Ouch, poor Kerry....

Emailed to me...


Ann Coulter's remarks on:

If Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure
as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class.
Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying
their wives and daughters.

For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely
heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room
full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose
experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult
life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?

In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family
estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he
promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood
starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK
really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill
of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -a
fact that never seemed to constrain him.

When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he
sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that
it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa
Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more
than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests,
but he can't even stand up to his wife.

Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how
careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam
War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 antiwar
demonstration.

At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has
described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help
pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million
mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the
Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw
away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts
can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV
ads.

Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the
mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to
tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was
$144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million
mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost
$30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year. The Democrats' joy at nominating
Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure
in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not
without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness
for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing
with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in
the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling
the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This lowborn poseur with
his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich
woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him
to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts,
couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for
past 33 years?

From Ann Coulter

Emailed to me...


Ann Coulter's remarks on:



Read that far,then stopped.Stupid fascist bitch has absolutely nothing of value to say.She should buy herself a dildo and go f[amuse]k herself.

Once again she hits the mark. You know she's hit a nerve when the leftist start sceaming fascist or worse. When presented with facts (and opinions they don't like) the end rusult is sputtered insults. :rofl:

I don't understand how someone could have a marriage annulled after it produced children. Those judges in Massachusettes are quite the group.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Read that far,then stopped.Stupid fascist bitch has absolutely nothing of value to say.She should buy herself a dildo and go f[amuse]k herself.
HAHA!! The great thing is that she is right on. She just tells the truth how it is. A straght shooter for a woman if I've ever seen one.



This is great!

Yeah, between Bush and Kerry, whether they're stupid or not, Bush makes his own decisions and sticks by them. Kerry's going to be a whiny bitch of a puppet.

My question is this:

Where are the issues?

Every link I have posted in my short time here in the Politics forum is about Bush and his policies/record.

I admit I am not the greatest Bush fan, but at least when I ciriticize the Chimp, it's based on what he has or can possibly do to the country.

I am a conservative, but am GETTING SICK AND TIRED of the the GOP GrOPing into people's bedrooms time and again.

If you are going to criticize the man, criticize him where it counts. This is politics, not morals court. If it were the latter, we won't have ANY politicians left to vote for.

It's not like Bush has a lack of personal foibles that anybody can explore.

Now, you may ask: "Wait, you're a conservative, and you're supporting Kerry?"

It's really VERY simple. The choice is looking more and more like between two liberals(click (http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sabr012204.shtml)).

Now, which one would I choose? The pseudo-liberal who the GOP-controlled house seems to have no backbone against, or the one that might make the Republican Congresspeople sit straight-up in their chairs to do what they are paid by us to do? (counter to the Executive branch). With Bush, there will never be a check and balance in the halls of Government.

I have hated Bush, ever since he went on his smear-campaign against Sen. John McCain in 2000...instead of going against him through his record (sound familiar?). I still voted for him though, as I was blinded by party-lines just as some of you guys are.

And from what I am hearing, there's a good chance that McCain might become Kerry's running-mate. Consider the Chimp doomed, if that happens.

C'mon guys. Quit with the "bedroom politicking". Please. It's nauseating.

I don't care how bad most people think Bush is. John Kerry is running his campaign on how bad Bush is, not how much better he would be. That is how we get a retard in office that knows nothing about issues, but just runs on the emotions of a bunch of psycho liberals. Kerry will not approach issues because he will lose. He has no morals, a horrible tax plan, NO plan for the war on terror, and thinks he actually has power to create jobs. He is a dead man walking in this election.

What the heck are you talking about Carrrnuttt? It was an opinion piece.

There are many things I disagree with Bush on. Does that mean I would rather vote for a fuckwit bottom feeder like Kerry? Not a chance.


You want to debate issues then lets debate them. However, using a broad stroke won't work. Pick an issue and let it rip.

Perhaps an issue to start with would be defining terrorism. Bush calls it a war. Kerry wants to call it a police action. I say it is and it needs to be treated as a war. Terrorists are out to kill people who disagree with them. Its among their stated goals. Its what they have done and continue to do.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

What the heck are you talking about Carrrnuttt? It was an opinion piece.Fine. It was that dumbwit, Ann Coulter's opinion, then. Then why are some of you touting it as gospel?There are many things I disagree with Bush on. Does that mean I would rather vote for a fuckwit bottom feeder like Kerry? Not a chance. Consider this. The items that you would disagree with Bush about, has better chance of becoming the policies you would disagree with Bush about. Not unless the GOP-major Congress grows a backbone against him and his [family's] influence.

As conservative, I am very MUCH for lesser government. Notice how peaceful (in relativity) Klinton's reign was, compared to the Chimp's. That's because the Democrat White House, and the GOP State House were busy outmaneuvering each other over issues.

Do you think a GOP Congress would have let Al Gore get away with starting a war without Congress' Declaration of War?

President Bush and Congress violated the Constitution, with the result that the war against Iraq was fought illegitimately.

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War. It has no legal authority whatsoever. In essence, Congress said, "This isn't our war, Mr. President. You do what you want."

The unwillingness of Congress to declare war or to demand that the President seek a Congressional Declaration of War is a serious violation of the Constitution, a serious dereliction of duty, and a serious betrayal of the American people. As our elected representatives, they, and they alone, are authorized to take America into war. No president has the right to send Americans to war on his own authority! Therefore, without a Declaration of War, the war against Iraq was not America's war; it was G.W. Bush's war.

Bush is an unchecked mental-midget. A puppet whose strings, unfortunately, originate from corporate America.You want to debate issues then lets debate them. However, using a broad stroke won't work. Pick an issue and let it rip.

Perhaps an issue to start with would be defining terrorism. Bush calls it a war. Kerry wants to call it a police action. I say it is and it needs to be treated as a war. Terrorists are out to kill people who disagree with them. Its among their stated goals. Its what they have done and continue to do.Kerry, being a Vietnam Vet, regardless of what he did after his service, knows of what he is talking about, if he is referring to Iraq in general. Without the D of W from Congress, NO military action can be called a "war". At least not in official terms.

Vietnam itself was a police action, as defined by our own constitution. And sarcastically referred to by my father-in-law as such (police action), as he is a Vietnam Veteran himself, and he knows where his "war" stands.

As for the terrorism part, Bush needs to be smart enough to realize that this "holy war" we were brought kicking and screaming into by Al Q'aeda is a product of enmity millenia old. He should realize that his brash talk behind his comfortable desk, and burly Secret Servicemen, while it does make him look better in patriotic American's eyes (for a millisecond), serves nothing else but to inflame those that are that willing to die just as long as they take a few of us with them.

He needs to be smarter. Face it, he just can't. At least Kerry would at least be forced to be smarter, with all the wrangling he'll be dealing with in Washington.

Against terrorism? To me, it's a war. What was Kerry referring to? If you may clarify...

Fine. It was that dumbwit, Ann Coulter's opinion, then. Then why are some of you touting it as gospel?

Who was quoting it as gospel? The facts she stated are not in dispute. He did get an annullment after having children. He did marry into even more money. We can like or dislike that and it may have little bearing on how he conducts his policies (which is another contention) but nobody is claiming those are false.

Some people like her take on things. Some don't. Nobody is calling it gospel.

Consider this. The items that you would disagree with Bush about, has better chance of becoming the policies you would disagree with Bush about. Not unless the GOP-major Congress grows a backbone against him and his [family's] influence.

The congress has only had a backbone when Gingrich was there. Its never had one regardless of the party in charge. They get reelected by handouts. Thats why there is a 2.3 trillion dollar budget. I would happily take every Bush policy I didn't like as long as Kerry does't win and raise my taxes. It means that much.

As conservative, I am very MUCH for lesser government. Notice how peaceful (in relativity) Klinton's reign was, compared to the Chimp's. That's because the Democrat White House, and the GOP State House were busy outmaneuvering each other over issues.
Do you think a GOP Congress would have let Al Gore get away with starting a war without Congress' Declaration of War?
President Bush and Congress violated the Constitution, with the result that the war against Iraq was fought illegitimately.

Thats a crock. They did not violate the constitution.

Things peaceful when Clinton was in the white house? Hello selective memory. Allow me to mention Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Rwanda and more. Relatively is vague.

That Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's decision to wage war against Iraq was irrelevant and non-binding. A resolution is not a Declaration of War. It has no legal authority whatsoever. In essence, Congress said, "This isn't our war, Mr. President. You do what you want."

The unwillingness of Congress to declare war or to demand that the President seek a Congressional Declaration of War is a serious violation of the Constitution, a serious dereliction of duty, and a serious betrayal of the American people. As our elected representatives, they, and they alone, are authorized to take America into war. No president has the right to send Americans to war on his own authority! Therefore, without a Declaration of War, the war against Iraq was not America's war; it was G.W. Bush's war.

Bush is an unchecked mental-midget. A puppet whose strings, unfortunately, originate from corporate America.Kerry, being a Vietnam Vet, regardless of what he did after his service, knows of what he is talking about, if he is referring to Iraq in general. Without the D of W from Congress, NO military action can be called a "war". At least not in official terms.

Thats pretty funny. Read up on the constitution and come back and tell me where the constitution was violated. You keep banting that around but repitition doesn't make it true.

You are making the mistake of underestimating Bush. Your hatred for him is making you dismiss him as small minded. On a serious note - you should stop equating actions you disapprove of with intelligence level. That kind of behavior will cause you all sorts of problems with your eventual coworkers and supervisors. Trust me.

Vietnam itself was a police action, as defined by our own constitution. And sarcastically referred to by my father-in-law as such (police action), as he is a Vietnam Veteran himself, and he knows where his "war" stands.

As for the terrorism part, Bush needs to be smart enough to realize that this "holy war" we were brought kicking and screaming into by Al Q'aeda is a product of enmity millenia old. He should realize that his brash talk behind his comfortable desk, and burly Secret Servicemen, while it does make him look better in patriotic American's eyes (for a millisecond), serves nothing else but to inflame those that are that willing to die just as long as they take a few of us with them.[\QUOTE]

The constitution defines police actions? Wow. I'd like a copy of that one too.

[QUOTE]He needs to be smarter. Face it, he just can't. At least Kerry would at least be forced to be smarter, with all the wrangling he'll be dealing with in Washington.

Against terrorism? To me, it's a war. What was Kerry referring to? If you may clarify...

Kerry and Bush have the same educational background. Come from the same elitist family mode and entitlements. They were even part of the same Skull and Bones secret organization. The similarities are staggering - their tax policies are not.

As for the fight against terrorism here is the first reference I grabbed to what he said. (I know its a right leaning organization, but the quote is the quote, take the opinions for what they are) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/1/02522.shtml













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

How do you think Kerry will do on taxes given his voting record since he has taken a public office?
Will he raise them? Lower them? Keep them the same?

This is open to anyone.

How do you think Kerry will do on taxes given his voting record since he has taken a public office?
Will he raise them? Lower them? Keep them the same?

This is open to anyone.

He has already said he plans to repeal Bush's tax plan, which can only mean one thing: he is going to raise taxes. By 1.2 trillion to be exact. A Bush ad recently revealed this. 150 million in death and marriage tax, 500 billion in surplus taxes, and 550 billion by cutting the upperclass tax cuts. He is a swindler and crook if anybody is.

And carrrnut, if you were a true conservative, you might realize that Ann Coulter is about as conservative as ANYBODY in modern politics. You should take a page out of her book every once in a while.

How do you think Kerry will do on taxes given his voting record since he has taken a public office?
Will he raise them? Lower them? Keep them the same?

This is open to anyone.

Kerry has announced his intentions to raise the taxes for the wealthiest percentile, I think the bar is set around $800K annually and up, but I'm not positive on that.

Yogs, this won't effect your taxes, just the taxes of those so incredibly wealthy they make more than the average family by more than 10X...

Keep in mind, that top 1% got over 2/3rds of Bush's tax cut. In essence, he's recovering the money that Bush gave to the extremely wealthy, and putting it back into programs that will benefit the majority of Americans. Like Medicare.

Who was quoting it as gospel? The facts she stated are not in dispute. He did get an annullment after having children. He did marry into even more money. We can like or dislike that and it may have little bearing on how he conducts his policies (which is another contention) but nobody is claiming those are false.I never said it was you, and I never said it was false. All I'm saying is instead on focusing on actual issues, in which case I might side with her (depending), she uses her national pulpit to preach about Kerry's bedroom and morals. I understand that that is a big thing, especially for somebody who might become our Commander-in-Chief. If she and other GOPs can't forgive those failings, then why are they so quiet about Bush and drunk-driving? How about the Bush sisters and underage drinking? How about Rush and his antics?

I don't see any nationwide e-mailings from hardcore GOPs about those, and MANY other failings from BOTH aisles...

All I'm saying is: why so personal? Doesn't the man have enough political blunders to go off on, that she has to pick apart his marriages? I can understand some local hack, but that's ALL she's ever done...please. As a one-time, and maybe future GOP supporter, I felt that this type of attack, and even Ken Starr, made the GOP look like asses.

Now is the time to be more intelligent than ever with our limited choices, and party-lines, and emotional call-outs aren't going to sway me.Thats a crock. They did not violate the constitution.Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Wait? Did Iraq attack us? No. That's why it's being, and should be called a pre-emptive strike.

You DO know that Saddam's Ba'ath party held-down the religious fanatics in his country, right? As opposed to supporting and encouraging them, as The Chimp would have you believe.

Here's your boy, Don (Donald Rumsfeld):
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgThings peaceful when Clinton was in the white house? Hello selective memory. Allow me to mention Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Rwanda and more. Relatively is vague.That's why I said relatively. 30 or so people dying in admitted (at least Klinton didn't have to lie to get them there) police actions, though unconscionable to say the least, is still better than 500+ in a fake war.Thats pretty funny. Read up on the constitution and come back and tell me where the constitution was violated. You keep banting that around but repitition doesn't make it true.You're right. My repetition doesn't make it true. The constitution does.You are making the mistake of underestimating Bush. Your hatred for him is making you dismiss him as small minded. On a serious note - you should stop equating actions you disapprove of with intelligence level. That kind of behavior will cause you all sorts of problems with your eventual coworkers and supervisors. Trust me. Underestimating???? I once read this article where people were polled, asking just based on him as person, whether or not he'd be President if he weren't a Bush. Let's just say most of the poll "underestimated" Bush. Boy can't even speak English straight!

Read this: Bush's Inner Wordsmith (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/bushisms/index.html#word)

And what does the political discussion have to do with how I fare in a working environment? Will I be judging my co-workers and bosses solely on news snippets and researched facts and opinions? Before you even begin to say anything about how I can't really know the real Bush based on the sources I cited, remember they're you're sources for Kerry too. Besides, I don't like Kerry either, and I can talk, since I helped elect the Chimp into office...yes, I voted for him once.Kerry and Bush have the same educational background. Come from the same elitist family mode and entitlements. They were even part of the same Skull and Bones secret organization. The similarities are staggering - their tax policies are not. They both barely graduated college with C's? Didn't know that. As for tax policies, Bush's policies are being harangued by every non-politicized economist out there.

Here's a good snippet, with source:
____________________________________________

Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Largest Deficit Ever, Leaving Future Generations to Shoulder the Burden
George W. Bush's 2001 assurance that his tax cuts "could happen without fear of budget deficit, even if the economy softens" have proven to be false, as the estimated $480 billion budget deficit this fiscal year will be the highest in U.S. history. In a Sept. 5 speech, Bush admitted his tax cuts account for one quarter of the deficit. According to the New York Times, each dollar of tax cuts, federal borrowing to finance the tax cuts, the war and routine government operations will total $3.60 over six years. Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the 26 million taxpayers making $28,000 to $45,000 are especially hard hit by federal borrowing—each dollar of tax cuts for this group is accompanied by $6.55 of increased federal debt. MSNBC reports that even if the government limited itself to paying only for retirement benefits, health benefits and interest on the national debt, federal taxes would still have to be raised by 70 percent—permanently—to meet those obligations. This is an unfortunate irony, as Bush said during his first year in office that "we owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now" to pay down the national debt.

Sources: The Washington Post, "A Sound Bite So Good, the President Wishes He Had Said It," July 7, 2002; George W. Bush, Presidential Speech, Sept. 5, 2003; New York Times, "Studies Say Tax Cuts Now Will Bring Bigger Bill Later," Sept. 23, 2003; MSNBC, "What Do Record Deficits Mean For You?," July 18, 2003; George W. Bush, Presidential Address to Joint Session of Congress, Feb. 27, 2001
____________________________________________As for the fight against terrorism here is the first reference I grabbed to what he said. (I know its a right leaning organization, but the quote is the quote, take the opinions for what they are) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/1/02522.shtmlYou're right about the site being biased. here's some non-biased reading for you: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Let me give you a preview:

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

Status: False.

Yogs, this won't effect your taxes, just the taxes of those so incredibly wealthy they make more than the average family by more than 10X...



That's not true. It would affect my family. And my dad has worked his ass off for years to abtain the wealth he has now, and he's not going to allow some piece-of-crap soclialist to come in and play with his income. All its going to hurt is the people who actually decided they wanted to make a name for themselves and succeed in life.

Carrrnut, you're no conservative. You're defending one of the biggest liberal crooks and traitor we've ever had as a politician in this country....PERIOD! Bill Clinton......and now that I think of it........John Kerry too.

Carrrnut, you're no conservative. You're defending one of the biggest liberal crooks and traitor we've ever had as a politician in this country....PERIOD! Bill Clinton......and now that I think of it........John Kerry too.
No. What I said doesn't make me a liberal. It means that I can look at facts with a steady eye and not bat it because of poltical, or partisan prejudice.

You pretend that your political bias is because you care about your country. I can almost guarantee you that the man you are biased against cares a hell of a lot less than you...Republican OR Democrat you may be.

Fact: Klinton is a crook, an adulterer, and a liar.

Fact: The Chimp is a crook, and liar, but is able to get away with more, since Congress won't stop him, or check him.

Fact: John (not Fonda) Kerry's a crook, and an adulterer it seems, but will be better checked by the natural balance between Executive and Legislative branches.

The difference between John Kerry and Bush is the difference between a slick gigolo/con-artist that wants your money, and the cops know it, so an eye is always kept on him, versus a slick gun-runner/con-artist who wants your money, and can get away with it, as the cops are afraid of his family.

carrrnuttt, I totally agree with you on everything you've said in this thread it seems :)
Brings tears to my eyes to see a person claiming to be on the conservative side and still being able to see the ridiculousness of the Bush family. Very refreshing.

carrrnuttt, I totally agree with you on everything you've said in this thread it seems :)
Brings tears to my eyes to see a person claiming to be on the conservative side and still being able to see the ridiculousness of the Bush family. Very refreshing.
No, it brings satisfaction to your heart to see a claimed conservative give in to stupid liberal mantra. I don't care how bad Bush supposedly is, John Kerry is and will be 10x worse.

I don't see how corruption on a level as extreme as Bush's is "stupid liberal mantra." :rofl:
By the way, I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative: I make up my mind issue at a time, but one thing that automatically turns me off is seeing a person who is taking advantage of the presidential office for selfish gains, especially when so many people appear to be ignorant enough not to see through it.

I don't see how corruption on a level as extreme as Bush's is "stupid liberal mantra." :rofl:
By the way, I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative: I make up my mind issue at a time, but one thing that automatically turns me off is seeing a person who is taking advantage of the presidential office for selfish gains, especially when so many people appear to be ignorant enough not to see through it.

I'm glad that you choose what you think is right in an issue and think it through.


I've stated on here many a time before I don't believe everything Bush does is right and I definitely don't agree with some of hte things he's doing right now. But I'm not going to throw away all of my beliefs for a candidate that will do nothing to change what needs to be changed and change what I believe Bush is doing wrong.

I'm glad that you choose what you think is right in an issue and think it through.


I've stated on here many a time before I don't believe everything Bush does is right and I definitely don't agree with some of hte things he's doing right now. But I'm not going to throw away all of my beliefs for a candidate that will do nothing to change what needs to be changed and change what I believe Bush is doing wrong.Tha fatal flaw in your, and most other people's thinking is that you see Kerry's becoming President causing the changes you don't want. Well, guess what? So do the people in Congress, who are right now majorly GOP.

I fear Bush. I fear his power over ALL of government. The system was designed so that NO ONE has as much influence as he has. Like I asked earlier, do you think Al Gore could have asked Congress to bypass the Constitution as Bush did? You think Kerry can? That would be an emphatic NO.

You call yourself conservative...why? You sit there and support a President that has had a more liberal history than even Klinton had (more on this below).

You accuse me of NOT being conservative? Because I am afraid of the HUGE HONKING government Bush has built around our heads. What's even scarier is he has had more power in it than any other President in modern history, except for the WWI/WWII Presidents.

Bush the Liberal:


**********************************Could Al Gore Get Away With This?
By Chuck Baldwin
April 16, 2002.Republican loyalists constantly told us that the reason we must support George Bush is that "he is better than Al Gore." Since taking office, however, Bush has successfully supported numerous liberal policies that Democrats such as Al Gore could never have gotten away with. Now, Bush is preparing to call for the biggest increase in federal spending since L.B.J. .
According to the Washington Post, "The Bush administration is poised to complete the biggest increase in government spending since the 1960's "Great Society." The Post continues, "Spending on government programs will increase 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars." It further states, "The president's 2003 budget proposals dwarf the spending increase from any four-year period since President Lyndon Johnson.".This spending binge by Bush and Company is even more egregious when one considers that the 22 percent increase is likely to go even higher in real numbers. The Post states, "The total for the 2003 budget likely will go higher as pressure builds in Congress to add to the administration's budget requests in this election year to enact new benefits such as a prescription drug plan for Medicare recipients. The calculations also do not include the effect of the administrations $27 billion supplemental spending request for 2002." Given the fact that Bush has affirmed his support for enacting a new government-sponsored prescription drug plan, the Post's projection appears very probable..It must be pointed out that the Republican Party has controlled the purse strings for the federal government during this four-year budget period. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for three out of these four years, and they controlled the White House for two. They cannot blame the Democrats for this gigantic increase in federal spending in any shape, manner, or form! Republicans, and Republicans only, are to blame for this biggest-since-Johnson expansion of federal spending!.It is time for President Bush and his fellow Republicans to own up to the fact that they are lying when they say they believe in less government! As the staff director of the House Budget Committee said, "They [Republicans] are big spenders as long as it is on programs they want to spend money on.".It is safe to say that if Al Gore were president today, he could never get such a massive expansion of federal spending through Congress - but Bush will! He and his fellow Republicans will do what Gore and his fellow Democrats could only dream about : they will increase federal spending by multiples not seen in nearly 50 years..**********************************.Conserva tives Trump Liberals in Thirst for Federal Power
By Chuck BaldwinAugust 23, 2002.The original vision of the Founding Fathers for these United States was one of limited power for the centralized or federal government. Instead, they envisioned a country comprised of strong state governments and much personal freedom. The limited nature of the federal government can be readily observed in the brevity of described duties in the U.S. Constitution and in the strong prohibitions against federal power contained in the Bill of Rights..For years, people have labored and voted under the assumption that liberals alone wanted to create a giant federal system, while conservatives believed in less federal authority and increased personal freedom. However, the Bush administration is fast dispelling such a misconceived notion. It is creating a behemoth federal system not even attempted by past Democratic administrations. Examples of this thirst for federal power by the Bush administration are manifold..Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the administration's desire to build internment camps for U.S. citizens that the government would declare to be "enemy combatants." According to the plan, U.S. citizens could be held indefinitely without any constitutional protections or rights..Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said, "Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.".I would dare say if former Attorney General Janet Reno had proposed such a plan, congressional Republicans would have immediately called emergency hearings and would have demanded her swift resignation. As it is, there is zero concern from Congress or the media, for that matter.Another indication of the Bush administration's thirst for power is the way in which it seems willing to stifle lawful dissent. In a manner reminiscent of Bill Clinton's misuse of federal power, the Bush White House has apparently hired a Clinton law firm, Williams & Connolly, to investigate the personal life of Judicial Watch founder, Larry Klayman..NewsMax.com broke the Klayman story on August 16. The report further stated, "In another indication that the Bush-Cheney legal operation may be borrowing a page from its White House predecessors, the State Department has hired Clinton impeachment lawyer Greg Craig to defend against a Judicial Watch lawsuit brought by United Nations whistle-blower Linda Shenwick." .Coupled with Bush's gargantuan Homeland Security Department, the Draconian USA Patriot Act, Ashcroft's proposed "pre-crimes" policy, and dozens of other dictatorial promulgations, these actions make it very clear that Republicans are capable of even trumping Democrats in their thirst for federal power..© Chuck Baldwin.**********************************.When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame But HimselfBy Chuck Baldwin
January 23, 2004.Let me be the first one to say it: President Bush is on track to lose in November, and it won't matter who his Democratic opponent is. His fabrications, deceptions, and prevarications are just too much to stomach. His duplicity rivals anything in the previous administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding..It's hard to think of anything this president has done right. His policies are every bit as socialist (or fascist) as the most liberal Democrat. We have lost more freedoms during the last three years than we had lost during the previous thirty! Even though Bush has enjoyed Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, neither conservatives nor constitutionalists can point to a single victory Bush has given them. Not one! .Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate. The Bush administration has done as much (or more) to promote the homosexual agenda as any Democrat. Bush has proliferated the growth of federal spending and corresponding federal deficits to levels not seen in decades. Furthermore, he has created the embryo of a giant Orwellian police state while at the same time offering amnesty and legitimacy to foreign criminals who have invaded our country. If all of that isn't bad enough, Bush even threw his support behind the Clinton gun ban!.Due to Bush's dismal record, the Democratic nominee (whoever he is) will have to work at losing this election. The facade of a "wartime" president is wearing thin. Moreover, gas and oil prices have skyrocketed since oilmen Bush and Cheney rode into Washington, D.C. In addition, without a willingness to cut spending, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud! And now Bush wants to spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!.Beyond that, Bush has repeatedly stated that his war against Iraq was fought for the purpose of "enforcing the demands of the United Nations." Now, isn't that lovely? Does he really expect us to re-elect him President of these United States after hearing that he ordered more than 500 brave, patriotic Americans to die in Iraq on behalf of the UN? Does he think we are a bunch of morons? He must..G.W. Bush deserves to be a one-term president. And the truth is, the nation won't be worse off with a Democratic replacement. At least with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans in Congress might decide to actually oppose liberal policies..With a liberal Democrat in the White House, a president might get 40% of his agenda through Congress. Bush, on the other hand, will get 80% of his policies through Congress, and Bush's policies are every bit as bad as any liberal Democrat's. So, you tell me who is actually "the lesser of two evils.".If you would like to track the ongoing Bush record, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html). Therefore, when Bush loses in November, he will have no one to blame but himself..© Chuck Baldwin..(I apologize for inundating you guys with this guy's articles all at once, but he's one of thee few true conservatives I know of that is not blinded by party lines, and has the platform to speak out about.)

Thanks, Carrrnuttt. You've brought some informative insight into this thread.
All I can say is: "Ouch, rich Bush!"

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Wait? Did Iraq attack us? No. That's why it's being, and should be called a pre-emptive strike.

You DO know that Saddam's Ba'ath party held-down the religious fanatics in his country, right? As opposed to supporting and encouraging them, as The Chimp would have you believe.


Thank you for making my point for me. The constitution was not violated. Stick with specific statutory authorization http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0210/11/nation-610126.htm

Tha fatal flaw in your, and most other people's thinking is that you see Kerry's becoming President causing the changes you don't want. Well, guess what? So do the people in Congress, who are right now majorly GOP.

I fear Bush. I fear his power over ALL of government. The system was designed so that NO ONE has as much influence as he has. Like I asked earlier, do you think Al Gore could have asked Congress to bypass the Constitution as Bush did? You think Kerry can? That would be an emphatic NO.

(as pointed out before by myself with your help, the constitution was not violated)

Bush has no more influence then any other president in the last hundred years. In fact, the ones with more influence can be summed up with initials FDR and JFK.

I am not conservative - I am libertarian. I believe in less goverment then any 'conservative' out there. But I am pragmatic. Kerry will suck up more of my money (CBass apperently doens't know our tax system) and grow goverment by leaps and bounds. I don't choose Bush because he is the lesser of two evils. However, if it were the only way to make the choice then it would be enough.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yogs: Would you say that we were at a point where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, when the specific statutory authorization was given? Emphasis on imminent. Going back, this brings up my point about whether or not any Dem up there would have been able to convince to "statutorily" ignore U.N. resolutions.

By the way, from your link:

*********************
After days of solemn debate, both the House and Senate passed and sent to the White House a resolution authorizing the president to use military force, IF NECESSARY, to compel Iraq to get rid of its BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS and disband its NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

*********************

Look at the specific authority the article states it gives the President. I guess it was necessary to compel Iraq to remove the weapons that Bush's Administration made up. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/disappointed.gif

I mean, I was for it and everything, considering I was a part of Desert Storm, and hate Saddam's guts just as much as anybody. But man, you don't have to lie to my face to do it. He had most of the country's support then.

Another thing is, he made it look like Saddam was a part of the terrorism circle. Remember when we were going to throw out the last President for lying?

"But man, Clinton lied under oath..." Oh ka-ka. That's only because The Chimp hasn't been given the chance to lie in court yet...and probably never will.

Kerry will suck up more of my money (CBass apperently doens't know our tax system) and grow goverment by leaps and bounds.

Are you not reading any of the points I have made?????

THE COMBINATION OF A PRESIDENT AND A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS LOYAL TO THE SAME PARTY HAS ALLOWED BOTH TO SPEND MORE OF OUR MONEY, AND INCREASE THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER MORE THAN ANY ONE PRESIDENT EVER HAS BEFORE!!!

The point of me saying this...:
The fatal flaw in your, and most other people's thinking is that you see Kerry's becoming President causing the changes you don't want. Well, guess what? So do the people in Congress, who are right now majorly GOP.
...is the fact that since the GOP congress probably feels the same as you do, I doubt that Kerry can enact as sweeping a change as Bush was able to. Get it?

It's CHECKS AND COUNTERBALANCES. There is NONE, ABSOLUTELY ZERO, and will never be any in the central halls of our government, while Bush is President.

How can you say that you're for smaller government, when you sit there and support one of the few men of this generation to have the influence (and has used it, as a matter of fact), to increase the government's power in almost unheard-of-before levels?


"Conservatives Trump Liberals in Thirst for Federal Power"

Doesn't that title scare you? Or do you not agree with what was written? Do you think all those instances stated in the article is made-up?

[QUOTE=Pick]I don't care how bad most people think Bush is. John Kerry is running his campaign on how bad Bush is, not how much better he would be. That is how we get a retard in office that knows nothing about issues, but just runs on the emotions of a bunch of psycho QUOTE]

Wake up Pick.Bush got in by continuously slagging Clinton.And those whho voted for him got the crappy,half assed prick that they deserve.

Shame that the MAJORITY of Americans who did't vote for the corporate buttlicker have to put up with him too.

And if Kerry has any sense,he'll abandon the war on terror and concentrate on real issues.Maybe like,justice for 9/11 and where did all the WMD's go?

That's not true. It would affect my family. And my dad has worked his ass off for years to abtain the wealth he has now, and he's not going to allow some piece-of-crap soclialist to come in and play with his income. All its going to hurt is the people who actually decided they wanted to make a name for themselves and succeed in life.

He's going to let a piece-of-crap son with the intellect of a walnut piss it all away for him.Go get a life of your own,pick.Stop parrotting daddy.

Carrrnuttt - the two are mutually exclusive. Imminent threat OR statuatory authorization. In case you're not familiar with the link I put in, its a decidedly liberal newspaper. Regardless of if you think he didn't have any weapons, most thought he did (because he did and has never accounted for them). You can argue if the weapons were there, but the point is that the constitution was not violated.

THE COMBINATION OF A PRESIDENT AND A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS LOYAL TO THE SAME PARTY HAS ALLOWED BOTH TO SPEND MORE OF OUR MONEY, AND INCREASE THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER MORE THAN ANY ONE PRESIDENT EVER HAS BEFORE!!!

Wrong. Sorry, but while the goverment is the largest its ever been its not increased it more then any president before hand. Perhaps you should take a breath and remember FDR - you know, social security? The largest spending increase in history - ever. Maybe we should go back and take a look when income tax was first created. Much more power transfered at that time.


How can you say that you're for smaller government, when you sit there and support one of the few men of this generation to have the influence (and has used it, as a matter of fact), to increase the government's power in almost unheard-of-before levels?


"Conservatives Trump Liberals in Thirst for Federal Power"

Doesn't that title scare you? Or do you not agree with what was written? Do you think all those instances stated in the article is made-up?

I opposed the medicare reform just passed. As awful as that was, you put Kerry in there and expect HillaryCare to rear its head again. Perhaps

Large fonts doesn't make the claim true. I disagree with the authors take on the situation. While goverment agencies have expanded and I don't like a single one of them doing so, I know that once a democrat gets in office it'll only compound the problem. Are you even paying attention to his voting record?



Eventually, this thread may wander someplace close to a discussion about Kerry. So far, things turn into a Bush bash.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Eventually, this thread may wander someplace close to a discussion about Kerry. So far, things turn into a Bush bash.

That's because everybody is agreed when it comes to Kerry as being not the best example of humanity, much less as a President. What boggles the mind, however, is how highly-intelligent people, yourself as an example, seem to lose the ability to think around the mention of Bush*. Why the one track mind, and the refusal to accept that Bush is the equal, if not the superior, of Kerry in ineptitude and corruption?





*ABSOLUTELY NO PUN intended...I realize how it looks, lol.

What bothers me is that we are reduced to voting for either of these 2 . One of them will be in the white house for 4 years and I see nothing but their personal goals being achieved. America won't be on the right track again until we get someone in office that cares more about advancing America than he or she does about advancing themselves. I don't see that happening anytime in the near future though.

He's going to let a piece-of-crap son with the intellect of a walnut piss it all away for him.Go get a life of your own,pick.Stop parrotting daddy.
You don't know shit about my personal life, so don't even try to start with me. Keep it on the debate and stop taking personal jabs at me. You're not over the "law" on here either.





Back on topic: How do you truly know what Kerry stands for? He is the biggest truncoat ever. He doesn't even know himself what he stands for. He will stand one way one week and another way the next week. He supports the war on terror, but not the deployment of troops?

You don't know shit about my personal life, so don't even try to start with me. Keep it on the debate and stop taking personal jabs at me. You're not over the "law" on here either.





Back on topic: How do you truly know what Kerry stands for? He is the biggest truncoat ever. He doesn't even know himself what he stands for. He will stand one way one week and another way the next week. He supports the war on terror, but not the deployment of troops?

Yet another poorly written post from the parrot.

Isupport everyone's right to free speech.I respect the opinions of good folk like yogs who have lived a full life and earned what they own.If they choose to be republicans,that's fine by me,if a little disappointing.

What I despise more than anything are those who have had life handed to them on a plate,and parrot the views of their parents.Pick,you say that I know nothing of your life,and yet every time you post,you reveal a little more of your pathatic and spoiled attitudes.As far as I can distil from your postts,you are an immature male,born into a well heeled family,whos idea of success is to slavishly copy George Bush.That in itself is enough for me to pity you.You are a sad little nobody with access to daddy's dollars.

Yet another poorly written post from the parrot.

Isupport everyone's right to free speech.I respect the opinions of good folk like yogs who have lived a full life and earned what they own.If they choose to be republicans,that's fine by me,if a little disappointing.

What I despise more than anything are those who have had life handed to them on a plate,and parrot the views of their parents.Pick,you say that I know nothing of your life,and yet every time you post,you reveal a little more of your pathatic and spoiled attitudes.As far as I can distil from your postts,you are an immature male,born into a well heeled family,whos idea of success is to slavishly copy George Bush.That in itself is enough for me to pity you.You are a sad little nobody with access to daddy's dollars.

As I mentioned before, I am not at liberty or obligated to talk about my personal life with anybody, especially you. But my family was definitely NOT well-heeled when I was born. So let's just drop the personal crap and talk about the issues. Thanks.


I see it as a shame that a guy as seemingly intelligent as you can be so left-wing. You seem to think things through, maybe the wrong way. :sly:

I see it as a shame that a guy as seemingly intelligent as you can be so left-wing. You seem to think things through, maybe the wrong way. :sly:

Funny how most intellectuals I come across are left wingers. I don't frequent political forums, left wing or otherwise, so I'm not associating myself with left wingers through organizations. Maybe it's just that I live in Canada, where we're all socialists, right Pick?

Kerry has announced his intentions to raise the taxes for the wealthiest percentile, I think the bar is set around $800K annually and up, but I'm not positive on that.

Yogs, this won't effect your taxes, just the taxes of those so incredibly wealthy they make more than the average family by more than 10X...

Keep in mind, that top 1% got over 2/3rds of Bush's tax cut. In essence, he's recovering the money that Bush gave to the extremely wealthy, and putting it back into programs that will benefit the majority of Americans. Like Medicare.

Well considering that the wealthiest percentile of the nation pay the most taxes of the nation, shouldn't they get the most back? Or should more of their money be given away to the welfare state?

As for affecting people, if Kerry repeals the tax laws Bush set into place, anyone recieving even a minor trust in the future, (of which there are quite a few people, remember that property, not just cash go into a trust), are going to get hit pretty damn hard by taxes when they come into it.

And if Kerry has any sense,he'll abandon the war on terror and concentrate on real issues.Maybe like,justice for 9/11 and where did all the WMD's go?

The real issues... like whos toes is the U.S. going to have to step on to get the info on where the WMDs really are and to find who really did it... but wait!

Then the rest of the world will get all uppity about us 'being an all consuming empire' who's 'out to spread it's imperialistic ways', then if we actually do catch the fuckers who caused 9/11 we get to watch all that hard work and money go down the shitter when the WORLD decides that the culprits need a trial in a WORLD court, where the nice big hairy pussies who call themselves countries will insist on not executing the bastards because that would be a violation of their rights and a crime against life itself...
(yet they allow abortion)


ahh.... the way liberals think.... the theory of relativity's got nothin on figuring out a liberals monkeyfuck of a brain...

ahh.... the way liberals think.... the theory of relativity's got nothin on figuring out a liberals monkeyfuck of a brain...

Why does it always have to get to that? I might be new to THIS political forum, as long as I've been with AF, but I've been around many political discussions on other forums and elsewhere on the web, and it always comes down to a claimed conservative talking down on a "Liberal".

What's with the antagonism? Do you get so frustrated that you couldn't bend people into your "right" point of view that you have to act like a jackass?

It's a point of view. If you don't like it, tune it out, don't listen.

I always look at it this way: there's always someone MUCH smarter than me on both sides of the aisle, and to discount one or the other's ideas because you're biased against the opposite side, instead of examining it issue-by-issue, makes you, well, dumb.

I see it as a shame that a guy as seemingly intelligent as you can be so left-wing. You seem to think things through, maybe the wrong way. :sly:

Just a shame that every Republican I've ever come across refuses to accept that there's an opposite side to every coin.Have you not noticed that it's only the American right wing that gets so passionately anti-liberal in this forum?

Why does it always have to get to that? I might be new to THIS political forum, as long as I've been with AF, but I've been around many political discussions on other forums and elsewhere on the web, and it always comes down to a claimed conservative talking down on a "Liberal".

What's with the antagonism? Do you get so frustrated that you couldn't bend people into your "right" point of view that you have to act like a jackass?

It's a point of view. If you don't like it, tune it out, don't listen.

I always look at it this way: there's always someone MUCH smarter than me on both sides of the aisle, and to discount one or the other's ideas because you're biased against the opposite side, instead of examining it issue-by-issue, makes you, well, dumb.

You may want to rethink that opinion after you go back and read through some past threads. The antagonism comes from both sides. Seems people are passionate about politics. Go figure.

Just a shame that every Republican I've ever come across refuses to accept that there's an opposite side to every coin.Have you not noticed that it's only the American right wing that gets so passionately anti-liberal in this forum?
I don't think we American Republicans refuse to accept that there is another side. I do think that liberals get just as anti-conservative as we get anti-liberal. It's just the nature of the beast.

Kerry has announced his intentions to raise the taxes for the wealthiest percentile, I think the bar is set around $800K annually and up, but I'm not positive on that.

Yogs, this won't effect your taxes, just the taxes of those so incredibly wealthy they make more than the average family by more than 10X...

He set the bar at 200K. And the reality is that there are not enough people over that bar to make a dent in the tax roles. He has to get down to 90K to get enough people to make up the difference. If Kerry repeals the tax cuts, it puts another 27 billion into the treasury. Far short of the 470 billion needed to balance the budget. http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0403/15/a15-90837.htm (one reference but google will find plenty more).

Just a shame that every Republican I've ever come across refuses to accept that there's an opposite side to every coin.

I know there is another side to the coin. That doesn't mean that those who hold that view are right. :p













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Just a shame that every Republican I've ever come across refuses to accept that there's an opposite side to every coin.Have you not noticed that it's only the American right wing that gets so passionately anti-liberal in this forum?
Maybe so. I have defnitely become more convinced as of late theat there is not cut and dry right and wrong in politics. We cover a largre genre of the human race on here and that is why our opinions vary so much. There is more to an issue than what is my or your opinion on what is right. I see eye-to-eye with conservative values and leaders, therefore, I tend to agree in issues with them. You see eye-to-eye with more left-wing ideas, so you follow that code. We are from different walks of life and ideological points of view. That makes our opinions unique.


I know this doesn't sound like my usual posts, but I'm trying to instill some reality into the art of political debating. :sunglasse

I know this doesn't sound like my usual posts, but I'm trying to instill some reality into the art of political debating. :sunglasse

Bravo! Look forward to having some interesting discussions with you. :smokin:

Just a shame that every Republican I've ever come across refuses to accept that there's an opposite side to every coin.Have you not noticed that it's only the American right wing that gets so passionately anti-liberal in this forum?

Yeah... that would probably be because there IS no 'right-wing' from any other country, or at least none of them speak out here. Also, Car, the reason I'm not tuning out, is because the lack of shouting back is exactly what's caused this country to become a festering pit of liberal assholes, who AREN'T the majority, but get the majority of the attention. The squeaky wheel always gets oiled first.