George W. Bush will win re-election in 04.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Nope. If Junior is elected (God forbid) the only thing in order then will be either a passport or a civil war. Haven't decided which one yet, because it's not going to come to that.

You are full of crap... passport...

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
What's up with blaming everything on Liberals? Sure the Dems up the spending every time one takes office, but Shrub has created the largest federal government expansion of the past few generations. You acknowledge that and defend him at the same time. You make no sense with your contradictions.

Oh, and we spend more on "defense", which should properly be called offense spending than any other country in the world. Has it made us safer? I suppose terrorists want to hit because of our "freedom". Anyone that bites into that hook of propaganda, doesn't understand the way things work.

The only way to truly regain our freedom and bring safety is to ditch the imperial ambitions and restore democracy, economically and in government. If you don't trust the government with domestic issues, then why would you trust them to send human lives to the other side of the world to get shot at? Again, you contradict yourself.

In reality, the "fear of freedom" is precisely what our current government has. Why else would the bother passing more laws to spy on it's citizens, curb the right to protest the government(see the document formerly known as The Bill Of Rights) and so on? How can the country with the largest prison population really call itself free? Soviet propaganda wasn't even that effective...

This country has serious problems, instead of placing blame (there's enough to go around for everyone) what are you doing to help it?

Oh Sweetcheeks..., back for more?

Where to start, where to start...

OK, let's start with domestic spending. I'm absolutely no fan of Dubya's domestic spending. That's clear enough. I personally think that the less Government "helps" in domestic affairs, the better off the country is. And that goes for Democrat and Republican alike. I haven't defended Bush at all on domestic spending, and I'd ask you to show me where I have to support your "contradiction" argument.

Now, about blaming liberals. You keep bringing this silly little phrase up as some sort of "catch-all" trump. One liners certainly won't give whatever points you're trying to make any credence. In fact they do just the opposite. It illustrates just how devoid you are of valid arguments for your ideology.

But if I'm gonna take the rap, I might as well break it down for ya. 9/11 was most certainly a liberal's fault. If you choose to ignore all of the support for this argument that's your perogative. But serious people acknowledge that the Clinton administration did nothing to extinguish the building terrorist threat across the middle and far east. Osama himself said he was emboldened by our withdrawal from Somalia. Nothing was done after the first trade center bombing, the Kobar towers bombing, the embasy bombings, and the Cole bombing. Clinton gutted and nudered our intelligence gathering capability, and did his (or should I say "her") damndest to nuder the military. This is fact, which is not up for debate. This inaction when action was required, (and visa-versa) directly led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Now on to domestic policy. What exactly does our Constitution require of Federal government? If you don't know, you have no business arguing the role of government. It really doesn't matter what you "feel" the government should be doing in regards to social matters. Federal government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution. Anything not specified by the Constitution is to be left up to the states. If N.Y. wants to create unemployment benefits, and give them to New Yorkers for an indefinite period, that's New York's business! If Oklahoma want's to invest in local businesses through "corporate-welfare", so be it. The federal government is here to provide national defense (and we are the safest country on the planet, you sound incredibly foolish by implying otherwise), and to settle squabbles between states on trade issues. The Federal Judiciary is there simply to check the Constitutionality of any laws passed in any of the legislatures. If deemed unconstitutional, the law is stricken (not changed to their liking).

So, obviously neither of our parties have stuck to the Constitutional path in the role of federal government. However, some vote buying schemes passed in our wonderful Congress have been nothing short of cancerous to our society. Welfare for instance. A liberal staple. It "feels" so good to help these poor people with a gub'ment check, right? All the woes of society would be healed if there was just enough money to throw at it, right? Wrong. Welfare has a disasterous effect on people. All it's done has been to build a dependent class who will never see the fruits of hard work, and will never ever enjoy the benefits of being an American. They will be relegated to being in the lower class of our society forever (Oh.... That's right! You're a commie. There are no classes in a socialist society, and that's what your hoping to build here, right? ).

And how about Social Security? We've had a little talk about this subject in the past. Have you forgotten? Remember that little Texas town that had the opportunity to manage their own retirement funds instead of letting the government do it? How'd that all work out? Oh, and where's our social security "trust fund"? And if social security's so damn great, how come our distinguished Congressmen and Senators don't partake?

In fact, I challenge you to offer a federal social program that has actually improved the situation of it's intended recipients. You libs (socialist, that is) always look to the government for all the answers, yet I'll bet you can't answer my question (honestly anyway...) But go ahead, give it a shot honey.

This is why I consider liberalism a failed ideology (or at least part of the reason. I don't really have time to go into all of it, but I'd be glad to respond to anything you have to bring to the table). I understand your angst (or is it panic?) here. Your ideology is being rejected by the American public, being relegated a back chapter of the history books (you know, back there with the other tenants of the Democratic party like segregation). No one takes your kind serious anymore, and it doesn't make you "feel" good. Not to mention that your ideology is based on a negative theme, jealousy. Didn't your joga instructor mention that basing your life on "negative energy" is a bad thing? Wishing the rich weren't rich won't improve your situation in life.

[Pink Spider]

I'll make this short as to not give you the pleasure of wasting my time.

Your arguments are just silly and incredibly weak. You've proved yourself a fool once again. I have spoken out against socialism/corporate socialism through government several times in the past few months. You're either not very attentive or, perhaps you live in your own hateful misguided little world and somehow you missed my earlier comments on libertarianism.

When you're such a sheep to the system yourself, I would venture to gain that you're more of a socialist than I am. What is a forced dependence on military? Capitalism? Nope, more of your "big government" programs. I suppose the populace are incapable of defending themselves from foreign "threats"? Now, that your Republicans government is trying to take away our AK's...

Seriously, when you talk about socialism you don't really understand the meaning of the term. Instead you go into spasms of GOP propaganda. If you can't keep up, why bother?

[i]John Ashcroft
Oh Sweetcheeks..., back for more?

Where to start, where to start...

OK, let's start with domestic spending. I'm absolutely no fan of Dubya's domestic spending. That's clear enough. I personally think that the less Government "helps" in domestic affairs, the better off the country is. And that goes for Democrat and Republican alike. I haven't defended Bush at all on domestic spending, and I'd ask you to show me where I have to support your "contradiction" argument.

Now, about blaming liberals. You keep bringing this silly little phrase up as some sort of "catch-all" trump. One liners certainly won't give whatever points you're trying to make any credence. In fact they do just the opposite. It illustrates just how devoid you are of valid arguments for your ideology.


Now on to domestic policy. What exactly does our Constitution require of Federal government? If you don't know, you have no business arguing the role of government. It really doesn't matter what you "feel" the government should be doing in regards to social matters. Federal government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution. Anything not specified by the Constitution is to be left up to the states. If N.Y. wants to create unemployment benefits, and give them to New Yorkers for an indefinite period, that's New York's business! If Oklahoma want's to invest in local businesses through "corporate-welfare", so be it. The federal government is here to provide national defense (and we are the safest country on the planet, you sound incredibly foolish by implying otherwise), and to settle squabbles between states on trade issues. The Federal Judiciary is there simply to check the Constitutionality of any laws passed in any of the legislatures. If deemed unconstitutional, the law is stricken (not changed to their liking).

So, obviously neither of our parties have stuck to the Constitutional path in the role of federal government. However, some vote buying schemes passed in our wonderful Congress have been nothing short of cancerous to our society. Welfare for instance. A liberal staple. It "feels" so good to help these poor people with a gub'ment check, right? All the woes of society would be healed if there was just enough money to throw at it, right? Wrong. Welfare has a disasterous effect on people. All it's done has been to build a dependent class who will never see the fruits of hard work, and will never ever enjoy the benefits of being an American. They will be relegated to being in the lower class of our society forever (Oh.... That's right! You're a commie. There are no classes in a socialist society, and that's what your hoping to build here, right? ).

And how about Social Security? We've had a little talk about this subject in the past. Have you forgotten? Remember that little Texas town that had the opportunity to manage their own retirement funds instead of letting the government do it? How'd that all work out? Oh, and where's our social security "trust fund"? And if social security's so damn great, how come our distinguished Congressmen and Senators don't partake?

In fact, I challenge you to offer a federal social program that has actually improved the situation of it's intended recipients. You libs (socialist, that is) always look to the government for all the answers, yet I'll bet you can't answer my question (honestly anyway...) But go ahead, give it a shot honey.

This is why I consider liberalism a failed ideology (or at least part of the reason. I don't really have time to go into all of it, but I'd be glad to respond to anything you have to bring to the table). I understand your angst (or is it panic?) here. Your ideology is being rejected by the American public, being relegated a back chapter of the history books (you know, back there with the other tenants of the Democratic party like segregation). No one takes your kind serious anymore, and it doesn't make you "feel" good. Not to mention that your ideology is based on a negative theme, jealousy. Didn't your joga instructor mention that basing your life on "negative energy" is a bad thing? Wishing the rich weren't rich won't improve your situation in life.[/B]

[ELVIS]

Pink.. are you related to FORD ??

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh... I misspelled Yoga in my typing tyrade. Maybe I am the fool!

Notice she never really refutes my points? She just resorts to the name calling (I.E. hateful sheep), and considers that an intelligent rebuttal. Maybe it's Ford's sister?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
I'll make this short as to not give you the pleasure of wasting my time.

That never stopped your incoherent babbling before.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh... I misspelled Yoga in my typing tyrade. Maybe I am the fool!

Don't feel bad, man... it's really nothing compared to the number of times you misspelled "neutered".

[John Ashcroft]

I prefer "nutered"... Or is that "denutered" :confused:

[FORD]

You messed up "tirade" too.

[John Ashcroft]

Man I suck...

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Notice she never really refutes my points

What points?

[John Ashcroft]

OK then honey, back to the kitchen with you... Move along now...

[Dr. Love]

heh

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
OK then honey, back to the kitchen with you... Move along now...

Yeah, back to your cave.

The sad thing is that I probably make more than you.

[diamondD]

And you base that statement on what?