This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack. Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be,

I have never claimed to be a conservative.

but simply a partisan hack. Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.


Nor am I a Republican. Never have been.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.

None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

Thanks for playing though.

None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

And do you believe the right don't lie or demonize Kerry? In fact, if memory
serves correct you called Clinton the 'anti-christ' on this very forum.

But of course, you have the moral higher ground since your party believes in
the Messiah unlike us godless heathens.

Bravo.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

And do you believe the right don't lie or demonize Kerry? In fact, if
memory
serves correct you called Clinton the 'anti-christ' on this very forum.

But of course, you have the moral higher ground since your party believes
in
the Messiah unlike us godless heathens.


Which Messiah?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

That doesn't explain your habit of initiating pro-Bush threads.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

And do you believe the right don't lie or demonize Kerry?

Of course they do. I just dislike the left more. If you had been paying
attention, you'd have noticed that I've referred people to spinsanity.com
and factcheck.org a few times. They both give unbiased critiques of both
cnadidates public statements. Check the threads entitled Debate Scorecard,
Final Debate Scorecard and The Next Day it's the Repblicans.

In fact, if memory
serves correct you called Clinton the 'anti-christ' on this very forum.

And?

But of course, you have the moral higher ground since your party believes
in
the Messiah unlike us godless heathens.

Bravo.

Not my Party, they tend to be atheists.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I argue on Bush's behalf only when the left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

That doesn't explain your habit of initiating pro-Bush threads.

Only on the War on Terror. I have complained about the Prescription Drug
Bill, and The Farm Bill, both of which I have major problems with. Once
again, I'm a registered Libertarian and always vote that way except when I
voted for Dole.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the
left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

And do you believe the right don't lie or demonize Kerry? In fact, if
memory
serves correct you called Clinton the 'anti-christ' on this very forum.

But of course, you have the moral higher ground since your party
believes
in
the Messiah unlike us godless heathens.


Which Messiah?

Brahma.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

None of which matter to me. I argue on Bush's behalf only when the
left
lies about him. That's most of the time they say anything about him.

And do you believe the right don't lie or demonize Kerry? In fact, if
memory
serves correct you called Clinton the 'anti-christ' on this very forum.

But of course, you have the moral higher ground since your party
believes
in
the Messiah unlike us godless heathens.


Which Messiah?

Brahma.

Why that sounds like Bull.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either party.
The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign has
totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our president.
Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth by the parties.
The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme court
needs to fix this.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:TbDfd.44259$bk1.9589@fed1read05...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's
policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either party.
The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign has
totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our
president. Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth by
the parties. The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme
court needs to fix this.


Because it is 50 sate elections (and DC)

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:TbDfd.44259$bk1.9589@fed1read05...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely
on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And
about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's
policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either
party. The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign
has totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our
president. Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth
by the parties. The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader
from the ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate
for federal office can be on ballots in some states and not in others?
Supreme court needs to fix this.


Because it is 50 sate elections (and DC)

Makes no sense to allow a candidate on one states ballot where they can
influence that states outcome and electoral votes while they are not on
enough states ballots to have a chance to get enough electoral votes to
actually win. Not saying Nader is in this position but it is conceivable.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:TbDfd.44259$bk1.9589@fed1read05...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's
policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either party.
The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign has
totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our
president. Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth by
the parties. The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme
court needs to fix this.

ScottW
I disagree, somewhat. Every candidate has to meet certain legal
requirements in each state to get on the ballot. The rules vary from state
to state but the Constitution allows it. The problem is that it's fairly
obvious that the states want to keep the list of candidates and parties as
small as they can and the smaller parties really don't have as much interest
from voters as the main 2. This doesn't mean they shouldn't loosen the
laws, indeed I think they should. It just means that AFAIK they are not
doing anything outside the Constitution.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:TbDfd.44259$bk1.9589@fed1read05...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely
on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And
about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's
policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either
party. The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign
has totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our
president. Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth
by the parties. The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader
from the ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate
for federal office can be on ballots in some states and not in others?
Supreme court needs to fix this.

ScottW
I disagree, somewhat. Every candidate has to meet certain legal
requirements in each state to get on the ballot. The rules vary from
state to state but the Constitution allows it. The problem is that it's
fairly obvious that the states want to keep the list of candidates and
parties as small as they can and the smaller parties really don't have as
much interest from voters as the main 2. This doesn't mean they shouldn't
loosen the laws, indeed I think they should. It just means that AFAIK
they are not doing anything outside the Constitution.

IMO the rules for election to federal positions need to be uniform across
the states. This is like Co splitting its electoral votes while every other
state is winner take all. It just gets to weird and provides too many
opportunities for manipulation.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.

Since you have raked up the mud of anti-democratic process, what is your
view on the (mis) management of the Florida recount? The Democrats requested
a recount in four counties - Broward, Miami-Dade and two others - after
which Bush's lead slimmed from slightly under 1500 votes to slightly over
350. And then you have the 175,000 uncounted ballots from largely Democratic
counties. But then, you don't need a history lesson.

Oh, I forgot. Jeb Bush did recuse himself for the cause of objectivity and
then three of his top aides promptly resigned his administration to join
Bush's campaign.

You have yet again exemplified your hypocrisy in the most spectacular
fashion.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from
the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.

Following that logic, Kerry should be the only candidate on the ballot.

Since you have raked up the mud of anti-democratic process, what is your
view on the (mis) management of the Florida recount? The Democrats
requested
a recount in four counties - Broward, Miami-Dade and two others - after
which Bush's lead slimmed from slightly under 1500 votes to slightly over
350. And then you have the 175,000 uncounted ballots from largely
Democratic
counties. But then, you don't need a history lesson.

Every independent recount I saw could not give Florida to Gore. I'm now
more concerned about overseas military disenfranchisement. I'm also more
concerned disenfranchisement through cancellation by fraudulent voter
registrations.

At this point, I'm for a national ID card, fingerprint, DNA sample, retina
scan and **** test the whole friggin country.

Did you know the SS trust fund solvency predictions plan on 400,000 illegals
per year being added to social security roles and pay SS? So how many
illegals are needed to get 400,000 paying SS? What safeguards prevent them
from registering and voting?

ScottW

Schizoid Man wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from
the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.

Since you have raked up the mud of anti-democratic process, what is your
view on the (mis) management of the Florida recount? The Democrats
requested a recount in four counties - Broward, Miami-Dade and two others
- after which Bush's lead slimmed from slightly under 1500 votes to
slightly over 350. And then you have the 175,000 uncounted ballots from
largely Democratic counties. But then, you don't need a history lesson.

Oh, I forgot. Jeb Bush did recuse himself for the cause of objectivity and
then three of his top aides promptly resigned his administration to join
Bush's campaign.

You have yet again exemplified your hypocrisy in the most spectacular
fashion.

ScottW isn't hypocrit.
No better, ScottW doesn't know he is hypocrit.
He is *terrified*. Like a shipwrecked guy who perfectly knows that he has
only two choices : sharks or drowning.

"ScottW" wrote in message

Did you know the SS trust fund solvency predictions plan on 400,000
illegals
per year being added to social security roles and pay SS? So how many
illegals are needed to get 400,000 paying SS? What safeguards prevent
them
from registering and voting?

Probably none.

Since I am a foreigner, I don't have a vote. But I work hard and even though
I pay an ungodly amount in taxes, I am not eligible for any social security
benefits. From my perspective, it would be much better if the current
president stayed.

"Lionel" wrote in message

ScottW isn't hypocrit.
No better, ScottW doesn't know he is hypocrit.
He is *terrified*. Like a shipwrecked guy who perfectly knows that he has
only two choices : sharks or drowning.

Shark or drowning? Are you high?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message

Did you know the SS trust fund solvency predictions plan on 400,000
illegals
per year being added to social security roles and pay SS? So how many
illegals are needed to get 400,000 paying SS? What safeguards prevent
them
from registering and voting?

Probably none.

Since I am a foreigner, I don't have a vote. But I work hard and even
though
I pay an ungodly amount in taxes, I am not eligible for any social
security
benefits.

Are you paying FICA? Don't mistake social security with income tax.

ScottW

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message

ScottW isn't hypocrit.
No better, ScottW doesn't know he is hypocrit.
He is *terrified*. Like a shipwrecked guy who perfectly knows that he has
only two choices : sharks or drowning.

Shark or drowning? Are you high?

I think insane. No one can stay that high for this long.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message

Did you know the SS trust fund solvency predictions plan on 400,000
illegals
per year being added to social security roles and pay SS? So how many
illegals are needed to get 400,000 paying SS? What safeguards prevent
them
from registering and voting?

Probably none.

Since I am a foreigner, I don't have a vote. But I work hard and even
though
I pay an ungodly amount in taxes, I am not eligible for any social
security
benefits.

Are you paying FICA? Don't mistake social security with income tax.

ScottW

Yes, I do pay FICA.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message

Did you know the SS trust fund solvency predictions plan on 400,000
illegals
per year being added to social security roles and pay SS? So how many
illegals are needed to get 400,000 paying SS? What safeguards prevent
them
from registering and voting?

Probably none.

Since I am a foreigner, I don't have a vote. But I work hard and even
though
I pay an ungodly amount in taxes, I am not eligible for any social
security
benefits.

Are you paying FICA? Don't mistake social security with income tax.

ScottW

Yes, I do pay FICA.

This might be interesting for you.

http://www.usvisanews.com/articles/memo2221.shtml

or this, you might be able to request a refund.

http://www.embusa.es/cons/benefitsrefund.html

Looks to me like other countries embassies have information on SS benefits
for their nationals working in the US

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message


ScottW isn't hypocrit.
No better, ScottW doesn't know he is hypocrit.
He is *terrified*. Like a shipwrecked guy who perfectly knows that he has
only two choices : sharks or drowning.

Shark or drowning?

Too limitative ?
I'm ready to hear any other explanations : how can you explain that he
is so terrified by the life ?

Are you high?

Tall and high, yes. How do you know ? Did I meet you before ?

I think insane.

I'm afraid that in this context "insane" is improper. Ask exactly why to
the good Doctor Richman I cannot remember his verbiage about that.

No one can stay that high for this long.

My neighbours are charming persons and the barbecues stand in the
frontyard... perhaps this could be the begining of an explanation.


ScottW

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from
the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.


So, because you want your guy to win **** the law, **** the process, and
**** integrity. Nader has as much right to run as anyone. If it screws
your guy, then that's to damn bad. Unless you can come up with a way to win
that doesn't disenfranchise the people who wish to vote for him, you just
have to accept what happens.

Since you have raked up the mud of anti-democratic process, what is your
view on the (mis) management of the Florida recount? The Democrats
requested
a recount in four counties - Broward, Miami-Dade and two others - after
which Bush's lead slimmed from slightly under 1500 votes to slightly over
350. And then you have the 175,000 uncounted ballots from largely
Democratic
counties. But then, you don't need a history lesson.

Oh, I forgot. Jeb Bush did recuse himself for the cause of objectivity and
then three of his top aides promptly resigned his administration to join
Bush's campaign.

You have yet again exemplified your hypocrisy in the most spectacular
fashion.


My view is that all the charges by the Democrats were shown to have been
untrue and that the only votes not counted were votes that were from ballots
that were done wrong. All the ineptitude was on the part of the Democrat
precinct people who set up the ballots and the machines.

Gore requested specific counties be recounted and he got his wish but still
didn't win. Tough ****.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from
the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme
court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions
in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.


So, because you want your guy to win **** the law, **** the process, and
**** integrity. Nader has as much right to run as anyone. If it screws
your guy, then that's to damn bad. Unless you can come up with a way to
win
that doesn't disenfranchise the people who wish to vote for him, you just
have to accept what happens.

Actually, surprisingly, this is one on which I concur with you. Nader should
be allowed to run, no matter how critical and divisive an election this may
be.

To prevent Nader is being antithetical to the idea of democracy and th
Democrats are definitely the villains in this context.

However, I hope you have the mental clarity to realize that the GOP is not
helping Nader get his name onto various states's ballots out of some
magnanimous principle to further the cause of democracy.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire
campaign
has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from
the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal
office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme
court
needs to fix this.

Normally I would agree with you. But, in my opinion along with millions
in
this country and billions around the world, this is too election is too
important for Nader to be flaunting his ego.


So, because you want your guy to win **** the law, **** the process, and
**** integrity. Nader has as much right to run as anyone. If it screws
your guy, then that's to damn bad. Unless you can come up with a way to
win
that doesn't disenfranchise the people who wish to vote for him, you just
have to accept what happens.

Actually, surprisingly, this is one on which I concur with you. Nader
should
be allowed to run, no matter how critical and divisive an election this
may
be.

To prevent Nader is being antithetical to the idea of democracy and th
Democrats are definitely the villains in this context.

However, I hope you have the mental clarity to realize that the GOP is not
helping Nader get his name onto various states's ballots out of some
magnanimous principle to further the cause of democracy.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason?

Still ends up as the right thing. I can live with it.