|
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
LOL.......... A POS for pimple faced high schoolers. Every review says no
balls under the boost level and above boost sounds like a thrashing machine that's about to fly apart. Please post one of those reviews. The STI is the pic of every reviewer this year, just like the WRX the year before. Nice try. RB |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
wrote in message What happens when Kerry picks Nader as his running mate? He sign his death warrant. A left-winger with a left-wing radical running mate? Sure. It's still VERY early in the game. He'd be smart to pick a moderate female, like Di Fi, as a running mate. Then again he doesn't strike me as particularly smart. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Horvath wrote:
Real boats use diesel. Real boats don't have motors. -- //-Walt // // Sigs suck. Oh, the irony. |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Real boats use diesel.
Real boats don't have motors. Wow....so tugboats, Lobsterboats and the average Hinkley aren't boats? Oh, okay. RB |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:10:41 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap: "SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... Bwahahaaha! Where are the WMD the war was started over, Loco? Hmmmm? Your president is a killer of American Soldiers and has buried our economy. Oh really! Like I said before you should try to get yourself educated. America's Economy is Strong and Getting Stronger [political crap snipped] You ignored the question. Where are the WMD? Try looking where they keep the Rose Law Firm billing records. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:35:05 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap: He'd be smart to pick a moderate female, like Di Fi, as a running mate. Then again he doesn't strike me as particularly smart. Are you insane? Di Fi a moderate? Everybody else considers her a radical left winger. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... I just watched that Rumfeld idiot address the troops in Iraq.. Mooron could be a guest on Jay Leno's streetwalker bit. So you agreed with Rumsfeld when he said to the soldiers "You are all doing a great job"?? Have you any idea how that comment sounds like to the millions of Arabs who have seen the photos? Regards Donal -- |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:59:11 GMT, wrote
this crap: Add their poll numbers together... The Democrats big problem has been trying to be Republicans and going after the same block of voters in the middle. A lot of Democrats are sick of that tactic and stopped caring about going to the polls to vote for Republicrats. Notice how well right winger, Lieberman was received. Despite what you think, Kerry isn't very far left, and Nader is hardly radical. Kerry not far left? Kerry is further left than Kennedy, dumbass. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:46:10 -0400, Walt
wrote this crap: Horvath wrote: Real boats use diesel. Real boats don't have motors. But then, you have to break it out of the bottle to sail it. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:59:37 GMT, wrote
this crap: Abbie Hoffman was far left, and far out. Jerry Rubin was far left until his mental breakdown, which left him a blithering, money grubbing righty. Mental breakdowns will do that to you. Who are they? Tom Harkin is a progressive liberal Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a progressive liberal Democrat. Compared to them, Kennedy and Kerry are pretty much centrists. They are not "far" anything. The only reason anyone mistakes them for liberal or left leaning is because of the contrast between them and the religious right wing fascist wackos in the White House. Kennedy and the French looking Kerry are centrists? You are whacked. They are socialists. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Sort of like yours.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:46:10 -0400, Walt wrote this crap: Horvath wrote: Real boats use diesel. Real boats don't have motors. But then, you have to break it out of the bottle to sail it. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Try looking up your ass... you might find your boyfriend.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:10:41 +0100, "Donal" wrote this crap: "SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... Bwahahaaha! Where are the WMD the war was started over, Loco? Hmmmm? Your president is a killer of American Soldiers and has buried our economy. Oh really! Like I said before you should try to get yourself educated. America's Economy is Strong and Getting Stronger [political crap snipped] You ignored the question. Where are the WMD? Try looking where they keep the Rose Law Firm billing records. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
French like your boyfriend??
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:59:37 GMT, wrote this crap: Abbie Hoffman was far left, and far out. Jerry Rubin was far left until his mental breakdown, which left him a blithering, money grubbing righty. Mental breakdowns will do that to you. Who are they? Tom Harkin is a progressive liberal Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a progressive liberal Democrat. Compared to them, Kennedy and Kerry are pretty much centrists. They are not "far" anything. The only reason anyone mistakes them for liberal or left leaning is because of the contrast between them and the religious right wing fascist wackos in the White House. Kennedy and the French looking Kerry are centrists? You are whacked. They are socialists. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
wrote in message On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:35:05 GMT, "Maxprop" Add their poll numbers together... . . .which means nothing, especially at this stage. The Democrats big problem has been trying to be Republicans and going after the same block of voters in the middle. A lot of Democrats are sick of that tactic and stopped caring about going to the polls to vote for Republicrats. Only the far left wing espouses this belief. Same as the far right wing, which claims to be sick of voting for moderates. Notice how well right winger, Lieberman was received. He was poorly received by both sides. The right disliked him because he flip-flopped on abortion and some other conservative values. The left disliked him from the get-go. And many simply felt he would put the interests of Israel ahead of those of this country. He was a very poor choice for Gore. Despite what you think, Kerry isn't very far left, and Nader is hardly radical. You've got to be kidding. Have you read any of Nader's books, or his more recent position papers? And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the so-called "undecideds." Eccentric, yes - radical, nope. Kerry would be in more trouble if he picked a Republicrat such as Gephardt to run with him. He'll only be in trouble with the far left, which is actually a minor base within the democrat party. Same would hold true of Bush if he'd pick a centrist running mate. The religious right and the far right would be ****ed. But neither distal wing is the largest component of either party's base. Centrists are, like it or not. The far wings can't control an election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties, because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live. Kerry/Nader is unelectable, IMO. Sad to say that Bush/Cheney is. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Maxprop wrote:
... And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the so-called "undecideds." Unless you are getting your "facts" from the Bush/Cheney propaganda machine, you'd have a very hard time backing this up. If looked at realistically, Kerry is somewhat moderate... more liberal on some issues, definitely centrist on others. ... The far wings can't control an election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties, because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live. Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest advertising budget, most of the time. It's been well proven that egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters in less time than any other type of campaign. That's why we are in the mess that we're in. DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: ... And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the so-called "undecideds." Unless you are getting your "facts" from the Bush/Cheney propaganda machine, you'd have a very hard time backing this up. If looked at realistically, Kerry is somewhat moderate... more liberal on some issues, definitely centrist on others. Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone. Even the the left wing websites give the guy an A- to B+ grade for his record. I don't give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like used car dealers when the cameras are rolling, and attempt to represent themselves as centrists. Both parties, by the way. ... The far wings can't control an election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties, because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live. Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest advertising budget, most of the time. That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general election, and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads. It's been well proven that egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters in less time than any other type of campaign. Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group. Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise to idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification. That's why we are in the mess that we're in. Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence. Don't bother, because you can't--it's your opinion. Even if it bore some validity, it's not the whole story. No right wing or left wing candidate has won a presidential election in the past half century. They all tend toward centrism, simply because fringe groups (left wing or right wing extremists) don't elect presidents. Kerry's going to have a hard time selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how you attempt to portray it. Kennedy faced the same problem. Kerry is no Clinton. The reason we're in the mess we're in is because it's the American way, like it or not. It may suck, but it's what we have. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Maxprop wrote:
Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone. I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so many times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record... for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist). ;) .... I don't give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like used car dealers when the cameras are rolling Agreed Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest advertising budget, most of the time. That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general election, and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads. It's been well proven that egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters in less time than any other type of campaign. Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group. Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise to idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification. That's why we are in the mess that we're in. Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence. Nixon's landslide in 1972 and Reagan's landslide in 1980 are the biggest examples I can think of... both were based on loudly repeated falsehood (for example, Nixon's record with the war in Viet Nam) and racist innuendo (for example Reagan's speeches about the evils of welfare). ... Don't bother, because you can't--it's your opinion. An opinion based on observation of facts. ...Kerry's going to have a hard time selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how you attempt to portray it. I'm not trying to portray anything. In fact I am not particularly a fan of Kerry's. He is certainly more liberal than many, but the attempt to paint him as a far left winger is pure propaganda... and it appears to be working. DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so
many times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record... for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist). ;) To hide his abysmal record on military appropriations, Kerry will vote yes on every high-cost veterans benefit that comes along, and call that "defense spending." That also explains the loyal support he gets from scattered groups of veterans. If you care most about government benefits, and not new equipment, then Kerry's definitely your man. ------------------------------------- Kerry's Record Rings a Bell By William G. Mayer Washington Post Sunday, March 28, 2004; Page B04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&contentId=A28761-2004Mar27 Is Sen. John F. Kerry a liberal? As the presidential campaign unfolds over the next seven months, the parties will no doubt spend a lot of time debating this question, with Republicans insisting that he is and Democrats just as vehemently denying it. The question of how to measure a senator's or representative's ideology is one that political scientists regularly need to answer. For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU). The ADA, which describes itself as "the nation's oldest independent liberal organization," was founded in 1947 by a group of distinguished postwar liberals -- including Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter Reuther and historian Arthur Schlesinger -- to rally support for progressive causes. Shortly afterward, the ADA began publishing an annual legislative score card. Every year, the ADA's Legislative Committee selects what it considers to be the 20 most important votes cast in each house of Congress. Senators and representatives then receive a score ranging from 0 to 100, based on the percentage of times they voted for the liberal position, as identified by the ADA. In 1971, a group called the American Conservative Union began publishing a conservative counterpart to the ADA ratings, using the same method. The ADA and ACU ratings are valuable as yardsticks for several reasons. Both have been around for a long time, thus providing some historical perspective. Both groups are able to speak with some authority about what constitutes the "liberal" and "conservative" positions on various issues. And both are good at distinguishing between meaningful and unimportant votes. Voters back home might be taken in if the House passes a resolution saying that all Americans have the right to adequate health care or a strong national defense -- but doesn't take any action or provide any money toward that goal. The ADA and ACU almost certainly won't. So what do the ADA and ACU ratings tell us about Kerry? Here are the numbers for the past 10 of his 19 years in the Senate: YEAR ADA ACU 1994 .950 1995 .954 1996 .955 1997 .950 1998 .954 1999 .950 2000 .9012 2001 .954 2002 .8520 2003 .8513 AVG .926 Kerry's 2003 ADA score may be a bit misleading. The ADA gives each senator five points every time he or she casts a liberal vote. Senators get zero points if they vote for the conservative position or if they don't vote at all. Of the 20 votes selected by the ADA in 2003, Kerry was absent for three. He thus actually voted the liberal position on all 17 of the votes he was present for. Either way, Kerry's voting record is a very liberal one, according to both rating systems. The ADA's Web site notes that "those Members of Congress considered to be Moderates generally score between 40% and 60%." By that criterion, Kerry's record falls well outside the "moderate" range. The same point is borne out by a comparison of Kerry's ratings with those of other Democrats who are often classified as moderates, such as Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana. Breaux's lifetime average ADA score through 2002 is 55. When Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was a senator, his lifetime ADA score was 41. Former Georgia senator Sam Nunn had a lifetime ADA average of 37. Al Gore had a 65 average. Joe Lieberman, who is sometimes described as a liberal and sometimes as a moderate -- he has a generally liberal voting record but also dissents from several important liberal positions -- has a lifetime ADA score of 76 through 2002. At the other end of the spectrum, three senators are often singled out as the most liberal: Barbara Boxer of California, Pat Leahy of Vermont and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Their lifetime ADA scores through 2002 are, respectively, 96, 93 and 90 -- statistically indistinguishable from Kerry's. In recent weeks, a number of commentators have asserted that Kerry's voting history is complicated to classify. The evidence doesn't bear this out. If you were to take the numbers shown here, cover up Kerry's name and then ask a sample of American political scientists, "I have here a senator who in the past 10 years has had an average ADA score of 92 and an average ACU score of 6. Is he a liberal, a moderate or a conservative?" they would have no difficulty in classifying the 2004 Democratic candidate as, for better or worse, a liberal. William Mayer is an associate professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston. |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
If you care most about government
benefits, and not new equipment, then Kerry's definitely your man. This country no longer needs to thrash the new gear industry. Wake up, fraud. RB |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:30:48 -0400, DSK wrote
this crap: Maxprop wrote: Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone. I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so many times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record... for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist). Actually, Kerry makes almost NO votes. He's always absent. There's a movement out to stop his pay. (Like that's going to hurt him. He could pay the salary for the rest of the senate.) Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone. I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so many times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record... for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist). I disagree that it's a rightist smear. His record on defense voting follows a pattern: he consistently votes against defense packages unless they are high-profile and visible. Then he votes for them. His record on military spending is heavily skewed in the direction of against. I have his complete Senate voting record before me as I write this. .... I don't give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like used car dealers when the cameras are rolling Agreed Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest advertising budget, most of the time. That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general election, and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads. It's been well proven that egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters in less time than any other type of campaign. Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group. Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise to idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification. That's why we are in the mess that we're in. Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence. Nixon's landslide in 1972 and Reagan's landslide in 1980 are the biggest examples I can think of... both were based on loudly repeated falsehood (for example, Nixon's record with the war in Viet Nam) and racist innuendo (for example Reagan's speeches about the evils of welfare). I've known you to claim to be a conservative, Doug, but this comment belies that notion. Only a liberal could believe that opposing the enslavement of welfare is a racist stance. Welfare as a concept is sound. In its execution in this country it has been a disaster, holding millions hostage to a system that they can't escape. Clinton saw the wisdom of welfare reform, and he is certainly not branded as racist. ... Don't bother, because you can't--it's your opinion. An opinion based on observation of facts. ...Kerry's going to have a hard time selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how you attempt to portray it. I'm not trying to portray anything. In fact I am not particularly a fan of Kerry's. He is certainly more liberal than many, but the attempt to paint him as a far left winger is pure propaganda... and it appears to be working. If you re-read my comments above, you'd recall that I stated that true fringe politicians seldom exist in Congress (less even in the Senate). Kerry is not a far left-winger. He is, however, two or three standard deviations left of center, and well within the leftmost of the democrat party. The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even Gephardt, but Kerry is simply too far left and inconsistent to warrant my vote. My 2 cents worth. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:29:41 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap: The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even I gotta agree on Lieberman. He was the best the demoncrats had, but he would have never got the nomination. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"Horvath" wrote in message On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:29:41 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote this insightful piece: The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even I gotta agree on Lieberman. He was the best the demoncrats had, but he would have never got the nomination. This is where Doug's comment about the candidate with the largest coffer wins, i.e.--the primaries, is applicable. Lieberman's war chest was a tiny fraction of those of Dean and Kerry. Furthermore Lieberman resumed his more moderate politics after leaving the Gore team, which made him less palatable to the dem core. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Maxprop wrote:
... Furthermore Lieberman resumed his more moderate politics after leaving the Gore team, which made him less palatable to the dem core. I thought your whole point was that far left or far right politicians were rare? And here the whole Democratic Party is far left? This is where you give the game away, "Max," your traile of bull**** leads right back to the cave. The far right neoconservatives tend to do two things.... 1- spin out a stream of inconsistent malarkey and 2- insist that other people whom they disagree with are not really conservative. You're busted on both counts. Bush & Cheney Uber Alles! DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Dave wrote:
Time to polish up your reading skills, Doug. Hint: look particularly at the last three words of his sentence and see if you can figure out how they don't refer to the whole Democratic Party. Hint- neither the whole Democratic Party nor "the Dem core" is far left, pretty much by definition. Time to wake up to the fact that you've been sucking up partisan bull**** for so long your palate cannot distinguish between fact & right-wing propaganda. Bush/Cheney Uber Alles! DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net...
The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even Gephardt, but Kerry is simply too far left and inconsistent to warrant my vote. My 2 cents worth. Max i've tried to stay away from these kind of issues because 1) it doesn't interest me, and 2) i don't think it makes a significant difference. that said, within max's words of delusion, we have what i believe is the best way of approaching the nader and veep issues: 1) nader is a fact. that means we've got to deal with him. maybe a deal like this: dems will stop bashing him, if he takes more conservative positions, and aims his message to as many disenfranchised conservatives as possible. 2) nader is a kook more interested in himself than his country. so, don't listen to him about the edwards recommendation. instead, look at what maxi pad said above, he didn't even mention edwards but did mention gephardt. gephardt will be a far better fighter against cheney in the debates (good for conservatives), and far more capable in getting health care passed through congress (good for dems). also, gephardt is just plain tougher than most, and will have broader appeal to recovering republicans. with a kerry/gephardt combo, they will not convert conservatives to the dem party, but these two just might convince them to stay at home and THAT is the way to win this election. (...along with gotv. :) |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Yeah, I don't think Edwards would be the right choice. Geppy is
better for the reasons stated. I think there's also the Robert Cohen wildcard. He would be a great choice that would trump Chumpy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Marty Feldman" wrote in message om... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even Gephardt, but Kerry is simply too far left and inconsistent to warrant my vote. My 2 cents worth. Max i've tried to stay away from these kind of issues because 1) it doesn't interest me, and 2) i don't think it makes a significant difference. that said, within max's words of delusion, we have what i believe is the best way of approaching the nader and veep issues: 1) nader is a fact. that means we've got to deal with him. maybe a deal like this: dems will stop bashing him, if he takes more conservative positions, and aims his message to as many disenfranchised conservatives as possible. 2) nader is a kook more interested in himself than his country. so, don't listen to him about the edwards recommendation. instead, look at what maxi pad said above, he didn't even mention edwards but did mention gephardt. gephardt will be a far better fighter against cheney in the debates (good for conservatives), and far more capable in getting health care passed through congress (good for dems). also, gephardt is just plain tougher than most, and will have broader appeal to recovering republicans. with a kerry/gephardt combo, they will not convert conservatives to the dem party, but these two just might convince them to stay at home and THAT is the way to win this election. (...along with gotv. :) |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: ... Furthermore Lieberman resumed his more moderate politics after leaving the Gore team, which made him less palatable to the dem core. I thought your whole point was that far left or far right politicians were rare? And here the whole Democratic Party is far left? Jesus, Doug, is everything absolutely black and white to you? Do I have to spell it out? Okay, here goes one last time. The democrat party is largely left of the aisle, but many politicians are only slightly so, some are somewhat more to the left, and damn few are on the fringe. Lieberman was a moderate dem, but had to become somewhat more left to be on the Gore team. For example, he flip-flopped to pro-choice from pro-life. But he flip-flopped back again (something not particularly attractive in a politician for whom we are to hold trust) after his defeat. The bulk of the democrat voting public leans somewhat to the left, but not severely so. Since Lieberman currently stands close to middle ground, he's not as palatable to them, apparently, as Dean or Kerry. Hope that clears it up for y'all, but somehow I have my doubts. The tone of your response would indicate that you mind is made up and you're not to be confused with facts. This is where you give the game away, "Max," your traile of bull**** leads right back to the cave. See above. And somehow I knew you'd wander from the discussion and resort to personal attacks. You have a good mind, Doug, and you are knowledgeable. But you can be a boor. The far right neoconservatives tend to do two things.... 1- spin out a stream of inconsistent malarkey and Is one inconsistent when his listener fails to comprehend or follow the discussion? Just claiming inconsistency doesn't make it so. 2- insist that other people whom they disagree with are not really conservative. You're busted on both counts. As soon as you provide a scintilla of evidence that you possess any conservative ideals, my viewpoint of you might change. I'm waiting. . . Bush & Cheney Uber Alles! Cute. But insipid. I don't like Bush, and I despise Cheney, but I've never accused either of emulating the National Socialists. But many liberals have. Where DO you stand, Doug? For a self proclaimed conservative, you certainly are doing a fine liberal impression. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"DSK" wrote in message Dave wrote: Time to polish up your reading skills, Doug. Hint: look particularly at the last three words of his sentence and see if you can figure out how they don't refer to the whole Democratic Party. Hint- neither the whole Democratic Party nor "the Dem core" is far left, pretty much by definition. Which is precisely what I said in my post. Interesting that you chose to snip that part. Time to wake up to the fact that you've been sucking up partisan bull**** for so long your palate cannot distinguish between fact & right-wing propaganda. Time to admit you're a closet liberal, Doug. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but to deny it stretches your credibility. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"Dave" wrote in message On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:03:54 -0400, DSK said: Hint- neither the whole Democratic Party nor "the Dem core" is far left, pretty much by definition. Only if you adopt a strained definition of "core." The term is understood in general parlance to mean those party members who not only belong to the party and vote for its candidates, but who work actively for its candidates and provide their dollars. I think that core is generally pretty far left. You may disagree based on your observations, but it's not a matter that can be arrived at axiomatically. I think the "core" is not so far left as the media would have us believe, Dave. To the contrary I think it is probably split 50-50 between moderates and liberals, making it a melding pot of something in between. Most democrat candidates for Congress and the Senate preach family values, state's rights, and such. Few actually spew the liberal litany while on the stump, with notable exceptions in NY and CA. And the liberal part of the core votes for 'em because they are democrats, despite their centrist positions. Presidential candidates tend to jump on the liberal bandwagon a bit more for some reason which is anyone's guess. But even Gore backed down on his liberal rhetoric as the campaign moved along, claiming every man's right to own firearms and to hunt, for example. Clinton, if you recall, promised everyone a tax cut. That it never materialized is inconsequential--he campaigned largely as a centrist. And with NAFTA and welfare reform he lived up to his claim. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"Marty Feldman" wrote in message om... "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even Gephardt, but Kerry is simply too far left and inconsistent to warrant my vote. My 2 cents worth. Max i've tried to stay away from these kind of issues because 1) it doesn't interest me, and 2) i don't think it makes a significant difference. that said, within max's words of delusion, we have what i believe is the best way of approaching the nader and veep issues: 1) nader is a fact. that means we've got to deal with him. maybe a deal like this: dems will stop bashing him, if he takes more conservative positions, and aims his message to as many disenfranchised conservatives as possible. 2) nader is a kook more interested in himself than his country. so, don't listen to him about the edwards recommendation. instead, look at what maxi pad said above, he didn't even mention edwards but did mention gephardt. gephardt will be a far better fighter against cheney in the debates (good for conservatives), and far more capable in getting health care passed through congress (good for dems). also, gephardt is just plain tougher than most, and will have broader appeal to recovering republicans. with a kerry/gephardt combo, they will not convert conservatives to the dem party, but these two just might convince them to stay at home and THAT is the way to win this election. (...along with gotv. :) Talk about delusion . . . Terry McAuliffe really isn't interested in hearing from you, sock puppet. Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Maxprop wrote:
See above. And somehow I knew you'd wander from the discussion and resort to personal attacks. You have a good mind, Doug, and you are knowledgeable. But you can be a boor. No, I just don't suffer fools gladly. Your repeating Limbaugh & Hannity, thinking it is some profound truth, gets very old very quick. And you may not have noticed this, but the universe operates by a fairly consistent set of principles... that fact that you can't write two paragraphs without contradicting yourself ought to be a clue. No doubt you take this as a personal attack. I am just pointing out some logical flaws. As soon as you provide a scintilla of evidence that you possess any conservative ideals, my viewpoint of you might change. I'm waiting. . . OK. Hold your breath. Did it occur to you that I don't give a rat's hindpart what you think? How's that for conservative? DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: See above. And somehow I knew you'd wander from the discussion and resort to personal attacks. You have a good mind, Doug, and you are knowledgeable. But you can be a boor. No, I just don't suffer fools gladly. Your repeating Limbaugh & Hannity, thinking it is some profound truth, gets very old very quick. And you may not have noticed this, but the universe operates by a fairly consistent set of principles... that fact that you can't write two paragraphs without contradicting yourself ought to be a clue. No doubt you take this as a personal attack. I am just pointing out some logical flaws. As soon as you provide a scintilla of evidence that you possess any conservative ideals, my viewpoint of you might change. I'm waiting. . . OK. Hold your breath. Did it occur to you that I don't give a rat's hindpart what you think? How's that for conservative? LOL. Accusing you of being a liberal is certainly a hot button, innit? I believe they have a 12 step program for you: Doug: "Hi. My name is Doug. I'm a . . . . . um, liberal. Group: "Hello, Doug." Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
I'm a liberal. What's your point?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: See above. And somehow I knew you'd wander from the discussion and resort to personal attacks. You have a good mind, Doug, and you are knowledgeable. But you can be a boor. No, I just don't suffer fools gladly. Your repeating Limbaugh & Hannity, thinking it is some profound truth, gets very old very quick. And you may not have noticed this, but the universe operates by a fairly consistent set of principles... that fact that you can't write two paragraphs without contradicting yourself ought to be a clue. No doubt you take this as a personal attack. I am just pointing out some logical flaws. As soon as you provide a scintilla of evidence that you possess any conservative ideals, my viewpoint of you might change. I'm waiting. . .. OK. Hold your breath. Did it occur to you that I don't give a rat's hindpart what you think? How's that for conservative? LOL. Accusing you of being a liberal is certainly a hot button, innit? I believe they have a 12 step program for you: Doug: "Hi. My name is Doug. I'm a . . . . . um, liberal. Group: "Hello, Doug." Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I'm a liberal. What's your point? Only that Doug claims to be conservative, but he isn't. Not sure why he's in denial. See, Doug--Jon admits to it. What's the big deal? Max |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:54:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: I'm a liberal. What's your point? Your's is at the top of your head. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
I'd rather have a point at the top of my head than
your tits. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:54:14 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote this crap: I'm a liberal. What's your point? Your's is at the top of your head. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
Maxprop wrote:
Only that Doug claims to be conservative, but he isn't. If you think that I am "a liberal," then it shows your lack of perception & intelligence. I suggest you check a list of the fundamental axioms of conservatism and liberalism, apparently you don't know what they are. But that's OK many people have faith in things they don't understand. Many people are even more comfortable remaining ignorant. DSK |
Bye Bye Bushy!!!
DSK wrote:
Maxprop wrote: Only that Doug claims to be conservative, but he isn't. If you think that I am "a liberal," then it shows your lack of perception & intelligence. I suggest you check a list of the fundamental axioms of conservatism and liberalism, apparently you don't know what they are. But that's OK many people have faith in things they don't understand. Many people are even more comfortable remaining ignorant. DSK I think Maxprop should come to Canada: Conservative and Liberal are relative terms, by our standards the far left of the 'mercan political spectrum are right wing whackos, conversely by your standards, our Conservatives are Pinkos! Cheers Marty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com