Maxprop wrote:
Please learn to read, Doug. I said "camps," which is encompassing and not
an abbreviation for campaigns. I'm including the websites, books, newspaper
and periodical accounts and anything else produced by Kerry and Bush
supporters as well as by the candidates themselves, such as Kerry's book
"Tour of Duty" and the book "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill.

In other words, advertising by paid shills.

I don't consider this substantive information.

... I've also
visited moveon.org and seen MM's movie. I'm betting you've not availed
yourself of any of the opposition's contributions, labeling them lies and
distortions without ever laying eyes to them.

Actually, I don't pay much attention to the media at all. I read some of
the mainstream news... our local newspaper(s) are very conservatively
biased... and read some info off the web. I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.


.... Please elucidate your definition of
conservative.

Ha. I asked you first. However, since you are only interested in gas &
bluster, and will never define your position, I will give you the
accepted definition of "politically conservative."

1- Belief in existing forms, priniciples, & standards of gov't as
opposed to substantial change.

2- Strong national defense

3- sound fiscal policy


... And if you're so inclined, I'd really love to hear how you
believe John Kerry exemplifies any of the characteristics embodied in your
definition. That should be fascinating.

Actually, on # 2 and # 3 he's more "conservative" than George Bush Jr.


Your mind has been "made up" by the chorus of crap from the fascist
whacko tub thumpers.


Actually, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has viewed both sides
and the respective advocates' positions

Actually, you haven't seen anything at all published by Kerry and his
campaign, and it appears you have not bothered to look to see what the
main republican players have to say for themselves. You've totally
swallowed what others have said, including a big-bucks campaign of lies
aimed solely at discrediting Kerry.

And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."



I'm hardly complacent w/r/t my position. Rather I've done the footwork.

Hardly. You haven't so much as lifted a toe, much less done any "footwork."

Have you?

Far more than you, and without really trying hard, apparently.



Please answer this, Doug: name one modern (within the past century or two)
nation that has gravitated from relative conservatism to a more liberal
state, ultimately resulting in socialism, and has remained viable,
successful, and economically prosperous. Hint: don't bother; there are
none.

Huh? I guess this is an example of your "footwork." Ever heard of a
little country called Sweden? They currently have a higher standard of
living than the US. Many of the major European countries, Germany &
Great Britain for example, have far more socialist gov't programs than
we do, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Check out Japan's economic
development since about the mid-1960s.

Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."

In other words, your opinions are based on total ignorance of the
subject at hand.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Please learn to read, Doug. I said "camps," which is encompassing and
not
an abbreviation for campaigns. I'm including the websites, books,
newspaper
and periodical accounts and anything else produced by Kerry and Bush
supporters as well as by the candidates themselves, such as Kerry's book
"Tour of Duty" and the book "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill.

In other words, advertising by paid shills.

Really? Got any proof of that, or are you just regurgitating the mindless,
baseless left-wing prattle?

I don't consider this substantive information.

But you do consider Kerry's Tour of Duty to be substantive? Or MM's movie?
You're lack of perspective is transparent, Mr. Left Wing.


... I've also
visited moveon.org and seen MM's movie. I'm betting you've not
availed
yourself of any of the opposition's contributions, labeling them lies
and
distortions without ever laying eyes to them.

Actually, I don't pay much attention to the media at all. I read some of
the mainstream news... our local newspaper(s) are very conservatively
biased... and read some info off the web. I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.

Let me see if I've got this right: you pay little attention "to the media"
but read local newspapers. Hmm. Most definitions include newspapers within
the term "media." And websites? Oh yeah, no bias there. LOL.

.... Please elucidate your definition of
conservative.

Ha. I asked you first. However, since you are only interested in gas &
bluster, and will never define your position, I will give you the
accepted definition of "politically conservative."

1- Belief in existing forms, priniciples, & standards of gov't as
opposed to substantial change.

2- Strong national defense

3- sound fiscal policy


... And if you're so inclined, I'd really love to hear how you
believe John Kerry exemplifies any of the characteristics embodied in
your
definition. That should be fascinating.

Actually, on # 2 and # 3 he's more "conservative" than George Bush Jr.

If he's elected, you'll discover just how much more "conservative" than W he
is. Too late, I might add. As for #1, be prepared for a Kerry
administration to propose numerous changes to the Constitution. If you were
truly conservative, you'd fear the guy as much as I do. Let me add to your
definition of conservative:

4. A belief that government should provide exactly what the Constitution
says it should: national defense (your #3) and a representation of the will
of the people. Not much else. Kerry believes government should provide
just about everything everyone needs, including health care, welfare, and
jobs.


Actually, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has viewed both
sides
and the respective advocates' positions

Actually, you haven't seen anything at all published by Kerry and his
campaign, and it appears you have not bothered to look to see what the
main republican players have to say for themselves. You've totally
swallowed what others have said, including a big-bucks campaign of lies
aimed solely at discrediting Kerry.

Actually you're full of ****. I know precisely what both campaigns are
saying about their candidates. I know what each candidate is saying about
himself. But you're truly the pot calling the kettle black, citing mostly
the bilgewater from the left-wing.

And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."

No, I'm not, actually. I'm only defending my bilateral viewpoint w/r/t the
issues and the men. You, OTOH, have only regurgitated left-wing propaganda.

I'm hardly complacent w/r/t my position. Rather I've done the footwork.

Hardly. You haven't so much as lifted a toe, much less done any
"footwork."

Making such accusations only denegrates your own credibility. Your
arrogance is impressive. But I think most of us are used to it--it's been
your byline for years.

Have you?

Far more than you, and without really trying hard, apparently.



Please answer this, Doug: name one modern (within the past century or
two)
nation that has gravitated from relative conservatism to a more liberal
state, ultimately resulting in socialism, and has remained viable,
successful, and economically prosperous. Hint: don't bother; there are
none.

Huh? I guess this is an example of your "footwork." Ever heard of a
little country called Sweden? They currently have a higher standard of
living than the US. Many of the major European countries, Germany &
Great Britain for example, have far more socialist gov't programs than
we do, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Check out Japan's economic
development since about the mid-1960s.

Bwahahahahaha. None of the countries you list above are socialist
countries. They all have social programs (so do we, Einstein)--and you left
out one of the most socialistic countries, Norway--but all have free
enterprise, self-determination, and representative forms of government, even
the ones with weak monarchies. To imply that Sweden is a socialist country
is ludicrous.

Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."

And they are essentially democratic countries with largely capitalistic
economies.

In other words, your opinions are based on total ignorance of the
subject at hand.

Look in the mirror when you say that. You bluster, boast, and
self-congratulate (spittle flying everywhere), but have little in the way of
veracity in your arguments.

And if you truly embraced conservatism, you'd understand that Kerry and
Edwards pose the greatest threat to that ideal since McGovern.

Max

In other words, advertising by paid shills.


Maxprop wrote:
Really? Got any proof of that, or are you just regurgitating the mindless,
baseless left-wing prattle?

Is it "baseless left wing prattle" that O'Neill's own statements about
his service in Viet Nam... and Camobodia... corroborate Kerry's, up
until the time O'Neill went on Nixon's payroll, whereup he changed his
story?

No, it's pretty much easy to verify fact.


You're lack of perspective is transparent, Mr. Left Wing.


Yeah, it's kind of like your serious effort to inform yourself, by
soacking up a lot of advertising and right-wing talk radio.



... I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.


Let me see if I've got this right: you pay little attention "to the media"
but read local newspapers. Hmm. Most definitions include newspapers within
the term "media." And websites? Oh yeah, no bias there. LOL.

I guess www.rnc.org and www.georgewbush.com are "biased"?

For some reason, when I read the info on these sites, I see a lot of
campaign promises very similar to what was said in 1999 and 2000, none
of which has come to pass. Very little elucidation of the achievements
of the past 3 3/4 years. A fair amount of attack against "the other guys."



If he's elected, you'll discover just how much more "conservative" than W he
is. Too late, I might add. As for #1, be prepared for a Kerry
administration to propose numerous changes to the Constitution.

The President can't change the Constitution.

As for what Kerry might do, we've already seen what Bush *has* done.
Kerry can undo that, Bush certainly will not.



... If you were
truly conservative, you'd fear the guy as much as I do

That's ridiculous. What you mean is "If you'd had as much shrill fascist
whacko shrieking in your ears as I have, you'd be paranoid about anybody
who doesn't constantly rant about how much they hate liberals."


4. A belief that government should provide exactly what the Constitution
says it should: national defense (your #3) and a representation of the will
of the people. Not much else.

I guess that's why the Bush Adminstration has undone almost all
Constitutional freedoms. He has made it possible for gov't agencies to
spy on citizens without a warrant, to take citizens property, to hold
citizens in jail for no reason (although the Supreme Court slapped his
hand for trying to do so indefinitely), give tax money to churches,
require citizens to testify against themselves... and most importantly,
has put into effect executive orders keeping gov't secrets, period.


... Kerry believes government should provide
just about everything everyone needs, including health care, welfare, and
jobs.

Uh huh. Did Kerry or one of his campaign reps say this? I strongly doubt
it. Once again, you're passing judgement on Coke based on Pepsi
advertising.

Actually you're full of ****.

I guess that's why I have given good info from reliable sources, and
you're just making shrill accusations and calling names. You don't even
know the difference between "conservatism" and "strict
constitutionalism" (not that you apparently believe in either one).



... I know precisely what both campaigns are
saying about their candidates. I know what each candidate is saying about
himself. But you're truly the pot calling the kettle black, citing mostly
the bilgewater from the left-wing.

I haven't cited anything from either "wing." Why do you fascist whackos
have to call every unpleasant fact "left-wing"?



And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."


No, I'm not, actually. I'm only defending my bilateral viewpoint w/r/t the
issues and the men. You, OTOH, have only regurgitated left-wing propaganda.

Like what? That O'Neill's statements have him contradicting himself?
That he was paid by Nixon to discredit his political opponents,
including Kerry? Must be nice to get two paychecks for one job BTW.

My statements about the Bush Administration with regard to the
COnstitution are unfortunately verifiable fact, too.


Making such accusations only denegrates your own credibility. Your
arrogance is impressive. But I think most of us are used to it--it's been
your byline for years.

So, we've already got Bobsprit and a part-time Navsprit, now you want to
jump on the bandwagon and become Maxsprit?


Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."


And they are essentially democratic countries with largely capitalistic
economies.

Excuse me? Sweden is officially a socialist country. Japan's majority
party is called Liberal Democrats and they avow a large number of
socialist principles.

On and on it goes, you simply can't face the facts.


.... You bluster, boast, and
self-congratulate (spittle flying everywhere), but have little in the way of
veracity in your arguments.

Depends on what planet you live on.

Here on Earth, my statements are easily verifiable.

In Fascist Whacko La-La Land, you may be right... but that doesn't do
the rest of us any good.



And if you truly embraced conservatism, you'd understand that Kerry and
Edwards pose the greatest threat to that ideal since McGovern.

Actually, I think guys like you who see political disagreement as a
"threat" are a bigger threat.

I happen to like democracy, and hope to keep it.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Really? Got any proof of that, or are you just regurgitating the
mindless,
baseless left-wing prattle?

Is it "baseless left wing prattle" that O'Neill's own statements about
his service in Viet Nam... and Camobodia... corroborate Kerry's, up
until the time O'Neill went on Nixon's payroll, whereup he changed his
story?

No, it's pretty much easy to verify fact.

Actually it is, since many of the events and details in the book are backed
by official documentation. And I'll ask you again, can you prove that
O'Neill was on Nixon's payroll? Or is that just more left wing prattle?

You're lack of perspective is transparent, Mr. Left Wing.


Yeah, it's kind of like your serious effort to inform yourself, by
soacking up a lot of advertising and right-wing talk radio.

Right. Considering I haven't listened to ANY talk radio--conservative or
liberal--in well over 6 months.

Let me see if I've got this right: you pay little attention "to the
media"
but read local newspapers. Hmm. Most definitions include newspapers
within
the term "media." And websites? Oh yeah, no bias there. LOL.

I guess www.rnc.org and www.georgewbush.com are "biased"?

Of course. Did you honestly expect them to be unbiased? Really now.

For some reason, when I read the info on these sites, I see a lot of
campaign promises very similar to what was said in 1999 and 2000, none
of which has come to pass. Very little elucidation of the achievements
of the past 3 3/4 years. A fair amount of attack against "the other guys."

If you check the record, Bush has delivered on most of his 2000 campaign
promises: tax cuts, education reform, health care reform, etc. His batting
avg. vs. promises during his first four years has been far in excess of
Clinton's during his first term.

If he's elected, you'll discover just how much more "conservative" than
W he
is. Too late, I might add. As for #1, be prepared for a Kerry
administration to propose numerous changes to the Constitution.

The President can't change the Constitution.

No, but he can pressure Congress to make changes. Perhaps it's escaped you
that the vast majority of legislation that wends its way through Congress
originates in the presidental think tanks?

As for what Kerry might do, we've already seen what Bush *has* done.
Kerry can undo that, Bush certainly will not.

Kerry's Congressional voting record is in the public domain. Have you
bothered to check it out? If so, did the readily apparent trends evade your
notice? Can you honestly state that his record fits your definitions of
conservatism?


... If you were
truly conservative, you'd fear the guy as much as I do

That's ridiculous. What you mean is "If you'd had as much shrill fascist
whacko shrieking in your ears as I have, you'd be paranoid about anybody
who doesn't constantly rant about how much they hate liberals."

I suspect I listen less to the so-called "shrill fascist" wackos than do you
to the shrill, socialist wierdos. As I pointed out several times in this
debate, I've drawn my own conclusions despite the propagation of lies and
distortions on both sides. You, OTOH . . .


4. A belief that government should provide exactly what the
Constitution
says it should: national defense (your #3) and a representation of the
will
of the people. Not much else.

I guess that's why the Bush Adminstration has undone almost all
Constitutional freedoms.

Oh? I can still speak freely in a public forum, such as this. I can still
keep and bear arms. I can still worship in the manner I choose. Shall I
continue? What hyperbole you belch.

He has made it possible for gov't agencies to
spy on citizens without a warrant, to take citizens property, to hold
citizens in jail for no reason (although the Supreme Court slapped his
hand for trying to do so indefinitely), give tax money to churches,
require citizens to testify against themselves... and most importantly,
has put into effect executive orders keeping gov't secrets, period.

Oh well, that certainly is "almost all Constitutional freedoms." Can you
define " gross exaggeration?"

... Kerry believes government should provide
just about everything everyone needs, including health care, welfare,
and
jobs.

Uh huh. Did Kerry or one of his campaign reps say this? I strongly doubt
it. Once again, you're passing judgement on Coke based on Pepsi
advertising.

Kerry actually hasn't said much of anything, except that he's for the war,
but against it, rather for it, um, opposed to it . . . . ad nauseum. But
his voting record speaks volumes of what he stands for. Read it and weep.

Actually you're full of ****.

I guess that's why I have given good info from reliable sources,

Liberal media, websites, etc. Yeah, sure.

and
you're just making shrill accusations and calling names. You don't even
know the difference between "conservatism" and "strict
constitutionalism" (not that you apparently believe in either one).

As I've pointed out numerous times, I'm not happy with the Patriot Act.
It's not necessary to sacrifice the rights of citizens to achieve an
effective posture w/r/t terrorism. But the agendas of liberals in Congress
has been and still tends more toward the limitation of citizens' rights far
moreso than the agendas of the right. Certainly you're familiar with the
battle that gun owners have faced / are facing against liberal interests in
limiting or eliminating ownership of firearms? How about political
correctness? That's certainly not a conservative-backed agenda.


... I know precisely what both campaigns are
saying about their candidates. I know what each candidate is saying
about
himself. But you're truly the pot calling the kettle black, citing
mostly
the bilgewater from the left-wing.

I haven't cited anything from either "wing."

Really? Accusing O'Neill of being on Nixon's and Bush's payrolls, and
accusing the Swift Vets of being a pack of liars is right out of the radical
left-wing playbook. So is accusing Bush of "lying" about WMDs, which cannot
be proven by anyone but the President himself.


No, I'm not, actually. I'm only defending my bilateral viewpoint w/r/t
the
issues and the men. You, OTOH, have only regurgitated left-wing
propaganda.

Like what? That O'Neill's statements have him contradicting himself?
That he was paid by Nixon to discredit his political opponents,
including Kerry? Must be nice to get two paychecks for one job BTW.

Of course you've provided no evidence of this accusation, despite that
you've made it repeatedly.

My statements about the Bush Administration with regard to the
COnstitution are unfortunately verifiable fact, too.

The Patriot Act is one small aspect of the current administration's faux
pas. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Making such accusations only denegrates your own credibility. Your
arrogance is impressive. But I think most of us are used to it--it's
been
your byline for years.


So, we've already got Bobsprit and a part-time Navsprit, now you want to
jump on the bandwagon and become Maxsprit?


Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."


And they are essentially democratic countries with largely capitalistic
economies.

Excuse me? Sweden is officially a socialist country. Japan's majority
party is called Liberal Democrats and they avow a large number of
socialist principles.

On and on it goes, you simply can't face the facts.

Please elucidate how Sweden qualifies as a socialst nation. Is Canada a
socialist nation? They have socialized medicine and lots of other such
governmental programs,

.... You bluster, boast, and
self-congratulate (spittle flying everywhere), but have little in the
way of
veracity in your arguments.

Depends on what planet you live on.

Here on Earth, my statements are easily verifiable.

Fine. Please do so. I've asked nicely.


In Fascist Whacko La-La Land, you may be right... but that doesn't do
the rest of us any good.



And if you truly embraced conservatism, you'd understand that Kerry and
Edwards pose the greatest threat to that ideal since McGovern.

Actually, I think guys like you who see political disagreement as a
"threat" are a bigger threat.

Political disagreement hardly is a threat. It's what this country is all
about. What do constitute threats are wholesale changes in governmental
power and control over its citizens. For example, health care. Hillary's
proposed health care plan would have given the government control over our
lives heretofore unseen and unanticipated. The government could and would
hold sensitive personal health info on all of us, and could potentially use
that info to our detriment. And the government could and potentially would
hold the decision of life and death over any or all of us. Fortunately that
horrific plan was shot down in Congress. And now John Kerry is proposing
something similar all over again. Not to mention that his running mate has
amassed a fortune litigating health care practitioners and hospitals with
junk suits, driving up the cost of health care and health insurance to new
highs. Kerry's health care proposal would constitute a threat IMO.


I happen to like democracy, and hope to keep it.

So do I. That's why I support George W. Bush.

Max