"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 10:56 am
Email: "Clyde Slick"

I didn't support him, I voted for him.

LOL!

I also voted for other candidates with vastly different positions.

Then you supported their positions. Did you agree with all of them?


I guess I just voted for 54 billion
before I voted against it!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com

Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter
than you.

You lose points for taking this long to figure this out. Strip away the
neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.

From: ScottW
Date: Wed, Feb 15 2006 6:41 pm
Email: "ScottW"

By supporting the candidate, you have supported their positions. ALL of
their positions.

It's a tautology: if you support a candidate, you support a candidate.
You do not get to pick and choose which of their positions you support.

Sure I do, and I tell them often when I don't agree with their
positions.

And here we go again. You need to look up 'support' and 'agree.' I am
not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that you agree with all of a
candidates positions.

Candidates (and their party) propose an agenda during an election. You
decide which candidate's agenda most closely matches yours and
presumably vote accordingly. You get some stuff in there that you don't
agree with. But you voted for that candidate's agenda, or election
promises. You do not get to vote in two candidates (#1 for the Supreme
Court, taxes, and military spending, #2 for opposition to ID, budget
priorities, and funding stem cell research). You voted in an agenda.
All of it.

Try this: vote for Dianne Feinstein and then tell her you want tax cuts
for upper income people, more defense spending, a reduction of civil
liberties, ID taught as science in schools, and so on. In other words,
take the gop platform and agenda and try to impose it on a Dem. How do
you think that you'd do?

Thats silly... thats like claiming if I buy an album then I must like
all the songs.

Not at all. What I've said is that by buying the album, you've
supported the artist and that entire album. You haven't supported the
artist (except for tracks 3, 8, and 11). You've supported the artist
and the album. Period. You may not agree with or like tracks 3, 8, and
11. You may think that those tracks are garbage. You may think that
they're the stupidest tracks that you've ever heard. But you've
supported the artist and the entire album nonetheless.

You can even write the artist and tell them that you think tracks 3, 8,
and 11 are stupid. But you still supported those tracks by buying the
album.

You do not have to agree with all of their positions,
but by supporting the candidate, you've supported their positions.

Not at all... I can lobby against their positions... I can petition against
their positions.

I never said that you couldn't. But you voted them in knowing their
agenda and their slant, including the parts that you disagree with.
Let's say for a moment that you aren't religious. Write bushie and tell
him that you disagree with his decidedly fundamentalist Christian slant
on life and how it effects his policy decisions like support of ID
being taught in public schools and public vouchers for religious
academies. Presume that you do not agree with those views (you may
agree with them, but for argument say that you don't). Think that will
do any good? But you supported him and these views by voting for him.

Sorry, but that's logically sound and valid. Therefore, it's true.

Its unrealistic, simplistic, myopic and absurd. Therefore it's false.

You're trying to argue against a tautology and trying to make a logical
argument.

Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
candidate." Show your work.

I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
but absolutely absurd.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
candidate." Show your work.

Prove this false: If you say stupid things, you're an idiot.


I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
but absolutely absurd.

One doesn't have to just vote and go home and sleep it off. You can make
an effort to further your agenda even when your candidate doesn't support
all of it.
Again... voting is always choosing the lesser of evils.

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, but for the sake of moving
forward... whats next?
We gonna debate the policies I felt were worthy of support vs those that I
had to surrender in choosing my guy? Of course there is always the
opponent, maybe I just don't like traitors.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Kc9Jf.83483$QW2.68084@dukeread08...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

Here. Prove this false: "If you support a candidate, then you support a
candidate." Show your work.

Prove this false: If you say stupid things, you're an idiot.


I'd argue that thinking that you're voting only for a person and not
the accompanying political platform, world view or agenda of that
person (even the parts that you disagree with) is not only simplistic,
but absolutely absurd.

One doesn't have to just vote and go home and sleep it off. You can make
an effort to further your agenda even when your candidate doesn't support
all of it.
Again... voting is always choosing the lesser of evils.

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, but for the sake of moving
forward... whats next?
We gonna debate the policies I felt were worthy of support vs those that I
had to surrender in choosing my guy? Of course there is always the
opponent, maybe I just don't like traitors.


When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office. You are not voting for or against any
particular positions, nor for or against that candidates positions, in toto.
You are simply voting for a particular person to hold a particular office.
The reasons for one's vote are private, and varied, and may, or may not
be primarily because of his positions, as individual positions or in tot.
One might vote for a candidate because he is thought to be a more competent
administrator, or better at constituent services, or because
the voter has some personal nefarious gain at stake, such as securing a
government contract.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...


. And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
in fighting terrorists.



who do you recommend, the ACLU?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

Clyde Slick said:

And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
in fighting terrorists.

who do you recommend, the ACLU?

I nominate Mossad.

Clyde Slick wrote:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office. You are not voting for or against any
particular positions, nor for or against that candidates positions, in toto.
You are simply voting for a particular person to hold a particular office.
The reasons for one's vote are private, and varied, and may, or may not
be primarily because of his positions, as individual positions or in tot.
One might vote for a candidate because he is thought to be a more competent
administrator, or better at constituent services, or because
the voter has some personal nefarious gain at stake, such as securing a
government contract.


Thats good, otherwise Dave would be sufferring with the great
conservative democrats of Tennessee. I need one in Ca.

http://metropulse.com/articles/2006/...ank_talk.shtml

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.


low unemployment, an expanding economy, low interest rates,
African Americans expanding inot the upper middle class,
a growth in successful African American businesses,
lack of terrorist attacks on home soil, oh, you mean those disasters.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

And I know that the military is not the right tool to use
in fighting terrorists.

who do you recommend, the ACLU?

I nominate Mossad.


We could never have one, The Democrats, ultra libs,
and the ACLU will see to that!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
positions.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

No, I've learned my lesson. I was wrong.

Scott and slick didn't vote for any of bushie's positions. They just
voted for him to occupy the White House.

I voted against the traitor.

If you ask them why they voted for bushie, they probably cannot tell
you why.

I just did... and have repeatedly... lesser of evils you know.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 8:55 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
positions.

What do bushie's positions matter? You (and slick) apparently vote only
for the man, not the positions on issues.

His crappy domestic (and I might add, foriegn) policy are not your
concern.

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

You're a democrat... you voted in democratic primaries.... by your own
logic the whole situation is your fault.

Well, if I hadn't been deployed fighting the Global 'War' on Terror I
might have voted in the primary. With the somewhat sketchy news that I
got, I might have voted for Wesley Clark.

During the 2000 Presidential election, I was a republican.

But I do understand that when I vote for candidates I am supporting
them, and that by supporting them I am supporting even those positions
that I disagree with.

Now you claim I have to accept responsibility for supporting Bush's
immigration policy because I voted for him. No... I don't... there
was no viable alternative.

I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
agree with them or not.

Or did you not understand his positions and religiosity prior to
voting?

You bought the album bushie recorded. You don't like some of the
tracks. Too bad. You supported the artist and his LP.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

No, I've learned my lesson. I was wrong.

Scott and slick didn't vote for any of bushie's positions. They just
voted for him to occupy the White House.


Yes I supported some of his positions, and opposed others.
But, I didn't vote for or against any particular positions.
I don't remember seeing any such refferenda on the ballot.



If you ask them why they voted for bushie, they probably cannot tell
you why. That would entail understanding his philosophy and his
positions. You don't vote for that. It must have been just that they
thought that he would look good in the Rose Garden.


One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror. Another reason was to
curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare state,
entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
millions of people who could otherwise do better. And another, to
allow for greater educational opportunities for poor minority students in
our
inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs. I also
voted for Bush to provide greater opportunities for
all Americans, and in particular African Americans to have a better
and more economically secure retirement, through voluntary options
of individual investments as an alternative to part of the social security
plan.
The current system is blatantly racist and severly penalizes African
Americans,
who collect much fewer proportional benefits than white people, due to
life expectancy, and the inability of social
security to return the retirees investment and profit to the next
generation.
Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for that person
to hold a specific public office.

The point of this subthread has been lost. Allow me to restate:
Responsibility for the disasters visited on this country by Dubya and his
crew are on the heads of you idiots who voted them into office.

Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
positions.



I voted more 'against' Kerry than 'for' Bush



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 8:55 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Actually... I blame the democrats for putting up a traitor and forcing
me to vote for Bush in spite of all his crappy domestic policy
positions.

What do bushie's positions matter? You (and slick) apparently vote only
for the man, not the positions on issues.

His crappy domestic (and I might add, foriegn) policy are not your
concern.

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.


I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
I put him in office to better protect our national security.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
I put him in office to better protect our national security.

So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
support, illegal roving wiretaps, huge deficits, two wars, rolling back
of civil liberties, and a whole lot more.

Thanks for your support!

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
agree with them or not.

What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
me) inaction, Kerry wins.

Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
us.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
I put him in office to better protect our national security.

So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
support,

I don't see Bush actually doing anything on that front beyond a few silly
comments.
That whole thing is a non-issue afaiac.

illegal roving wiretaps,

roving? anyway...I'm all for them.

huge deficits,

mildly annoying but not near so as the taxes.
I'd prefer some fiscal restraint but I don't want to raise taxes to
solve the deficit problem.
I think I read the feds had a record revenue year so clearly
low taxes aren't the problem.
Anyway, the deficit is nothing compared to entitlement debt.
Ask those Tennesse dems, Ford Jr.

two wars,

All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

rolling back
of civil liberties,

Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.
But I have seen a lot of people being seditious.
We're a bit too tolerant for my taste.

You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
Next time ask me, I can help you out.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:08 pm
Email: "ScottW"

What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
me) inaction, Kerry wins.

Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
us.

Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
didn't vote.

And with their support for Kerry, they, too, would have probably
supported policies that they did not agree with.

There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
Email: "ScottW"

You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
Next time ask me, I can help you out.

They're virtually all deplorable.

two wars,

All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.

One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.

republican propaganda.

Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare state,
entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
millions of people who could otherwise do better.

How does this hold people down, I wonder? Who are these millions? The
same millions shouldering the brunt of the tax decreases? How could
they otherwise do better?

And another, to allow for greater educational opportunities for poor minority students in
our inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs.

The new busing program, in other words. That was a Democratic idea and
didn't really work, by the way.

Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.

To take advantage of bushie's 'reform' you'd still need to make money.
One wonders why African-Americans are held down now through lower wages
and less opportunity, and how bushie is working to change that. By
removing Affirmative Action, perhaps?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:08 pm
Email: "ScottW"

What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just
like
me) inaction, Kerry wins.

Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because
of
us.

Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

Now I am confused. We can't bitch if we don't vote and we can't
bitch about the guy we voted for if he wins... so we only get to
bitch if we're like you, LOSERS

Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
didn't vote.

I think the margin of defeat was way less than the nonvoting block.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 10:09 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Or is it that you only put him in office to carry out the positions
that you agree with?

Gosh. I'm too stupid to keep your arguments straight.

I put him in office to keep Kerry out of office, for one.
I put him in office to better protect our national security.

So you supported your choice. You put him in office and also got ID
support, illegal roving wiretaps, huge deficits, two wars, rolling back
of civil liberties, and a whole lot more.

Thanks for your support!


No problem, Mr ex military man, haha,
well, the first war toppled the
Taliban and closed down a host of terrorist training camps
The second got rid of Saddam, who baltantly disobeyed
the surrender terms of his first war, and gae Iraqi's at least a chance
for self governance. The econmy is doing well, unemployment
is down, housing rpices are up, homeowners have built up
wealth through equity, the phone intercepts of forign
terrorists talking to people in the US is a GREAT thing,
yes, I'm very pleased, overall.

BTW, I don't really believe
your story about having been 21 years in the military
It doesn't fit with your general antiwar attitude, particulary
comments inferred about Afghanistan, furthermore, your
continuing cowardly anonimity lends zero
credence towards your unbelievable claims.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...


There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.


Yeah, that's why we don't support all of their positions.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
Email: "ScottW"

You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
Next time ask me, I can help you out.

They're virtually all deplorable.

two wars,

All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.


you ought to throw your medal over the White House
fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:16 pm
Email: "ScottW"

You needed to try harder to come up with his really deplorable positions.
Next time ask me, I can help you out.

They're virtually all deplorable.

two wars,

All for them... looking forward to number 3 except it
might be Hillary as CinC and she'll probably nuke 'em.

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.

That was a little flippant... got it from Dave.... but at some point
we will be going after Iraq if they don't change path.
I don't see there being much we can do about it besides
waste them. They already started the propaganda machine
funding resistance movements and talking about our
beef is not with the Iranian people.

This is a little more unnerving.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.ph...6-112450-8637r

I think they want to be in a position to take Taiwan without fear of the US
military.
I also think they want to be able to face down Japan over territorial
disputes that cover some undersea gas fields.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...


One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.

republican propaganda.

Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare
state,
entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
millions of people who could otherwise do better.

How does this hold people down, I wonder?

Welfare is debilitating and addictive.

ScottW

Nope, you just forfeited (IMO) any right to bitching about whatever you
end up with. The 40% or so that did not vote get whatever they get.

Now I am confused. We can't bitch if we don't vote and we can't
bitch about the guy we voted for if he wins... so we only get to
bitch if we're like you, LOSERS

No, you can bitch if you vote, even if your guy loses. If you don't
vote, you get whatever happens. That's obviously IMO. If someone
bitches about politics, my first question is, "Did you vote?" If they
say no, then I have no time to listen to their bitching, just as they
apparently did not have the time to vote.

You can bitch about the guy you voted for if he wins. I sure would be
if I were you.

Kerry won (in your scenario) for the exact same reason bushie won:
because people supported him by voting for him. Not because some people
didn't vote.

I think the margin of defeat was way less than the nonvoting block.

Oh, by far. But it wasn't non-votes that would have made him win. It
would have been the votes, of course.

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:48 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.

you ought to throw your medal over the White House
fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!

Because I don't look forward to opening up another war?

Hm. I was wrong about you. You're abso-****ing-lutely brilliant.

Why aren't you in the military right now, like the good little
chickenhawk that you are? You're so brave and ****.

While you're there, ask around and see how many soldiers who've seen it
really look forward to combat.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...


One reason is that I didn't want John Kerry to be President
was to prevent his capitulation on the War on Terror.

republican propaganda.

Democratic policy -
Remember the "Global Test"?



Another reason was to curb the Dem. propensity to expand the welfare
state,
entitlements and other such garbage that helps hold down
millions of people who could otherwise do better.

How does this hold people down, I wonder? Who are these millions? The
same millions shouldering the brunt of the tax decreases? How could
they otherwise do better?


They hold peole down via creating a pyschological
dependancy on government assistance vs individual effort.
AFDC has destroyed poor families and
created dependent communities in the inner cities.
Tax decreases don't have a "brunt".
Tax increases have a brunt. They have a
cost to income earners.


And another, to allow for greater educational opportunities for poor
minority students in
our inner cities, by instigating and expanding voucher programs.

The new busing program, in other words. That was a Democratic idea and
didn't really work, by the way.


IT wasn't tried. Democrats on the whole
vociferoulsy oppose them.


Social Security helps keep African Americans down in this society.

To take advantage of bushie's 'reform' you'd still need to make money.
One wonders why African-Americans are held down now through lower wages
and less opportunity, and how bushie is working to change that. By
removing Affirmative Action, perhaps?


No, Social Security is for wage earners. IT has a lousy
returm on the dollar. Even savings account
investment beats it by a country mile.


Your entire agenda is in the mold of
the ultra-lib.
You are not the kind of person who spends 21 yars in the military.
Come clean.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:47 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

There is no perfect candidate, remember? Think about it for chrissake.

Yeah, that's why we don't support all of their positions.

That clinches it: nob is smarter than you are.

I didn't think it was possible for nob to be smarter than anyone.

Your parents must be very proud.


You're the idiot.
Basically, your just making a silly little
semantic argument over the meaning of support.
Dave likes those kinds of arguments, go
bother him.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 11:48 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

I'm guessing that you've never served. Otherwise you wouldn't be
looking forward to it.

you ought to throw your medal over the White House
fence, and your military retitrement checks as well!

Because I don't look forward to opening up another war?


Because your entire agenda is only slightly
to the right of Cindy Sheehan.

The story of your military career is a charade.
A man of your strong antiwar feelings would have resigned, rather than
participated in the machinary of war.

Why are you hiding behind a veil of anonymity?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:08:42 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

I claim (correctly, I might add) that the people who voted him in, with
their vote supported him, and therefore with your support you get his
immigration policy whether or not you agree with it. So (and I know
that you'll never 'get it') you in fact supported bushie's immigration
policy. Just like you supported ID being taught in schools. Whether you
agree with them or not.

What if I looked at Bush and Kerry and didn't like either of them...so I
didn't vote. Then as a consequence of my (and the multi-millions just like
me) inaction, Kerry wins.

Are we Kerry supporters? We didn't vote for him but he still won because of
us.

Well, that's how President Bush got elected, just in reverse.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.

That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
know until it's too late.

Brilliant Dave.... thanks for proving that all this squealing about
impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
known until its too late.

ScottW

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 6:27 am
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Your entire agenda is in the mold of
the ultra-lib.
You are not the kind of person who spends 21 yars in the military.
Come clean.

Oh. You're one of those. If you served in the military, but don't
follow the conservative line, you must not have served honorably. Will
I be getting a call from the swift boat group now?

As I said, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else regarding my
military service.

Your 'logic,' however, and your inability to understand the English
language, tell me that you're not very smart. Come clean: you don't
have any higher education at all do you. And really I need no proof:
your posts serve that purpose.

On 17 Feb 2006 10:28:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.

That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
know until it's too late.

Brilliant Dave....

Why, thank you.

thanks for proving that all this squealing about
impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
known until its too late.

So, I guess your solution is just to ignore it. That's cool...for you.
For many people though, preventing a foregone conclusion is a far
better approach.

You sound sort of like Lord Chamberlain. After all, Hitler hadn't
invaded *anyone* when he made his famous "Peace in Our Time" speech.

dave weil wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 10:28:08 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:16:03 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Haven't noticed a single loss of civil liberty for me.

That's the great thing about losing civil liberty. You usually don't
know until it's too late.

Brilliant Dave....

Why, thank you.

thanks for proving that all this squealing about
impending loss of liberty is simple paranoia as real losses aren't
known until its too late.

So, I guess your solution is just to ignore it.

Do you want to analyze your paranoia or dissect your
fractured logic?

That's cool...for you.

Ok, your paranoia it is.
Yup, since I'm not a terrorist and don't talk to terrorists and really
don't care if some NSA computer scans my phone calls,
its cool for me.

For many people though, preventing a foregone conclusion is a far
better approach.

I agree.... so doing what it takes to keep 'em from blowing
us up is a good idea.


You sound sort of like Lord Chamberlain. After all, Hitler hadn't
invaded *anyone* when he made his famous "Peace in Our Time" speech.

Must be a Weilthing.

ScottW