and no one else's.

So if you are sitting in your own home, looking at Child Pornography or Hacking into different Government computer Sites - that is okay?

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:49 PM
So if you are sitting in your own home, looking at Child Pornography or Hacking into different computer Government Sites - that is okay?

1. Obviously if youre at home looking at Child Pornography you need help, but how did that person get access to Child Porn? Obviously the person who made the Child Porn should be the criminal not the one looking. The one looking needs psychological help, the one who took the pictures or whatever is a criminal who needs to be brought to justice since he has done some harm(psychological) to the child or children.

2. You are doing harm to national security if you are hacking into different computer Government sites.

I did say "If you arent harming anyone else then yes":
Government=anyone
Children being used for Child Porn=anyone

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 02:51 PM
..so therefore with the child porn thing, you dont solve the problem by arresting the ones who are looking, you should arrest the ones who actually made the porn. That way, you wont have any Child Porn for someone whos mentally ill to look at.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:56 PM
If you are doing something that is illegal, sure - you are probably opposed to the USPA.

If you are not - then don't sweat it! You have nothing to worry about!

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 02:58 PM
..so therefore with the child porn thing, you dont solve the problem by arresting the ones who are looking, you should arrest the ones who actually made the porn. That way, you wont have any Child Porn for someone whos mentally ill to look at.

Is it only those who are mentally ill that look at Child Porn?

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 03:02 PM
If you are doing something that is illegal, sure - you are probably opposed to the USPA.

If you are not - then don't sweat it! You have nothing to worry about!

Sometimes what you do thats illegal shouldnt be illegal in the first place.

But then again if youre not doing anything illegal, there's always a chance something could happen, thats why I try to keep my government checked. ;)

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 03:09 PM
Your post made me think of a quote from the Movie - With Honors. I have posted this before.

Simon Wilder: You asked a question, sir. Let me answer it. The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed. The genius of the constitution is that it makes no permanent rule other than its faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.

Mr. Picannon: The faith in the wisdom of ordinary people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.

Simon: Crude? No, sir. Our founding parents were pompous middle-aged white farmers, but they were also great men, because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. They didn't think of themselves as leaders. They wasted a government of citizens, not royalty. A government of listeners, not lecturers. A government that could change not stand still. The president isn't an elected king, no matter how many bombs he can drop, because the crude Constitution doesn't trust him. He's a servant of the people. He's a bum. Ok, Mr. Picannon? He's just a bum. The only bliss that he's searching for is freedom and justice.

iceblizzard69
06-01-2004, 03:49 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

What I do in my home should be my own business in almost all circumstances. I do think that looking at child porn or plotting a terrorist attack should be illegal. However, there shouldn't be many limitations on what you do at home. If I want to get high at my home, I should be allowed to. I don't want the government in my bed or anything either. There are some things that should obviously be illegal and should not be allowed behind closed doors, but the government has too many laws that prevent us from doing things at our own homes that we should be allowed to do.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 03:51 PM
Is it only those who are mentally ill that look at Child Porn?

If you are attracted to naked children then you obviously have something wrong with you.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 03:52 PM
Your post made me think of a quote from the Movie - With Honors. I have posted this before.

Simon Wilder: You asked a question, sir. Let me answer it. The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed. The genius of the constitution is that it makes no permanent rule other than its faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.

Mr. Picannon: The faith in the wisdom of ordinary people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.

Simon: Crude? No, sir. Our founding parents were pompous middle-aged white farmers, but they were also great men, because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. They didn't think of themselves as leaders. They wasted a government of citizens, not royalty. A government of listeners, not lecturers. A government that could change not stand still. The president isn't an elected king, no matter how many bombs he can drop, because the crude Constitution doesn't trust him. He's a servant of the people. He's a bum. Ok, Mr. Picannon? He's just a bum. The only bliss that he's searching for is freedom and justice.

I agree with Simon :cool:

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 03:53 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

What I do in my home should be my own business in almost all circumstances. I do think that looking at child porn or plotting a terrorist attack should be illegal. However, there shouldn't be many limitations on what you do at home. If I want to get high at my home, I should be allowed to. I don't want the government in my bed or anything either. There are some things that should obviously be illegal and should not be allowed behind closed doors, but the government has too many laws that prevent us from doing things at our own homes that we should be allowed to do.

:allhail:

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 03:53 PM
If you are attracted to naked children then you obviously have something wrong with you.

Agree that something is wrong, but you do not agree that all of them are mental.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 03:55 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

What I do in my home should be my own business in almost all circumstances. I do think that looking at child porn or plotting a terrorist attack should be illegal. However, there shouldn't be many limitations on what you do at home. If I want to get high at my home, I should be allowed to. I don't want the government in my bed or anything either. There are some things that should obviously be illegal and should not be allowed behind closed doors, but the government has too many laws that prevent us from doing things at our own homes that we should be allowed to do.

Last time I checked, you were free to leave this great country if you were not happy!

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 04:06 PM
Agree that something is wrong, but you do not agree that all of them are mental.

Well something has to be wrong with them. And something should be done. But I dont think making them criminals is going to help. Maybe treatment of some sort. But thats a separate issue.

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 04:19 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

What I do in my home should be my own business in almost all circumstances. I do think that looking at child porn or plotting a terrorist attack should be illegal. However, there shouldn't be many limitations on what you do at home. If I want to get high at my home, I should be allowed to. I don't want the government in my bed or anything either. There are some things that should obviously be illegal and should not be allowed behind closed doors, but the government has too many laws that prevent us from doing things at our own homes that we should be allowed to do.

The average American Citizens has more luxuries and opportunities than 95 percent of the rest of the world.

- You have the freedom to do just about anything that you want – as long as it is not illegal.
- You can get an education – with the Governments Assistance
- You can get a job or not – the Government will support you if can’t do it on your own.
- You can start a your own business – with the Governments Assistance
- You can buy a house – with the Governments Assistance

If you are unhappy in this GREAT COUNTRY – pack up your gear and MOVE.

You have no idea how good you have it!

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 04:30 PM
The average American Citizens has more luxuries and opportunities than 95 percent of the rest of the world.

- You have the freedom to do just about anything that you want – as long as it is not illegal.
- You can get an education – with the Governments Assistance
- You can get a job or not – the Government will support you if can’t do it on your own.
- You can start a your own business – with the Governments Assistance
- You can buy a house – with the Governments Assistance

If you are unhappy in this GREAT COUNTRY – pack up your gear and MOVE.

You have no idea how good you have it!

I ask you sir, what is wrong with us having new ideas that could make our great country better? After all, that is what liberalism is all about!

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 04:54 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

What I do in my home should be my own business in almost all circumstances. I do think that looking at child porn or plotting a terrorist attack should be illegal. However, there shouldn't be many limitations on what you do at home. If I want to get high at my home, I should be allowed to. I don't want the government in my bed or anything either. There are some things that should obviously be illegal and should not be allowed behind closed doors, but the government has too many laws that prevent us from doing things at our own homes that we should be allowed to do.

I agree with you, but what does that have to do with the PAtriot Act? If the cops obtained a warrent to dearch based on suspected terrorist activities they'd have to show what those suspected activities were in order to use the eveidence of OTHER illegal activity found in your house. I also agree that Patriot COULD be abused, but so could a LOT of laws. Heck, the right to a search warrent itself can be abused with VERY little effort

PhinPhan1227
06-01-2004, 04:55 PM
Well something has to be wrong with them. And something should be done. But I dont think making them criminals is going to help. Maybe treatment of some sort. But thats a separate issue.

If you support a criminal activity, you are just as responsible as the person who committed the crime. If I pay to see child porn, I'm as guilty as the person holding the camera.

iceblizzard69
06-01-2004, 05:15 PM
The average American Citizens has more luxuries and opportunities than 95 percent of the rest of the world.

- You have the freedom to do just about anything that you want – as long as it is not illegal.
- You can get an education – with the Governments Assistance
- You can get a job or not – the Government will support you if can’t do it on your own.
- You can start a your own business – with the Governments Assistance
- You can buy a house – with the Governments Assistance

If you are unhappy in this GREAT COUNTRY – pack up your gear and MOVE.

You have no idea how good you have it!


You're funny. I say that there are some dumb laws, and you post this. I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else but this place isn't perfect. There are some stupid laws that need to go. Just because I don't like everything that the government does doesn't mean that I am anti-American and that I should leave. One of the reasons why this country is great is because I can speak out against the laws we have.

DolFan31
06-01-2004, 05:24 PM
You're funny. I say that there are some dumb laws, and you post this. I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else but this place isn't perfect. There are some stupid laws that need to go. Just because I don't like everything that the government does doesn't mean that I am anti-American and that I should leave. One of the reasons why this country is great is because I can speak out against the laws we have.

:yes:

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 07:32 PM
You're funny. I say that there are some dumb laws, and you post this. I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else but this place isn't perfect. There are some stupid laws that need to go. Just because I don't like everything that the government does doesn't mean that I am anti-American and that I should leave. One of the reasons why this country is great is because I can speak out against the laws we have.

But you NEVER have anything positive to say. After you graduate fro HS, will you look to the US Government for Financial Aid to attend a University of your Choice?

ohall
06-01-2004, 08:41 PM
I find it funny that you keep on referring to the press as "liberal." Of all the media outlets, the one that is furthest from the center is the extremely right-wing FOX News, which is probably what you watch.

As for the Patriot Act, it hasn't affected me, but it can at any time. The truth is that it shouldn't be law since it violates civil rights. Either the whole thing needs to go or a lot of it needs to be changed.

I mainly watch MSNBC during the day for background noise. I do watch a few shows on FNC from time to time. Hannity and Colmes and rarely the Big Story I believe is the name with John Gibson. I like him from his days on MSNBC.

Then I watch Hardball and Scarborough Country on MSNBC as far as news shows on MSNBC. I do my very best to stay away from CNN. As far as I'm concerned all they do is spew lies and are basically anti-American.

If the patriot act is going to effect you I have no problem with that. Odds are it would mean you are associating yourself with the wrong types of ppl. And I don't care if that means you are going to do bad or not. Basically IMO if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
06-01-2004, 10:20 PM
I mainly watch MSNBC during the day for background noise. I do watch a few shows on FNC from time to time. Hannity and Colmes and rarely the Big Story I believe is the name with John Gibson. I like him from his days on MSNBC.

Then I watch Hardball and Scarborough Country on MSNBC as far as news shows on MSNBC. I do my very best to stay away from CNN. As far as I'm concerned all they do is spew lies and are basically anti-American.

If the patriot act is going to effect you I have no problem with that. Odds are it would mean you are associating yourself with the wrong types of ppl. And I don't care if that means you are going to do bad or not. Basically IMO if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about.

Oliver...


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

iceblizzard69
06-01-2004, 11:08 PM
But you NEVER have anything positive to say. After you graduate fro HS, will you look to the US Government for Financial Aid to attend a University of your Choice?

I'm going to apply for financial aid for college. What's your point exactly?

There are positive aspects of this country and of this government. I just mentioned a positive, which is that we can speak out against the laws of this country. However, I'm not just going to sit here and praise everything the current administration has done, because there are a lot of things they have done that I disagree with. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean that I don't love this country and that I don't want to live here.


I mainly watch MSNBC during the day for background noise. I do watch a few shows on FNC from time to time. Hannity and Colmes and rarely the Big Story I believe is the name with John Gibson. I like him from his days on MSNBC.

Then I watch Hardball and Scarborough Country on MSNBC as far as news shows on MSNBC. I do my very best to stay away from CNN. As far as I'm concerned all they do is spew lies and are basically anti-American.

If the patriot act is going to effect you I have no problem with that. Odds are it would mean you are associating yourself with the wrong types of ppl. And I don't care if that means you are going to do bad or not. Basically IMO if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about.

Oliver...

It is very unlikely that the Patriot Act would actually effect me. I don't associate myself with terrorists or support terrorists. However, it is still scary, and it could still effect anyone in this country. It is very flawed IMO.

BigFinFan
06-02-2004, 12:50 PM
It's disgusting that it is called the Patriot Act. What's so Patriotic about it? They should change the name to the Violation of Civil Rights Act, because that is a better description of what it is.

It is not called the Patriot Act because it is "Patriotic".

USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 01:12 PM
It is not called the Patriot Act because it is "Patriotic".

USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

Karl Rove came up with that acronym:

"How do we come up with a bill that violates civil rights without it looking unpatriotic? Oh I got it, lets come up with an acronym for PATRIOT and call the bill the PATRIOT act! Not only that, lets add USA and make that an acronym too! Be careful how you word the acronyms though. Make it sound like its a bill that fights terrorism, not a bill that stripes everyone else of their right to privacy. We cant let them find out, we gotta label this bill so no one will notice"

Ashcroft: "A bill that violates civil rights but is labeled correctly so no one will notice what were really doing? Brilliant!"
:jk:

iceblizzard69
06-02-2004, 01:12 PM
It is not called the Patriot Act because it is "Patriotic".

USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

Thanks for the info. I didn't know it was an acronym.

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 01:47 PM
Karl Rove came up with that acronym:

"How do we come up with a bill that violates civil rights without it looking unpatriotic? Oh I got it, lets come up with an acronym for PATRIOT and call the bill the PATRIOT act! Not only that, lets add USA and make that an acronym too! Be careful how you word the acronyms though. Make it sound like its a bill that fights terrorism, not a bill that stripes everyone else of their right to privacy. We cant let them find out, we gotta label this bill so no one will notice"

Ashcroft: "A bill that violates civil rights but is labeled correctly so no one will notice what were really doing? Brilliant!"
:jk:


pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

I'd say that the stated purpose of the Patriot Act is dead on with the definition.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 01:56 PM
pa·tri·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

I'd say that the stated purpose of the Patriot Act is dead on with the definition.

How can you love and support your country when you make a law that violates the right to privacy? Aren't conservatives the ones who preach privacy?

PhinPhan1227
06-02-2004, 02:12 PM
How can you love and support your country when you make a law that violates the right to privacy? Aren't conservatives the ones who preach privacy?

I don't think it violates privacy...it just violates annonymity, which is NOT guarranteed under the law. Further, privacy itself is not an absolute. Privacy is violated all the time, so long as "due process" is followed. Due process is still present under Patriot, just a slightly different process. And the definition of due process has changed throughout this countries history. As for Conservatives preaching privacy I think you have that backwards. The Pat Robertsons of the world want to get into every Americans bedroom and tell them what to do, meanwhile they probably have the Gimp sitting in a box in their basement. It's the Liberals who always scream privacy unless they are talking about jumping into peoples pockets...then privacy goes out the window.

BigFinFan
06-02-2004, 03:17 PM
Like I said earlier - don't do anything illegal and you don't have anything to worry about.

DolFan31
06-02-2004, 03:33 PM
I don't think it violates privacy...it just violates annonymity, which is NOT guarranteed under the law. Further, privacy itself is not an absolute. Privacy is violated all the time, so long as "due process" is followed. Due process is still present under Patriot, just a slightly different process. And the definition of due process has changed throughout this countries history. As for Conservatives preaching privacy I think you have that backwards. The Pat Robertsons of the world want to get into every Americans bedroom and tell them what to do, meanwhile they probably have the Gimp sitting in a box in their basement. It's the Liberals who always scream privacy unless they are talking about jumping into peoples pockets...then privacy goes out the window.

Liberals: V-Chip. So much for privacy(if you think the V-Chip is used for things other than customizing what your kids watch on TV).

Both sides contridict themselves. :shakeno:

ohall
06-02-2004, 05:45 PM
How can you love and support your country when you make a law that violates the right to privacy? Aren't conservatives the ones who preach privacy?

UGH, because it will serve to keep us safe from terrorist. What's wrong with you ppl? If you are not hanging around or aiding terrorist in this country relax you will not be bothered one bit. If you are be afraid, be very afraid!

Stop being so darn paranoid.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
06-02-2004, 05:55 PM
UGH, because it will serve to keep us safe from terrorist. What's wrong with you ppl? If you are not hanging around or aiding terrorist in this country relax you will not be bothered one bit. If you are be afraid, be very afraid!

Stop being so darn paranoid.

Oliver...

The paranoia has set in due to all of the drug usage.

paul13
06-10-2004, 03:51 AM
My main problem with Kerry is that he has know opinion of his own . Kerry’s opinion changes to what ever he thinks will get him elected . I don’t know about you but I want a president with ball’s not one who can’t make his own mind one day after another.

G.W.BUSH FOR 2004

Clumpy
06-10-2004, 04:05 AM
Sorry, I do not do the Texas Goose-Step


JOHN KERRY

Fin_Fanatic
06-10-2004, 04:45 AM
GW in a heart beat..... I refuse to vote for a man that will make the US look like spain or even worse, france:fire:

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2004, 10:03 AM
Sorry, I do not do the Texas Goose-Step


JOHN KERRY

Lol...you'd rather do the Worcester Waffle? :lol:

BigFinFan
06-10-2004, 11:27 AM
Clumpy - I thought you were a Veteran!

ohall
06-10-2004, 12:12 PM
Sorry, I do not do the Texas Goose-Step


JOHN KERRY

LoL a not so subtle Nazi comment directed at Bush. You are obviously out of your mind!

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-10-2004, 01:13 PM
Clumpy - I thought you were a Veteran!

So? A veteran voting for another veteran, instead of a veternal voting for someone who was AWOL.

ohall
06-10-2004, 01:31 PM
So? A veteran voting for another veteran, instead of a veternal voting for someone who was AWOL.

No one was AWOL. Statements like that only reveal the place some of you are coming from. Have a lil class will you.

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-10-2004, 02:06 PM
No one was AWOL. Statements like that only reveal the place some of you are coming from. Have a lil class will you.

Oliver...

Where do I come from?

BigFinFan
06-10-2004, 02:11 PM
That was not my point.

Normally, Active Duty Military members tend to vote for the Republican Candidate due to the fact that they generally take care of the Military. Democrats usually tend to screw all Military over.

We (the Military) are currently paid 10.9% less than our civilian counterparts. A Democrat in office would only increase the Pay Gap. The Militaries best bet for due compenstation is to elect a Republican.

iceblizzard69
06-10-2004, 02:28 PM
But wasn't Bush the one who cut healthcare benefits for veterans?

iceblizzard69
06-10-2004, 02:31 PM
So? A veteran voting for another veteran, instead of a veternal voting for someone who was AWOL.

You can't be AWOL from the National Guard. Bush had his father put him in the National Guard so that he could avoid war and then Bush decided not to show up for some meetings or something.

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2004, 03:08 PM
But wasn't Bush the one who cut healthcare benefits for veterans?

What President hasn't cut benefits for veterans? On the flip side of that coin however, Bush has pushed for pay increases across the board for service members.

BigFinFan
06-10-2004, 03:32 PM
President Ronald Reagan was HUGE in the eyes of the Military!

DolFan31
06-10-2004, 05:42 PM
What President hasn't cut benefits for veterans? On the flip side of that coin however, Bush has pushed for pay increases across the board for service members.

Does that make it right? :confused:

ohall
06-10-2004, 05:57 PM
Where do I come from?

From a position of ignorance. That is not meant to be a personal slam however when someone implies our current President was ever AWOL without a doubt is ignorant.

I recomend you go and learn how the national guard works, and then try and spin that AWOL junk.

Oliver...

ohall
06-10-2004, 06:00 PM
But wasn't Bush the one who cut healthcare benefits for veterans?

Simply not true. The biggest load on VET benefits are WW2 soldiers who are dying at an alarming rate, obviously due to their advanced age. There were 16 million after the war, and I believe just 2 years ago there were 8 or 9 million still alive. Currently the estimate is around 4 million WW2 vets alive. If you use logic it's easy to understand why VET's as a group would require less of a budget to take care of their needs.

Further what Bush did was cut the old estimated growth of the VET program. VET spending even with less VET's needing care has still gone up I beleive 5%.

Oliver...

ohall
06-10-2004, 06:03 PM
You can't be AWOL from the National Guard. Bush had his father put him in the National Guard so that he could avoid war and then Bush decided not to show up for some meetings or something.

Prove that please. Bush could have been in the war just as easily as he wasn't. There were several NG AF units activated. Bush nor his father decided what type of plane Bush would fly in the NG nor did his father decide which types of planes would be activated for the war. If he was really looking to dodge any chance of going to war he simply could have pulled a Clinton and traveled the world as a student or become a military media person like Gore did.

Honestly where do some of you get this stuff, is there an e-mail that someone sends around with poor lazy INFO to be spread for ignorant ppl to just swallow?

Oliver...

ohall
06-10-2004, 06:04 PM
Does that make it right? :confused:

Yes it is right and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oliver...

paul13
06-10-2004, 06:07 PM
Listen people every president makes his mistakes. Having Kerry in office would be a even bigger mistake by the people of this country.

Fin_Fanatic
06-10-2004, 07:03 PM
Honestly where do some of you get this stuff, is there an e-mail that someone sends around with poor lazy INFO to be spread for ignorant ppl to just swallow?

Oliver...
The answer to that one is yes..... my politic teacher tried to run the same BS in my class. luckily a couple of us actually new our stuff

Silent Hippy
06-10-2004, 10:45 PM
Kerry.


Bush had his chance, and he screwed this country up completely.he screwed up other countries 2, like our allience with Spain, and hes destroyin the middle east, instead of helping it, like he said hed do.

ohall
06-10-2004, 10:56 PM
he screwed up other countries 2, like our allience with Spain, and hes destroyin the middle east, instead of helping it, like he said hed do.

Spain, you mean the country that's national flag has a man on it with his hands over his head? What would this country be without Spain? Spain, give me a break! Last time I checked the national sport here is not bull fighting. Although I have to say I'd love to have a 2 hour lunch break myself.

Yeah goodness knows the Middle East was all hunky doory dandy before Reagan!

Where do some of you come up with this stuff? Is there a web site or something? www.liberalliesandlogicsorrythatmustbeacontridiction.com

Oliver...

Fin_Fanatic
06-11-2004, 01:36 AM
he screwed up other countries 2, like our allience with Spain, and hes destroyin the middle east, instead of helping it, like he said hed do.
france, germany, spain, and russia...... boy we better look out!! they have been living off of our donations for years now. i say dont give them a penny more, see how anti-US they are then

Clumpy
06-11-2004, 01:36 AM
Clumpy - I thought you were a Veteran!


Being a veteran does not interfere with my common sense.

Also, Kerry is a veteran, most of the Neo-Cons are NOT!

Kerry in '04

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:38 AM
I posted the picture because BigFinFan posted a picture of John Kerry with a clown. I didn't know it was fake. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if it was real because as we all know, Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I bet that John Kerry's IQ is a lot higher than George Bush's.

I bet john Kerry is alot richer than bush too. I bet that the next wife he marrys will be richer than the one he has now. Ill bet that his IQ that he has right now will change in a couple of weeks once we find the truth. Ill bet John Kerry is well invested in OIL.

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:40 AM
Being a veteran does not interfere with my common sense.

Also, Kerry is a veteran, most of the Neo-Cons are NOT!

Kerry in '04


Why is Neo Cons such a dirty word? :roflmao: I dont give a damn if your a veteran, i am a veteran, so what? I give a damn if you got a pair and know that you walk softly and carry a big stick and shove it up the azz of the guy who is killing innocent people at will. Go on Offense! and score at will till the enemy says, i cant take it anymore!

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:45 AM
Kerry is dead meat. you will see. These polls dont mean a thing right now. Ronald Reagans passing just showed the liberal media how full of crap they really are. Bush has some ideas coming, i wouldnt give the dems the light of day on it but he is waiting for the right moment. Kerry is defucnt of anything but slanderous threats and uninspiring speach. Kerry would lead us to disaster cus he would not act as his own person like R Reagan or Bush. He would do whatever his party directed him to do. Why? cus he is not a leader, he is a guy who faked his third purple heart from a scratch on his arm to get recocnized for personal political gain.

The_Philster
06-11-2004, 06:09 AM
Bush has some ideas coming,.
Yeah...like that it was Iraq and not Osama's terrorist forces that attacked us on 9-11 :shakeno:

Clumpy
06-11-2004, 06:53 AM
Kerry is dead meat. you will see. These polls dont mean a thing right now. Ronald Reagans passing just showed the liberal media how full of crap they really are. Bush has some ideas coming, i wouldnt give the dems the light of day on it but he is waiting for the right moment. Kerry is defucnt of anything but slanderous threats and uninspiring speach. Kerry would lead us to disaster cus he would not act as his own person like R Reagan or Bush. He would do whatever his party directed him to do. Why? cus he is not a leader, he is a guy who faked his third purple heart from a scratch on his arm to get recocnized for personal political gain.


Criticize a combat veteran? That's heresy :shakeno:

Bush is a puppet facist

iceblizzard69
06-11-2004, 09:16 AM
I bet john Kerry is alot richer than bush too. I bet that the next wife he marrys will be richer than the one he has now. Ill bet that his IQ that he has right now will change in a couple of weeks once we find the truth. Ill bet John Kerry is well invested in OIL.

Kerry and Bush are both rich. Almost every president has a lot of money when they are in the White House. This Kerryopoly crap is so hypocritical, the GOP is bashing Kerry for being rich even though their candidate is rich too!

And Kerry is a lot smarter then Bush. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Bush has very smart people in his cabinet, but Bush is no genius.

ohall
06-11-2004, 10:45 AM
Being a veteran does not interfere with my common sense.

Also, Kerry is a veteran, most of the Neo-Cons are NOT!

Kerry in '04

Yes but with Kerry he'd have you guys going into battle with a knife not the weapons American soldiers need. He's a DEM politician he can't help it, they all hate the military even if they were war heros at one time.

Oliver...

ohall
06-11-2004, 10:49 AM
Yeah...like that it was Iraq and not Osama's terrorist forces that attacked us on 9-11 :shakeno:

No one ever implied from this administration that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11. What common sense tells anyone is if a madman like Saddam was funding homicide bombings on Israel and housing and training al Qaeda forces in North Iraq it wouldn't be very long before the madman would give or sell some of his WMD to theose terrorist after 9/11.

Maybe you are comfortable with the mindset to only do something about terrorist that attack us one by one. I know I'm not. With that mindset we'd all be dead within a 50 years and our way of life would be gone even sooner.

Oliver...

ohall
06-11-2004, 10:55 AM
Kerry and Bush are both rich. Almost every president has a lot of money when they are in the White House. This Kerryopoly crap is so hypocritical, the GOP is bashing Kerry for being rich even though their candidate is rich too!

And Kerry is a lot smarter then Bush. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Bush has very smart people in his cabinet, but Bush is no genius.

No you have that wrong. Bush and his ppl are firing back to the hypocrisy which is the DEM party and at this particular politician. He talks about knocking down the rich so the middle class and the poor will do better while he goes back each night to anyone of his 8 mansions. Is he actually going to give up his millions? I some how doubt that he will.

REP have no problem with the wealthy, because they know if there were less wealthy ppl in this country our country would not be as rich as it is right now and in turn we would not be the world power that we are. I would think this would be common sense to everyone but I'm always surprised just how many ppl do not quite get that.

How can anyone say Kerry is smarter than Bush? Why because Kerry reads more LIBERAL news papers?

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
06-11-2004, 11:33 AM
No you have that wrong. Bush and his ppl are firing back to the hypocrisy which is the DEM party and at this particular politician. He talks about knocking down the rich so the middle class and the poor will do better while he goes back each night to anyone of his 8 mansions. Is he actually going to give up his millions? I some how doubt that he will.

REP have no problem with the wealthy, because they know if there were less wealthy ppl in this country our country would not be as rich as it is right now and in turn we would not be the world power that we are. I would think this would be common sense to everyone but I'm always surprised just how many ppl do not quite get that.

How can anyone say Kerry is smarter than Bush? Why because Kerry reads more LIBERAL news papers?

Oliver...

So rich politicians aren't allowed to do things that benefit the middle class? Just because Kerry is rich doesn't mean that he isn't allowed to do things that don't benefit the wealthy.

I don't have a problem with rich people. I don't even agree with Kerry's economic policies. However, I do think Kerryopoly is incredibly hypocritical since it mocks Kerry lifestyle even though Bush is very rich as well!

Bush is a moron. He surrounds himself with smart people but he isn't smart at all. Have you ever heard him give a speech?

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 12:50 PM
So rich politicians aren't allowed to do things that benefit the middle class? Just because Kerry is rich doesn't mean that he isn't allowed to do things that don't benefit the wealthy.

I don't have a problem with rich people. I don't even agree with Kerry's economic policies. However, I do think Kerryopoly is incredibly hypocritical since it mocks Kerry lifestyle even though Bush is very rich as well!

Bush is a moron. He surrounds himself with smart people but he isn't smart at all. Have you ever heard him give a speech?

I think that were the disconnect comes in is the fact that Kerry attacks Bush as only being concerned with the wealthy segment of the country...but Kerry himself doesn't hesitate to take advantage of the tax cuts which the President pushed forward. Kerry himself has recieved just as much of not more funding from the Special Interest groups. It's the hypocracy which bothers some people. Oh, and as for Bush being a moron surrounded by smart people...contrast that to Jimmy Carter. Carter is actually a VERY intelligent man...probably a genius. But he surrounded himself with weak men, and the result was one of the most inneffective Presidents in this countries history.

Fin_Fanatic
06-11-2004, 01:47 PM
Yeah...like that it was Iraq and not Osama's terrorist forces that attacked us on 9-11 :shakeno:

i must have missed the press conference where he revealed that little tidbit. anyways back to REALITY!! you think that just because we are fighting a war in iraq that we have given up on finding osama bin laden. would you be happier if we broadcast every time we made an intelligence discovery on where he might be so he can scurry down another hole and hide? for some reason people think our govt cant do multiple things at the same time.

ohall
06-11-2004, 01:51 PM
So rich politicians aren't allowed to do things that benefit the middle class? Just because Kerry is rich doesn't mean that he isn't allowed to do things that don't benefit the wealthy.

I don't have a problem with rich people. I don't even agree with Kerry's economic policies. However, I do think Kerryopoly is incredibly hypocritical since it mocks Kerry lifestyle even though Bush is very rich as well!

Bush is a moron. He surrounds himself with smart people but he isn't smart at all. Have you ever heard him give a speech?

:) I never said any such thing. I said Kerry and many many DEM's are hypocrites. They talk so badly about the rich and at the end of the day they return home to one of their many mansions.

Yes Bush is a moron, what else would you think? Only a moron could beat Gore and come November destroy the flip flopper named Kerry. Americans may have a very short memory, but they do not like flip flopping hypocritical politicians like Kerry.

Yes I just heard Bush give a wonderful speech, one in which I just spent the last hour hearing the ELITE LIBERAL media praising him for how well spoken he was during that speech. Bush is a wonderful public speaker. Your low expectation is why Bush won the last election and why he will win this election.

Oliver...

Silent Hippy
06-11-2004, 02:34 PM
Spain, you mean the country that's national flag has a man on it with his hands over his head? What would this country be without Spain? Spain, give me a break! Last time I checked the national sport here is not bull fighting. Although I have to say I'd love to have a 2 hour lunch break myself.

Yeah goodness knows the Middle East was all hunky doory dandy before Reagan!

Where do some of you come up with this stuff? Is there a web site or something? www.liberalliesandlogicsorrythatmustbeacontridiction.com (http://www.liberalliesandlogicsorrythatmustbeacontridiction.com/)

Oliver...well, if u screw an allience with one country then it could lead to other countries turning against us.
its a domino affect, you wise acre

Silent Hippy
06-11-2004, 02:35 PM
Being a veteran does not interfere with my common sense.

Also, Kerry is a veteran, most of the Neo-Cons are NOT!

Kerry in '04agreed

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 02:53 PM
And now, Bush can't toot his horn any more about winning the war on terrorism. Reports this AM say that the bush admin "erred" in the figures before about how terrorist attacks a down while in fact the report said that "they are up sharply in both occurances and in the number of ppl killed". Thought some folks might like to know.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 02:53 PM
well, if u screw an allience with one country then it could lead to other countries turning against us.
its a domino affect, you wise acre

Kindly explain how we screwed Spain? We didn't bomb their trains, the terrorists did. What exactly did we do to screw them? Or is asking for their help in itself an asct of screwing them? If that's the case, why have allies, if we can never ask for their help?

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 02:58 PM
agreed

Kerry volunteered for duty in Viet Nam, specifically for the Swift Boats and his second choice was PBRs. Not only did Bush Not volunteer for duty in Viet Nam, but he specifically listed that he did not volunteer for overseas duty.
Bush is big on tooting his horn about being a wartime prez. THAT is pretty damn hypocritical, IMO.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 03:49 PM
Kerry volunteered for duty in Viet Nam, specifically for the Swift Boats and his second choice was PBRs. Not only did Bush Not volunteer for duty in Viet Nam, but he specifically listed that he did not volunteer for overseas duty.
Bush is big on tooting his horn about being a wartime prez. THAT is pretty damn hypocritical, IMO.


How much time did FDR spend in the military?

DeDolfan
06-11-2004, 04:06 PM
How much time did FDR spend in the military?

I figured you would at least come back with something better than that, 27. Others I ain't too sure about tho !! :D

22 Rules!
06-11-2004, 04:11 PM
Sigh...I love those who have no concept of economics. I could see knocking Bush if you disagree with Iraq, but Bush has done nothing but good things domestically.

Why we went to Iraq was wrong and I disagree about Bush's domestic policy, that is what I have a big issue with. You can't give a tax cut to a select few and then spend like crazy. Future generations will be paying for this administration. I don't care who is in office, but it can't be these guys.

ohall
06-11-2004, 05:14 PM
well, if u screw an allience with one country then it could lead to other countries turning against us.
its a domino affect, you wise acre

I think Spain screwed things up just as the French, German, and Russians' did. If the President screwed something up I could see your point, but that is simply not how it went. This President spent almost a year before going into Iraq cow tailing to those UN nations. Let's be honest here, those countries are now being revealed for what they truely are. Especially France, was making Billions of dollars off of innocent Iraqi women and children by bleeding $ from the UN oil for food program. They did what they did for pesonal and selfish gain.

France and in a lessor way Spain is tired of living in America's shadow and is doing everything it can to bring this country down or at the very least below their shadow. If you think any other country puts America's interests over theirs you are more naive than the AVG DEM.

This is why I have so much respect for Blair, not so much the British ppl in general, because if it were up to them they'd still have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to terrorism. Blair simply could have played poloitcs and kept his base happy by doing what France and the other rouge nation sin the UN did. However if you ask yourself why would Blair do what he did if it has cost him so much in his country? Be honest with yourself when you answer that question, if you do I think you'll see just exactly who screwed up with in this situation.

Oliver...

The_Philster
06-11-2004, 05:15 PM
i must have missed the press conference where he revealed that little tidbit. anyways back to REALITY!! you think that just because we are fighting a war in iraq that we have given up on finding osama bin laden. would you be happier if we broadcast every time we made an intelligence discovery on where he might be so he can scurry down another hole and hide? for some reason people think our govt cant do multiple things at the same time.
It wasn't a press conference. President Bush was interviewed by Tom Brokaw Sunday evening and made the analogy that Pearl Harbor was to our entrance in WWII what 9-11 was to our war in Iraq...Saddam and Osama are supposedly foes...so that makes Bush even dumber than I thought.

ohall
06-11-2004, 05:18 PM
Kerry volunteered for duty in Viet Nam, specifically for the Swift Boats and his second choice was PBRs. Not only did Bush Not volunteer for duty in Viet Nam, but he specifically listed that he did not volunteer for overseas duty.
Bush is big on tooting his horn about being a wartime prez. THAT is pretty damn hypocritical, IMO.

Maybe if you realized what it means to be a war time President you would understand why that is not a hypocritical statement by this President. There have been many many American Presidents that never served in the military, but led this country proudly and competently during times of war.

I want to address your Bush slam and his choice in service. Well I guess he could have roamed Europe as an American student like Clinton did. Or he could have volunteered to be a military media person like Gore did. I'm always amazed how DEM's have such very short flawed memories when it comes to their own political party.

Oliver...

ohall
06-11-2004, 05:20 PM
Why we went to Iraq was wrong and I disagree about Bush's domestic policy, that is what I have a big issue with. You can't give a tax cut to a select few and then spend like crazy. Future generations will be paying for this administration. I don't care who is in office, but it can't be these guys.

Slecect few received tax cuts? You mean the select few that pay for the LARGE majority of all TAXES in this country? Sheesh what in the world was he thinking about?!

Oliver...

ohall
06-11-2004, 05:23 PM
It wasn't a press conference. President Bush was interviewed by Tom Brokaw Sunday evening and made the analogy that Pearl Harbor was to our entrance in WWII what 9-11 was to our war in Iraq...Saddam and Osama are supposedly foes...so that makes Bush even dumber than I thought.

Umm he is not the only person who has made that comparison, and there are many DEM's who have said the same thing, and IMO that is a very accurate statement by this President.

The only problem is Americans' today have a very short memory, shorter than ever before. Most Americans' have the attention span just long enough to pop their pop corn in the microwave while they sit down to watch their fav TV show each night. I fear only some will wake up once we are attacked again.

Oliver...

paul13
06-11-2004, 08:55 PM
It wasn't a press conference. President Bush was interviewed by Tom Brokaw Sunday evening and made the analogy that Pearl Harbor was to our entrance in WWII what 9-11 was to our war in Iraq...Saddam and Osama are supposedly foes...so that makes Bush even dumber than I thought.
You have to be kidding me I don’t know why everybody assumes Bush is dum but I guess the liberals have nothing better else to do besides make fictional quotes.

The_Philster
06-11-2004, 09:17 PM
You have to be kidding me I don’t know why everybody assumes Bush is dum but I guess the liberals have nothing better else to do besides make fictional quotes.
:roflmao: First..I'm not a liberal.....I'm a moderate who got sick of the way the neo-cons have ruined the Republican party.
Second, what fictional quote? Bush is the one who said it...but if you wanna live in denial of the truth (that he's a buffoon), that's your business.

paul13
06-11-2004, 09:40 PM
Give me a brake the people who call Bush dum have no sense, they only call Bush dum because they can’t find anything real to criticize about his presidency.

iceblizzard69
06-11-2004, 09:58 PM
Give me a brake the people who call Bush dum have no sense, they only call Bush dum because they can’t find anything real to criticize about his presidency.

I hope you're joking. I would think that most of the people who plan on voting for him in November don't believe that he has made absolutely no mistakes.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 10:23 PM
Why we went to Iraq was wrong and I disagree about Bush's domestic policy, that is what I have a big issue with. You can't give a tax cut to a select few and then spend like crazy. Future generations will be paying for this administration. I don't care who is in office, but it can't be these guys.


Um...sparky? Everyone that pays taxes got a tax cut...if you don't make enough to pay taxes...you don't have any taxes to cut...it's REALLY simple logic.

PhinPhan1227
06-11-2004, 10:25 PM
I figured you would at least come back with something better than that, 27. Others I ain't too sure about tho !! :D


Nice evasion of the question. Bottom line...the President who helmed this country through it's largest foreign war never volunteered for military service...but he did a pretty good job. Oh, and before you stick your foot in your mouth about polio...FDR didn't become symptomatic until he was well beyond the age where he could have enlisted and served. Bottom line, you don't have to serve to be an effective Commander in Chief.

paul13
06-11-2004, 11:01 PM
I hope you're joking. I would think that most of the people who plan on voting for him in November don't believe that he has made absolutely no mistakes.

Your putting words in my mouth I never said he didn’t make misstates. I said when people can’t find something to complain about Bush they just call him dum.

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 11:08 AM
Maybe if you realized what it means to be a war time President you would understand why that is not a hypocritical statement by this President. There have been many many American Presidents that never served in the military, but led this country proudly and competently during times of war.

I want to address your Bush slam and his choice in service. Well I guess he could have roamed Europe as an American student like Clinton did. Or he could have volunteered to be a military media person like Gore did. I'm always amazed how DEM's have such very short flawed memories when it comes to their own political party.

Oliver...

Clinton doesn't have anything to do with this. But since you brought it up, at least Clinton did have an education deferrment by being a rhodes scholar. Bush had a "legal defferment" as well by using influential "powers" to get into the NG. "Normal folks" were not usually affored that luxury but what pizzes off the dems so much about it is how he counters Kerry's war record. you see, Bush is campaigning more on the platform by bashing kerry INSTEAD of on his own merits. Granted, kerry takes his own shots as well and this is what makes politics of late so pitiful. But their memories wouldn't be flawed if you were a Dem now would it? But as i've said before, I'm not particulary fond of Kerry, personally, and now again, we're reduced down to picking the "lesser of the 2 evils" again.

DolFan31
06-12-2004, 11:28 AM
Clinton doesn't have anything to do with this. But since you brought it up, at least Clinton did have an education deferrment by being a rhodes scholar. Bush had a "legal defferment" as well by using influential "powers" to get into the NG. "Normal folks" were not usually affored that luxury but what pizzes off the dems so much about it is how he counters Kerry's war record. you see, Bush is campaigning more on the platform by bashing kerry INSTEAD of on his own merits. Granted, kerry takes his own shots as well and this is what makes politics of late so pitiful. But their memories wouldn't be flawed if you were a Dem now would it? But as i've said before, I'm not particulary fond of Kerry, personally, and now again, we're reduced down to picking the "lesser of the 2 evils" again.

:shakeno: Wouldnt have that problem if Kucinich was nominated.

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 11:32 AM
Nice evasion of the question. Bottom line...the President who helmed this country through it's largest foreign war never volunteered for military service...but he did a pretty good job. Oh, and before you stick your foot in your mouth about polio...FDR didn't become symptomatic until he was well beyond the age where he could have enlisted and served. Bottom line, you don't have to serve to be an effective Commander in Chief.

But was FDR of "drafting age" during a war? Did FDR specifically evade a draft by any means? "Bottom line", i never said you HAD to serve to be effective. What I have said tho is that I have a problem with a commander in chief that went WAAAAAAAAAAY out of his way to avoid fighting in a war tho.

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 11:33 AM
:shakeno: Wouldnt have that problem if Kucinich was nominated.

I would have loved Kuchy [OR Edwards].

ohall
06-12-2004, 11:50 AM
Clinton doesn't have anything to do with this. But since you brought it up, at least Clinton did have an education deferrment by being a rhodes scholar. Bush had a "legal defferment" as well by using influential "powers" to get into the NG. "Normal folks" were not usually affored that luxury but what pizzes off the dems so much about it is how he counters Kerry's war record. you see, Bush is campaigning more on the platform by bashing kerry INSTEAD of on his own merits. Granted, kerry takes his own shots as well and this is what makes politics of late so pitiful. But their memories wouldn't be flawed if you were a Dem now would it? But as i've said before, I'm not particulary fond of Kerry, personally, and now again, we're reduced down to picking the "lesser of the 2 evils" again.

You make a ton of assertions in there. Care to prove any of it with some proof. What strings did Bush Sr. pull to get his son in the NA? Again please show us the proof.

Clinton and Gore have everything to do with it. Clinton was a President that never served in the military and when he sent our military to war I didn't hear one DEM talk about how he had not served and how he had no business sending our military into harms way because he had not served. Gore didn't serve as a soldier, he was in the military media, yet when he was running I didn't hear any DEM's say he was not qualified to be President because of that when he was running for President in 2000.

Hypocrisy my friend it's something most DEM's know well. If I wasn't fond of a canidate I know I wouldn't defend them. To each their own I guess.

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-12-2004, 11:52 AM
I would have loved Kuchy [OR Edwards].

Even Dean wouldve been better.

DeDolfan
06-12-2004, 12:09 PM
You make a ton of assertions in there. Care to prove any of it with some proof. What strings did Bush Sr. pull to get his son in the NA? Again please show us the proof.

Clinton and Gore have everything to do with it. Clinton was a President that never served in the military and when he sent our military to war I didn't hear one DEM talk about how he had not served and how he had no business sending our military into harms way because he had not served. Gore didn't serve as a soldier, he was in the military media, yet when he was running I didn't hear any DEM's say he was not qualified to be President because of that when he was running for President in 2000.

Hypocrisy my friend it's something most DEM's know well. If I wasn't fond of a canidate I know I wouldn't defend them. To each their own I guess.

Oliver...
Are you trying to say that the fact that Bush sR was a congressman [or whatever] at the time had absolutely nothing with Ws entering the NG?? Com'on, be honest with yourself.

Again, Clinton/Gore has nothing to do with the Bush/kerry debate. But actually, I think it was the Dems that brought up mitary service first. Maybe wrong, but it doesn't really matter. But since it was brought up, I would much rather be serving in the militery under a prez that was in and even volunteered for war duty rather than for one that wnt out of his way to avoid it. in this particular case [Bush/Kerry], it's different since one went and the other didn't. Bush went to war himself. Whether ot not he "volunteered" or not doesn't matter, but one thing for certain, he didn't avoid it and served. But it wasn't an issue much when he was running that i recall.

ohall
06-12-2004, 10:47 PM
Are you trying to say that the fact that Bush sR was a congressman [or whatever] at the time had absolutely nothing with Ws entering the NG?? Com'on, be honest with yourself.

Again, Clinton/Gore has nothing to do with the Bush/kerry debate. But actually, I think it was the Dems that brought up mitary service first. Maybe wrong, but it doesn't really matter. But since it was brought up, I would much rather be serving in the militery under a prez that was in and even volunteered for war duty rather than for one that wnt out of his way to avoid it. in this particular case [Bush/Kerry], it's different since one went and the other didn't. Bush went to war himself. Whether ot not he "volunteered" or not doesn't matter, but one thing for certain, he didn't avoid it and served. But it wasn't an issue much when he was running that i recall.

Yes I would side on believing Bush SR had no influence and at worst very lil to do with where JR went to serve. Seeing as how SR was a war hero I don't see him giving his son a free ride in that department. I could be wrong, but I have no evidence to imply that I am wrong about that. If you want to jump too huge conclusions based on nothing of consequence more power to DD.

I don't think it matters one bit either way if a President has served in the military or not. I think there are positives to both serving and not serving that would help a President in making a decision to use our military. It has never been a deciding factor for me whether I am pro or con on a particular canidate. However when it comes to Kerry I think he is a person with no backbone and that type of behavior has been on display since after the Vietnam war. The man comes home from war and throws away his ribbons/medals and when the years pass by after failing to be elected as a anti-war canidate he decides he is going to figuratively pick them back up because it serves to gain him favor as a pro-war political canidate. IMO the man has all the right to throw away those ribbons/medlas, but he doesn't have the right to pick them back up once they have been thrown away. As far as I'm concerned the man would sell his soul to become President, and I don't want such a weak minded person with his finger on the button so to speak. The man scares me.

My main point is DEM's only care about military experience for a President when their canidate has it and the REP one doesn't. You know what I mean?

Oliver...

DeDolfan
06-13-2004, 12:10 PM
Yes I would side on believing Bush SR had no influence and at worst very lil to do with where JR went to serve. Seeing as how SR was a war hero I don't see him giving his son a free ride in that department. I could be wrong, but I have no evidence to imply that I am wrong about that. If you want to jump too huge conclusions based on nothing of consequence more power to DD.

I don't think it matters one bit either way if a President has served in the military or not. I think there are positives to both serving and not serving that would help a President in making a decision to use our military. It has never been a deciding factor for me whether I am pro or con on a particular canidate. However when it comes to Kerry I think he is a person with no backbone and that type of behavior has been on display since after the Vietnam war. The man comes home from war and throws away his ribbons/medals and when the years pass by after failing to be elected as a anti-war canidate he decides he is going to figuratively pick them back up because it serves to gain him favor as a pro-war political canidate. IMO the man has all the right to throw away those ribbons/medlas, but he doesn't have the right to pick them back up once they have been thrown away. As far as I'm concerned the man would sell his soul to become President, and I don't want such a weak minded person with his finger on the button so to speak. The man scares me.

My main point is DEM's only care about military experience for a President when their canidate has it and the REP one doesn't. You know what I mean?

Oliver...

All I'm saying is that BECAUSE Bush Sr was a congressman, that alone often is enough of an advantage. I'm not saying that he actually made a few calls. so to speak, to have W admitted into the NG, but just because he was in that position is usually enough. But however it was that he was able to join the NG, I don't really care since usually, those billets [for normal everyday folks] were typically reserved for the guys coming off active duty and finishing out their enlistment requirements. It is also not that I think a prez SHOULD be a war veteran to qualify for the office. Normally, it's not much of an issue and like I said, it was probably the Dems that started this part anyway, and it's not that often a war vety is running against a non-vet, etc. What I am saying tho is that since it is an issue at the moment, I think it should carry some weight into consideration particularly since one volunteered for war duty while the other did not. Ever hear of someone's boss telling his guys that he wouldn't ask anyone to do something that he wouldn't [haven't done] do himself? it's kinda the same thing that knowing their was a choice, IMO, the militery just may find it easier to swallow following guys like that perhaps. I know the Reps like to shoot all kind of holes in that POV as possible, but if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd/you'd agree. But like I said, it should carry some weight, not a sole or total qualification for office anyway. But other things matter also and even his own party is growing tired of him. Check out this AMs Washington Post or would that be just another "liberal meadia source" spinning logis all around? ;)

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 12:44 PM
But was FDR of "drafting age" during a war? Did FDR specifically evade a draft by any means? "Bottom line", i never said you HAD to serve to be effective. What I have said tho is that I have a problem with a commander in chief that went WAAAAAAAAAAY out of his way to avoid fighting in a war tho.

Lol...so you have no problem with not volunteering, you just have a problem with serving in a capacity other than actual draft status? Pardon me, but the bottom line is the same...your butt is not being shot at, and someones elses is.

DeDolfan
06-13-2004, 01:25 PM
Lol...so you have no problem with not volunteering, you just have a problem with serving in a capacity other than actual draft status? Pardon me, but the bottom line is the same...your butt is not being shot at, and someones elses is.

I know MY butt's not being shot at. Not today anyway but was in the past tho. What I'm saying is that when we are at war, it is a call to duty. So, in this particular issue, I side with the one who answered that call instead of the one who didn't. Is it that difficult to understand? I don't "require" you to agree with it but only to understand it. but instead, the Reps keep insisting on bringing Clinton back into it and now FDR. Neither of which has one thing to do with this issue ABOUT Bush/Kerry.

themole
06-13-2004, 03:31 PM
Very Very Interesting
>
> Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
> burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This
> is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
>
> This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
> been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in
> 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
>
> Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
> actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
> explanation and provided no data for this claim.
>
> Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
> men. Bush ow! ns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4
> mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho
> is an
> old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
>
> Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
> sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has
> figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
>
> You might want to pass this on. Roughly 150 days until the election.

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 07:05 PM
I know MY butt's not being shot at. Not today anyway but was in the past tho. What I'm saying is that when we are at war, it is a call to duty. So, in this particular issue, I side with the one who answered that call instead of the one who didn't. Is it that difficult to understand? I don't "require" you to agree with it but only to understand it. but instead, the Reps keep insisting on bringing Clinton back into it and now FDR. Neither of which has one thing to do with this issue ABOUT Bush/Kerry.


WHY do they have nothing to do with it? Christ, does hypocracy mean nothing anymore? When Clinton ran against Bush, and again when he ran against Dole, ALL you heard was that Clinton running away from the draft meant nothing as it regarded his capacity as Commander in Chief...WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME? Facts and arguments don't just go away because 10 years have gone by. If those arguments were accurate then, they are accurate now. If they were bull$hit then...they are bull$hit now, because the people who MADE them then were apparently talking out their a$$es. Lastly...I didn't mean YOUR butt...I meant FDR's. Bottom line, as someone who did serve in the military as an NCO, my expectation of my CIC was that he used us well...if he had a distinguished military record...great, if not...quite honestly, it's what he was going to do as President that mattered...not what he did as a 21 year old kid.

iceblizzard69
06-13-2004, 08:37 PM
Very Very Interesting
>
> Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
> burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This
> is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
>
> This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
> been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in
> 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
>
> Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
> actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
> explanation and provided no data for this claim.
>
> Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
> men. Bush ow! ns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4
> mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho
> is an
> old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
>
> Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
> sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has
> figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
>
> You might want to pass this on. Roughly 150 days until the election.

Kerry paid less because he made less. Duh. :rolleyes2

Also, it doesn't matter how rich Kerry is. Bush and Kerry are both rich. Bashing one of them for being rich is stupid because they both are. You are never going to find a Presidential candidate from a major party who has the bank account of an average American.

themole
06-13-2004, 09:49 PM
You are never going to find a Presidential candidate from a major party who has the bank account of an average American.[/QUOTE]



A real newsbreak here!
:goof:

themole
06-13-2004, 10:06 PM
WHY do they have nothing to do with it? Christ, does hypocracy mean nothing anymore? When Clinton ran against Bush, and again when he ran against Dole, ALL you heard was that Clinton running away from the draft meant nothing as it regarded his capacity as Commander in Chief...WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME? Facts and arguments don't just go away because 10 years have gone by. If those arguments were accurate then, they are accurate now. If they were bull$hit then...they are bull$hit now, because the people who MADE them then were apparently talking out their a$$es. Lastly...I didn't mean YOUR butt...I meant FDR's. Bottom line, as someone who did serve in the military as an NCO, my expectation of my CIC was that he used us well...if he had a distinguished military record...great, if not...quite honestly, it's what he was going to do as President that mattered...not what he did as a 21 year old kid.

And since when is joining a national guard unit or reserve unit evading ones military obligation anyway? Now...hiding behind a Rhodes Scholarship in Oxford England...treason.....perhaps?

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 10:09 PM
Kerry paid less because he made less. Duh. :rolleyes2

Also, it doesn't matter how rich Kerry is. Bush and Kerry are both rich. Bashing one of them for being rich is stupid because they both are. You are never going to find a Presidential candidate from a major party who has the bank account of an average American.


Actually, if you read the post you will see that Bush did not make more than Kerry. And given who Kerry is married to, the only WAY Bush could have made more is if he dumpedMrs Bush and married Bill Gates (oh the irony THAT would produce)

PhinPhan1227
06-13-2004, 10:12 PM
And since when is joining a national guard unit or reserve unit evading ones military obligation anyway? Now...hiding behind a Rhodes Scholarship in Oxford England...treason.....perhaps?


To be fair, I have no doubt that Bush had no intentions of serving any time in a combat situation when he joined the Guard. Of course, the flip side to that is that Kerry's actions during the time demonstrate a well calculated effort to build a war record that would look good on paper. GrandPa Joe Kennedy's fingerprints are all over it.

themole
06-14-2004, 07:00 AM
To be fair, I have no doubt that Bush had no intentions of serving any time in a combat situation when he joined the Guard. Of course, the flip side to that is that Kerry's actions during the time demonstrate a well calculated effort to build a war record that would look good on paper. GrandPa Joe Kennedy's fingerprints are all over it.

Of course he didn't 1227, but he was available if needed. I know of reserve units that were called up during the late 60s early 70s. The point is they didn't run, they put themselves in the best situation they could.

DeDolfan
06-14-2004, 02:16 PM
WHY do they have nothing to do with it? Christ, does hypocracy mean nothing anymore? When Clinton ran against Bush, and again when he ran against Dole, ALL you heard was that Clinton running away from the draft meant nothing as it regarded his capacity as Commander in Chief...WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME? Facts and arguments don't just go away because 10 years have gone by. If those arguments were accurate then, they are accurate now. If they were bull$hit then...they are bull$hit now, because the people who MADE them then were apparently talking out their a$$es. Lastly...I didn't mean YOUR butt...I meant FDR's. Bottom line, as someone who did serve in the military as an NCO, my expectation of my CIC was that he used us well...if he had a distinguished military record...great, if not...quite honestly, it's what he was going to do as President that mattered...not what he did as a 21 year old kid.

The reason why i say "they" don't have anything to do with it is because we are debating bush/kerry. Not Clinton/FDR. That's another thing all together.

DeDolfan
06-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Of course he didn't 1227, but he was available if needed. I know of reserve units that were called up during the late 60s early 70s. The point is they didn't run, they put themselves in the best situation they could.


No, he didn't run. Let's just say heas was "hiding?" !! :D

BigFinFan
06-14-2004, 02:36 PM
No, he didn't run. Let's just say heas was "hiding?" !! :D

Was he hiding because he wasn't on the Front Line?

PhinPhan1227
06-14-2004, 02:44 PM
The reason why i say "they" don't have anything to do with it is because we are debating bush/kerry. Not Clinton/FDR. That's another thing all together.


But that's ignoring the big picture...and it's also a big reason why I'm coming to hate the Democratic Party. They expect people tp be idiots and ignore the fact that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. If it is an issue now, WHY wasn't it an issue then? If it wasn't an issue then, WHY is it an issue now? If you want a parallel...

Imagine George Bush jumping on Clinton because Clinton smoked pot. Clinton responds with..."Jesus George, you had a freaking drinking problem", Geroge comes back with..."that's not the point...we're talking about YOU". It's hypocricy, and it drives me NUTS!

All the rest of that aside, there's one point about Bush and Kerry's military careers that DOES sway me...Bush's fellow avaitors don't remember him...nothing good, nothing bad. Kerry's fellow sailors DO remember him...and the vast majority seem like they wouldn't swerve of the way if Kerry was crossing the street. The best measure of a leader is the respect hs men hold for him...and Kerry doesn't have that.

BigFinFan
06-14-2004, 02:59 PM
You learn more from a bad leader than you do from a good leader.

Mr. Kerry could teach all fo us something - I am sure!

Section126
06-14-2004, 04:44 PM
Meanwhile.....Kerry is campaigning today on Jobs......in New Jersey.......the State that is Second beghind Florida in Job Creation......

Kerry is clueless.

PhinPhan1227
06-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Meanwhile.....Kerry is campaigning today on Jobs......in New Jersey.......the State that is Second beghind Florida in Job Creation......

Kerry is clueless.


Actually he's campaigning AGAINST jobs...no...wait...what did the poll say people wanted me to talk about? :evil:

BigFinFan
06-14-2004, 04:52 PM
4 More Years

DolFan31
06-14-2004, 07:13 PM
4 More Years

:shakeno: of war, joblessness, worldwide anti-americanism, lies, record deficits, further destruction of the environment,and other far-right wing ideology driven policies, then I say here-here! Hail to the Theif! Four More Years!

ohall
06-14-2004, 08:16 PM
:shakeno: of war, joblessness, worldwide anti-americanism, lies, record deficits, further destruction of the environment,and other far-right wing ideology driven policies, then I say here-here! Hail to the Theif! Four More Years!

Look man, seriously are you trying to come off as ignorant?

You do know that before Bush #43 was in office there was war on the face of the Earth. Even the DEM's demi-God Clinton waged war on countries without the UN's approval. It's true, don't take my word for it, do a lil homework for yourself. Exercise those fingers.

This economy is booming at a I believe 25-year high, that includes the 8-years Clinton was President. If you are comfortable changing the driver mid-stream more power to you. For me I want the guy that led a turn around that never should have happened if the critics had their way. This country was in serious trouble after 9/11 as far as the economy and what Bush and this REP congress and senate have done to turn this country around in just 2.5 years is short of a miracle.

Those countries that you say hate us now, have hated us for decades since Buhs #43 came into office. They live on our shadow and once you understand that you'll understand why it is they hate us. If you think anti-War and anti-US Presidential protests are something new because of Bush #43 you are either too young to understand just how wrong you are, or you're Al Gore.

The enviroment is not one political parties responsibility, nor is it in the situation it is in now because the last 3.5 years of Bush #43. Stop lumping everything negative onto one person. The President is a powerful office, but if you want to place blame for the enviroment I suggest you start writing your local congress or senate person. They'll do more for your local enviroment than the President ever could, no matter what political party that President is a member of.

Thief? Please don't tell me you are implying Bush #43 is now a thief? My goodness, is there anything he is not to you short of the anti-Christ? Wait I'm sure he is that for you as well.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
06-14-2004, 08:19 PM
But that's ignoring the big picture...and it's also a big reason why I'm coming to hate the Democratic Party. They expect people tp be idiots and ignore the fact that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. If it is an issue now, WHY wasn't it an issue then? If it wasn't an issue then, WHY is it an issue now? If you want a parallel...

Imagine George Bush jumping on Clinton because Clinton smoked pot. Clinton responds with..."Jesus George, you had a freaking drinking problem", Geroge comes back with..."that's not the point...we're talking about YOU". It's hypocricy, and it drives me NUTS!

All the rest of that aside, there's one point about Bush and Kerry's military careers that DOES sway me...Bush's fellow avaitors don't remember him...nothing good, nothing bad. Kerry's fellow sailors DO remember him...and the vast majority seem like they wouldn't swerve of the way if Kerry was crossing the street. The best measure of a leader is the respect hs men hold for him...and Kerry doesn't have that.

I'm sure you already know this but the reason it's an issue now and not then and vice versa is simply because some idiot with basically nothing else to do simply made it one. Personally, the more a persone campaigns negatively, the more I dislike him. that goes for anyone in either party.

PhinPhan1227
06-15-2004, 02:25 AM
I'm sure you already know this but the reason it's an issue now and not then and vice versa is simply because some idiot with basically nothing else to do simply made it one. Personally, the more a persone campaigns negatively, the more I dislike him. that goes for anyone in either party.

In all fairness, while both sides are being negative, the Dems jumped on Bush's record first. It's actually groups that have been around for decades that jumped on Kerry's post Vietnam record. Heck, the POW/MIA organization has wanted his head for 30 years.

themole
06-15-2004, 12:42 PM
Look man, seriously are you trying to come off as ignorant?

You do know that before Bush #43 was in office there was war on the face of the Earth. Even the DEM's demi-God Clinton waged war on countries without the UN's approval. It's true, don't take my word for it, do a lil homework for yourself. Exercise those fingers.

This economy is booming at a I believe 25-year high, that includes the 8-years Clinton was President. If you are comfortable changing the driver mid-stream more power to you. For me I want the guy that led a turn around that never should have happened if the critics had their way. This country was in serious trouble after 9/11 as far as the economy and what Bush and this REP congress and senate have done to turn this country around in just 2.5 years is short of a miracle.

Those countries that you say hate us now, have hated us for decades since Buhs #43 came into office. They live on our shadow and once you understand that you'll understand why it is they hate us. If you think anti-War and anti-US Presidential protests are something new because of Bush #43 you are either too young to understand just how wrong you are, or you're Al Gore.

The enviroment is not one political parties responsibility, nor is it in the situation it is in now because the last 3.5 years of Bush #43. Stop lumping everything negative onto one person. The President is a powerful office, but if you want to place blame for the enviroment I suggest you start writing your local congress or senate person. They'll do more for your local enviroment than the President ever could, no matter what political party that President is a member of.

Thief? Please don't tell me you are implying Bush #43 is now a thief? My goodness, is there anything he is not to you short of the anti-Christ? Wait I'm sure he is that for you as well.

Oliver...


Actually....he's still a puppy. 18 yrs. :evil:

themole
06-15-2004, 12:44 PM
[QUOTE= Heck, the POW/MIA organization has wanted his head for 30 years.[/QUOTE]



And he is subject to give them some!!!!! :roflmao:

Pink_Dove
06-25-2004, 02:13 AM
From page 1 to 25 it's the same people repeating the same lines about the Patriot act, the war, the economy and jobs...
:eek: In other words it's the Pro-Bush Vs. Anti-Bush fight with Round 12 looking eerily similar to Round 1...Democrats Vs Republicans duking it out...
Intelligent arguments from intelligent and informed people..

P.S I applaud people like the Philster that look beyond their party affiliation, for it seems, that most, stick with the party they've been brought up with and will vote that way simply because they've always voted that way...

PhinPhan1227
06-25-2004, 11:14 AM
From page 1 to 25 it's the same people repeating the same lines about the Patriot act, the war, the economy and jobs...
:eek: In other words it's the Pro-Bush Vs. Anti-Bush fight with Round 12 looking eerily similar to Round 1...Democrats Vs Republicans duking it out...
Intelligent arguments from intelligent and informed people..

P.S I applaud people like the Philster that look beyond their party affiliation, for it seems, that most, stick with the party they've been brought up with and will vote that way simply because they've always voted that way...

I could give you a list of issues on which I side with the Democrates(abortion, gay marriage, decriminalization of drugs being the most notable), but I do tend to vote for Republicans at the national level. On the issues of foreign policy, national security, and taxation, I agree more with the GOP platform that the DNC. That being said, I would have voted for Joe Lieberman. A Conservative Democrat is actually pretty much in line with my beliefs. Concerning John Kerry however, I'd rather vote for my Cocker Spaniel.

ohall
06-25-2004, 12:09 PM
I could give you a list of issues on which I side with the Democrates(abortion, gay marriage, decriminalization of drugs being the most notable), but I do tend to vote for Republicans at the national level. On the issues of foreign policy, national security, and taxation, I agree more with the GOP platform that the DNC. That being said, I would have voted for Joe Lieberman. A Conservative Democrat is actually pretty much in line with my beliefs. Concerning John Kerry however, I'd rather vote for my Cocker Spaniel.

I think most REP's would side with 2 out of the 3 things you listed. I think the gay marriage issue however is a very polarizing issue at this time with most DEM's wanting gay marriage and most REP's not supporting that concept on religious grounds.

Further I think the REP party is more in the middle of the road than the DEM's at this point. The DEM's anti-war senitment pushes most of them far to the left of most Americans. If the DEM's want to get back to where they were with Clinton they need to start taking similar stances as he did. Which were without a doubt very middle of the road. His administration was the 1st to say Saddam had terrorist ties, specifically to al Qaeda, and they believed Saddam was just years away from having a viable nuclear program.

I hope most DEM out there understand the reality with the state of their political party and just how much of a 180 stance they are now taking when compared to just 1-year ago.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-25-2004, 12:50 PM
I think most REP's would side with 2 out of the 3 things you listed. I think the gay marriage issue however is a very polarizing issue at this time with most DEM's wanting gay marriage and most REP's not supporting that concept on religious grounds.

Further I think the REP party is more in the middle of the road than the DEM's at this point. The DEM's anti-war senitment pushes most of them far to the left of most Americans. If the DEM's want to get back to where they were with Clinton they need to start taking similar stances as he did. Which were without a doubt very middle of the road. His administration was the 1st to say Saddam had terrorist ties, specifically to al Qaeda, and they believed Saddam was just years away from having a viable nuclear program.

I hope most DEM out there understand the reality with the state of their political party and just how much of a 180 stance they are now taking when compared to just 1-year ago.

Oliver...

I'd say the vast majority of staunch Republicans aren't Pro Choice either. And there ARE Conservative Democrats as Joe Lieberman proves. Again, I'm a devoted Independant. I think Bush has screwed up in a lot of his methodology. That being said, John Kerry is FAR worse.

iceblizzard69
06-25-2004, 05:26 PM
I think most REP's would side with 2 out of the 3 things you listed. I think the gay marriage issue however is a very polarizing issue at this time with most DEM's wanting gay marriage and most REP's not supporting that concept on religious grounds.

Further I think the REP party is more in the middle of the road than the DEM's at this point. The DEM's anti-war senitment pushes most of them far to the left of most Americans. If the DEM's want to get back to where they were with Clinton they need to start taking similar stances as he did. Which were without a doubt very middle of the road. His administration was the 1st to say Saddam had terrorist ties, specifically to al Qaeda, and they believed Saddam was just years away from having a viable nuclear program.

I hope most DEM out there understand the reality with the state of their political party and just how much of a 180 stance they are now taking when compared to just 1-year ago.

Oliver...

How many elected Republicans have supported the decriminalization of drugs?

I do think that there are Republicans who are pro-choice, but in terms of Republicans who are elected, there are probably NONE who support decriminalization. Also, I doubt many elected Republicans if any at all that support making gay marriage legal.

I would not say that Democrats are further from the center than Republicans. There are a lot of Democrats who are far to the left, and many Republicans are far to the right. In this election, I think Kerry is a lot closer to the center than Bush.

DolFan31
06-25-2004, 06:02 PM
Actually, the DEM party is either far left, middle-left, or or center. The REP party is 90% far-right as of late. Its the religious right in control for the most part these days.

themole
06-25-2004, 06:15 PM
Actually, the DEM party is either far left, middle-left, or or center. The REP party is 90% far-right as of late. Its the religious right in control for the most part these days.


Who...is the religious right?

ohall
06-25-2004, 06:35 PM
How many elected Republicans have supported the decriminalization of drugs?

I do think that there are Republicans who are pro-choice, but in terms of Republicans who are elected, there are probably NONE who support decriminalization. Also, I doubt many elected Republicans if any at all that support making gay marriage legal.

I would not say that Democrats are further from the center than Republicans. There are a lot of Democrats who are far to the left, and many Republicans are far to the right. In this election, I think Kerry is a lot closer to the center than Bush.

The fact that the REP's gained so many congressional and governorships during the 2002 elections will tell you which party is walking the middle of the road compared to the other one.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-25-2004, 07:43 PM
Actually, the DEM party is either far left, middle-left, or or center. The REP party is 90% far-right as of late. Its the religious right in control for the most part these days.

I'd say that statement is no more true than Olivers. The ones who shout the loudest are always the extremists. The Left wing AND Right wing wacko's always get the most air time so those are the ones you hear. Honestly, neither party is any better than the other overall...but both have their strong points, and it's in those strong points that they deserve support.

The_Philster
06-25-2004, 09:22 PM
That being said, John Kerry is FAR worse.
What do you base that on? I don't have a lot of confidence in Kerry, but having Bush in office scares me.

ohall
06-25-2004, 09:49 PM
What do you base that on? I don't have a lot of confidence in Kerry, but having Bush in office scares me.

One man is sure and steady, the other flip flops on an almost daily basis. If that ain't scary when you're talking about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world I don't what would scare someone!

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
06-25-2004, 09:56 PM
I'd say that statement is no more true than Olivers. The ones who shout the loudest are always the extremists. The Left wing AND Right wing wacko's always get the most air time so those are the ones you hear. Honestly, neither party is any better than the other overall...but both have their strong points, and it's in those strong points that they deserve support.

I agree with that statement. Both sides do have extremists and one side doesn't clearly have more than the other. I do think that in this upcoming presidential election, the Democratic candidate is the one who is closer to the center.

iceblizzard69
06-25-2004, 09:58 PM
One man is sure and steady, the other flip flops on an almost daily basis. If that ain't scary when you're talking about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world I don't what would scare someone!

Oliver...

The one who is "sure and steady" is consistent in his far-right beliefs. I don't like Kerry but at this point I would rather see him in office, although if I could vote I wouldn't vote for either candidate.

PhinPhan1227
06-25-2004, 09:59 PM
What do you base that on? I don't have a lot of confidence in Kerry, but having Bush in office scares me.


First thing you learn in any military leadership course...

Best Case-Make the right decisions

Acceptable case-Make a bad decision

Worst case-Make NO decision

Bush makes bad decisions, but at least he makes decisions. With Kerry it's like having no President at all. The man hasn't made a single policy stand on anything but raising taxes, and he even backed off on that. Elect Kerry and this ship has no rudder.

PhinPhan1227
06-25-2004, 10:00 PM
The one who is "sure and steady" is consistent in his far-right beliefs. I don't like Kerry but at this point I would rather see him in office, although if I could vote I wouldn't vote for either candidate.


Actually, look at Bush's record as a Governor. VERY moderate, and VERY centrist. If he gets reelected and doesn't have to worry about the reelection bs you might see a very different leader.

ohall
06-25-2004, 10:57 PM
The one who is "sure and steady" is consistent in his far-right beliefs. I don't like Kerry but at this point I would rather see him in office, although if I could vote I wouldn't vote for either candidate.

Yeah he's so far right he and Kerry both agreed about the war and the reasons we went to war with Iraq.

And that's too bad if you could vote you should vote. Too many ppl have died for this country to give us that right.

Oliver...

DolFan31
06-25-2004, 10:58 PM
Actually, look at Bush's record as a Governor. VERY moderate, and VERY centrist. If he gets reelected and doesn't have to worry about the reelection bs you might see a very different leader.

So let's look at his record as Governor:

Under George W. Bush Jr., Texas was:
50th in spending for teachers' salaries
49th in spending on the environment
48th in per-capita funding for public health
47th in delivery of social services
42nd in child-support collections
41st in per-capita spending on public education and
5th in percentage of population living in poverty
1st in air and water pollution
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
1st in percentage of children without health insurance
1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)

What a great Governor he was! :roflmao:

DolFan31
06-25-2004, 11:02 PM
First thing you learn in any military leadership course...

Best Case-Make the right decisions

Acceptable case-Make a bad decision

Worst case-Make NO decision

Bush makes bad decisions, but at least he makes decisions. With Kerry it's like having no President at all. The man hasn't made a single policy stand on anything but raising taxes, and he even backed off on that. Elect Kerry and this ship has no rudder.

IMO thats a bit a unfair. Senators dont make decisions unless they write up a bill, they vote on decisions(bills) most of the time. The only decision they make then is to vote for or against laws, which is different from decision-making being president because as president you make direct decisions. And a bad decision, while better than no decision, is still a bad decision. So comparing Kerry to Bush presidentially, is like comparing Bush with regular voters like you and me.

God I hate trying to make sense lol

iceblizzard69
06-25-2004, 11:49 PM
Yeah he's so far right he and Kerry both agreed about the war and the reasons we went to war with Iraq.

And that's too bad if you could vote you should vote. Too many ppl have died for this country to give us that right.

Oliver...

I will vote when I can, but if I could vote in November, my vote wouldn't go to Bush or Kerry.

Just because Kerry agreed with Bush on one thing doesn't mean that Bush isn't far right.

PhinPhan1227
06-26-2004, 01:12 AM
So let's look at his record as Governor:

Under George W. Bush Jr., Texas was:
50th in spending for teachers' salaries
49th in spending on the environment
48th in per-capita funding for public health
47th in delivery of social services
42nd in child-support collections
41st in per-capita spending on public education and
5th in percentage of population living in poverty
1st in air and water pollution
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
1st in percentage of children without health insurance
1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)

What a great Governor he was! :roflmao:

Ok...remove the head from the rectum for a moment. Take a look at the same statistics for the two PREVIOUS Governors of Texas...both of whom were Democrats. Now take a look at what those figures were prior to Bush. Bush was actually an exceptional Governor for Texas...that's kind of why he has so much support here. Seriously man...that was ian gnorant post on your part.

DolFan31
06-26-2004, 12:50 PM
Ok...remove the head from the rectum for a moment. Take a look at the same statistics for the two PREVIOUS Governors of Texas...both of whom were Democrats. Now take a look at what those figures were prior to Bush. Bush was actually an exceptional Governor for Texas...that's kind of why he has so much support here. Seriously man...that was ian gnorant post on your part.

Ignorant because I posted the facts?

Actually from what I hear, Texas despises Bush.

KERRY IN '04!!

PhinPhan1227
06-26-2004, 04:37 PM
Ignorant because I posted the facts?

Actually from what I hear, Texas despises Bush.

KERRY IN '04!!


Ignorant because those "facts" are totally out of context. Again, look at what he was dealing with when he took office. Look at what the previous two DEMOCRAT Governors achieved. Unless you do that, than presenting those "facts" is IGNORANT. And I not only currently ive in Texas, I lived for 6 years in Texas. And whoever has been giving you information is obviously an idiot. Care to take a look at how strongly Bush won Texas during the Presidential election? You need to pick better sources of information man.

Dolfan73
06-26-2004, 04:44 PM
Anyone thinking of voting for Bush...please see fahrenheit 9/11...I'm not a Bush fan by no means but after seeing that movie...I'd rather chop my sac off than vote for Bush. Just My Opinion.

ohall
06-26-2004, 04:47 PM
Anyone thinking of voting for Bush...please see fahrenheit 9/11...I'm not a Bush fan by no means but after seeing that movie...I'd rather chop my sac off than vote for Bush. Just My Opinion.

So you actually think that movie is based on facts not lies?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-26-2004, 04:47 PM
Anyone thinking of voting for Bush...please see fahrenheit 9/11...I'm not a Bush fan by no means but after seeing that movie...I'd rather chop my sac off than vote for Bush. Just My Opinion.


Anyone who would determine their vote based on a Michael Moore movie has the same mental capacity as someone who would draft a player based on a Drew Rosenhause recomendation. In a nutshell...sheep would make fun of that individual...."He's an iiiiidiot...an iiiidiot I teeeeell you..." :lol:

ohall
06-26-2004, 04:49 PM
I will vote when I can, but if I could vote in November, my vote wouldn't go to Bush or Kerry.

Just because Kerry agreed with Bush on one thing doesn't mean that Bush isn't far right.

Who would you vote for?

And true, but it does prove how much of a flip flopper Kerry actually is though.

Oliver...

P4E
06-26-2004, 05:14 PM
Anyone thinking of voting for Bush...please see fahrenheit 9/11...I'm not a Bush fan by no means but after seeing that movie...I'd rather chop my sac off than vote for Bush. Just My Opinion.If your genetic make-up predisposes you to base your political sentiments and actions on a propaganda film by a clown like Moore, go ahead and chop. Please be sure to get the contents, too.:)

The_Philster
06-26-2004, 06:28 PM
One man is sure and steady, the other flip flops on an almost daily basis. If that ain't scary when you're talking about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world I don't what would scare someone!

Oliver...
I honestly have only seen snippets of his voting record but what I have seen makes that a bit of an exaggeration...there should be nothing wrong with a person changing his mind on issues from time to time.

Bush makes bad decisions, but at least he makes decisions. With Kerry it's like having no President at all. The man hasn't made a single policy stand on anything but raising taxes, and he even backed off on that. Elect Kerry and this ship has no rudder. When those bad decisions are making us a nation that used to be widely respected into a nation that seems to be feared and hated, I think I'd rather have the guy who isn't sending us to hell. JMO

ohall
06-26-2004, 06:32 PM
I honestly have only seen snippets of his voting record but what I have seen makes that a bit of an exaggeration...there should be nothing wrong with a person changing his mind on issues from time to time.
When those bad decisions are making us a nation that used to be widely respected into a nation that seems to be feared and hated, I think I'd rather have the guy who isn't sending us to hell. JMO

Tell me just how do you get away with voting for a war before you vote against a war?

Dude the guy is a flip flopper, and that will be his undoing. Americans may have very short memories, but they hate a fraud!

Oliver...