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!

"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

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!

"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

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

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

"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.

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.

"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

"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