"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