What would John Kerry do for this country? [Archive]

Doctor Manhattan

09-02-2004, 04:08 AM

He could be the first president not to lie to the American People in a while (16 years? Did Reagan Lie to us? I know Bush, Clinton and Bush did)

I'm not holding my breath about Kerry not lying to us. But he has a chance to become an "Honest" President. That would be something! I know all politicals lie, but the Bush Administration is just so bold and brazen about it, they just don't seem to care. It's insulting.

That would be "What COULD John Kerry do for this country"

He still hasn't shared his "plan" and that makes me nervious.

It's sad that this is our choice.

The people who would make excellent presidents are too smart (or scared) to open themselves up to what would happen to them and their families if they ran for president

<a href="http://members.cox.net/cousinken/itsabouttime.mp3"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 9-2-04 @ 8:14 AM

Teenweek

09-02-2004, 04:39 AM

He could be the first president not to lie to the American People

Does lying about being in Cambodia at Christmas count?

LordJezo

09-02-2004, 04:46 AM

He could be the first president not to lie to the American People

Does lying about being in Cambodia at Christmas count?

Well he isn't president yet so that dosent count.

------------------------
I KISS YOU!

Dudeman

09-02-2004, 05:10 AM

a few days ago, bush said he "miscalculated" the war in iraq.
actually, the military told him they would need more help to
deal with iraq after sadam- bush chose to ignore them. so one
thing kerry could do is to not be micalculating (at best) or
stubborn (in reality) when it comes to sending men and women
into war.

oh yeah, and fix usa basketball.

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

This message was edited by Dudeman on 9-2-04 @ 9:10 AM

curtoid

09-02-2004, 06:13 AM

He would act like an adult...

He would be hands on and active in being President...

Because of his time in Congress, he knows how to work with both sides...

He would not be lead around by the religious right...

He would actually address the deficit...

He would not repeal the "roadless rule"...

He would be able to bring in more of our allies to help fight the war on terrorism, so that the United States doesn't have to do it alone...

He will actually explore ways to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil...

He will establish a National Education Trust Fund to ensure that schools always get the funding they need...

He will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down...

He will lower the taxes on the middle class...

He will will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs in America instead of moving them overseas...

He would not send us into a conflict unprepared to win the peace...

He will actually cut family health care premiums...

He is not frightened of science...

He will give us the spiciest First Lady since Jackie...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 9-2-04 @ 10:14 AM

Reephdweller

09-02-2004, 06:21 AM

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/5/8998985_F_tn.jpg

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>

<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee>

HBox

09-02-2004, 06:45 AM

Regardless of what Kerry is going to do for this country, I have confidence that he will be able to do it. Give me an example of something President Bush has done that he hasn't royally screwed up. The comptency of this admnistration is alarmingly low.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Dudeman

09-02-2004, 07:09 AM

allow embryonic stem cell research (on more than just the estabilshed, insufficient lines created before bush's ban.) and going along with this- he'll have the support of 48 american noble laureates, who agree that the bush administration is a disaster for science.

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

East Side Dave

09-02-2004, 07:16 AM

-give preferential tax breaks for Rocky Dennis, John Merrick and other gigantic-headed people...

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on 90.5 The Night FM;
Friday and Saturday Night: Midnight to 5 AM you bastards!

Tall_James

09-02-2004, 07:25 AM

Claim to end outsourcing but work to outsource the command of our military forces to NATO.

<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~cheeseeatingbird/mcd.jpg>

Dudeman

09-02-2004, 08:03 AM

Claim to end outsourcing but work to outsource the command of our military forces to NATO.

actually he would bring in others to help reduce the financial and manpower burden that bush's war has put on the country. also, this will remove the american face off the occupation, allowing the restoration of peace in iraq to proceed more easily and reducing the resentment that is actually growing in the region (instead of the parades and flowers we were supposed to get.) finally, this would help restore relations with allies that bush has alienated.

so your mildly cleaver "outsourcing" line is actually a benefit of kerry over bush.

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

Mike Teacher

09-02-2004, 10:47 AM

Legalize Prostitution?

=

Bush is so wrong on the Stem Cells. Sheesh the Fertility Clinics regularly discard these things, whatever you wanna call them!

I'd ground NASA and shut down the Hubble for a Manhattan Project on The Cell.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

jeffdwright2001

09-02-2004, 10:55 AM

-give preferential tax breaks for Rocky Dennis, John Merrick and other gigantic-headed people...

I hope George Lopez is on that list:
http://www.enzogiobbe.com/celebs/George_Lopez3a.jpg

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jeffdwright2001"> 
"It is not best to use our morals weekdays, it gets them out of repair for Sunday." - Mark Twain 1898

Thanks to Reefy & M1 for my sigs!!

Teenweek

09-02-2004, 10:57 AM

I hate the religious right and I 100% disagree on stem cells with him, I hate Dick Chaney, I don't like Donald Rumsfeld because he was clueless on postwar Iraq, but I am still voting for Bush as he is the better choice of the 2.

I consider myself a moderate. Why can't Giuliani run this year as I agree with everything he stands for

This message was edited by Teenweek on 9-2-04 @ 3:09 PM

jeffdwright2001

09-02-2004, 10:58 AM

so your mildly cleaver "outsourcing" line is actually a benefit of kerry over bush.

If you want very cleaver, you should see KeithyboBeefy in action over
here (http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/52/Topic/40686/page/How_many_dates_.htm)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jeffdwright2001"> 
"It is not best to use our morals weekdays, it gets them out of repair for Sunday." - Mark Twain 1898

Thanks to Reefy & M1 for my sigs!!

Fuzz_Whatley

09-02-2004, 11:08 AM

I don't think he has spelled it out.

He still hasn't shared his "plan" and that makes me nervious.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

A Call to Service: My vision for a Better America by John Kerry (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670032603/002-1872355-4561623)

The New War : The Web of Crime That Threatens America's Security by John Kerry (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684846144/002-1872355-4561623)

TheMojoPin

09-02-2004, 11:54 AM

I hate the religious right and I 100% disagree on stem cells with him, I hate Dick Chaney, I don't like Donald Rumsfeld because he was clueless on postwar Iraq, but I am still voting for Bush as he is the better choice of the 2.

Why? I'm asking honestly, because you just summed up about 75% of the reasons why I'm probably not going to vote for Bush.

Why can't Giuliani run this year as I agree with everything he stands for

Abortion and gay rights? Yeah, me too.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Teenweek

09-02-2004, 12:08 PM

The economy is getting better with Bush, but the biggest reason for me as a father is fighting terrorism. I think we should have left Iraq after getting rid of Hussein but I don't trust Kerry. I feel he will cut defense, will go to the UN, beg france for help, try to appease everybody and just not be a very forceful leader as he changes his mind on everything like the wind changes directions

TheMojoPin

09-02-2004, 02:04 PM

But the contrast seems to be that we have to go it alone if we don't "go to the UN" or "beg France for help." There's gotta be a middle ground. I want a decisive leader, but Bush has gone well beyond that and is just stubborn. If something goes wrong, he'll stick with it just because it was his decision in the first place. There needs to be SOME give.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

FollowThisLogic

09-02-2004, 02:16 PM

He would act like an adult...
Adults make decisions.

He would actually address the deficit...
You don't understand much about economics, do ya?

He will actually explore ways to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil...
You don't know much about liberals either - they block the biggest domestic drilling plans.

He will lower the taxes on the middle class...
You're kidding, right? I didn't think anyone could be stupid enough to say such a thing.

He would not send us into a conflict unprepared to win the peace...
His latest stance is that he would have gone to war. I know he's hard to keep up with, but he's YOUR candidate, so try. Edit: Let's not forget his classic quote... "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

By the way, it may surprise you to learn that although I'm completely on the conservative side of government issues, I get quite liberal on issues that conservatives block based on religion. Abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, all of that. But I figure that stem cells will just get sorted out by itself - if America finds itself years behind everyone else, and all genetics-related business goes overseas, they'll wake up. They have no choice. Abortion... I doubt Roe v. Wade can ever get overturned. It would take a lot. Gay marriage... fuck it, let them do what they want. BUT - I think the gays are way too uptight about it legally being called "marriage".... if they're giving you all of the rights, all of the privileges, every benefit of marriage, but legally it's called a "civil union".... shut the fuck up and take it. The demand to call it "marriage" is why the right is getting so up-in-arms about it. And I serious doubt any Constitutonal amendment will pass, since it requires 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of all states. The only reason they want an amendment is so that denying gay marriage can't be judged unconstitutional.

By the way, I forgot to include this in my original question.... the things you claim John Kerry will do for the country... HOW will he get them done?

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I Y my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

This message was edited by FollowThisLogic on 9-2-04 @ 6:18 PM

Teenweek

09-02-2004, 02:19 PM

I think he will get them done by using a magic 8 ball

HBox

09-02-2004, 02:33 PM

What is George Bush going to do the next 4 years? That's an interesting question. And I don't have an answer to it. We all know what he's done, but I don't know what his plans are. We've had some off the cuff remarks about consumption taxes. I've read that tonight he's going to propose Social Security reform. Now THAT's expensive, and I bet you're not going to hear how he's gonna pay for that.

One thing I'm fairly sure about is that he won't raise taxes. And I'm pretty sure he'll just try to push more tax cuts. And I really don't like that stubbornness. Reagan raised some taxes after his initial cuts exploded the deficit. Bush 1 did so when he had to, and at great personal political cost.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

TheMojoPin

09-02-2004, 02:33 PM

You don't know much about liberals either - they block the biggest domestic drilling plans.

Neither do you, since most of us would like to see large scale explorations of other power sources outside of oil completely, so where the drilling happens isn't the issue, just that we at least consider other options.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

42nd-delay

09-02-2004, 02:36 PM

if they're giving you all of the rights, all of the privileges, every benefit of marriage, but legally it's called a "civil union".... shut the fuck up and take it.

If it's the same thing, why can't it be called marriage? It's a matter of equality.

Anyway, I believe he'll get us straighened out in fighting the war we're in. For all the talk about Bush being a great leader in the "war on terror," I think we're losing this war. I think Kerry has what it takes to get us help in Iraq, so that we can get back to the war we're supposed to be fighting. Plus, he'll get us on a better economic track, ending the reckless approach to budgets while reviving the type of policies that brought properity to all income levels. Obviously, he'll strengthen our environmental oversight again. Those are my major issues, and I firmly believe Kerry can do a better job on them.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

HBox

09-02-2004, 02:59 PM

I'd support drilling ANWR if it were tied to big, serious commitments to conservation and alternative energy sources.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

JerryTaker

09-02-2004, 03:01 PM

*sigh*

For everyone worried that Kerry is any more likely to cut defense spending than the current regime, please read this. (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177)

and I'd like to thank FTL for showing exactly how a neocon argues, starting off with

Hint: Answers like "he wouldn't be George Bush" - anything anti-Bush - aren't acceptable.

but making the perfectly acceptible counter-arguments such as...

You don't understand much about economics, do ya?

and

You're kidding, right? I didn't think anyone could be stupid enough to say such a thing.

give something substantial or do us all a favor and stop trolling.

 
[The Patriot Act has decreed this sig indecent, and has put JerryTaker under suspicion]

NewYorkDragons80

09-02-2004, 03:14 PM

He would act like an adult...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040727/capt.jey13d07271628.campaign_kerry_jey13d.jpg
He would be hands on and active in being President...
Well, Bush does that too. Only when he does, people like you call it a "photo-op".
He would not be lead around by the religious right...
See "Liberia"
He would be able to bring in more of our allies to help fight the war on terrorism, so that the United States doesn't have to do it alone...
Which ally(s) would that be?
He will actually explore ways to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil...
By drilling in Alaska?
He would not send us into a conflict unprepared to win the peace...
Kerry on Iraq (http://www.kerryoniraq.com/)
He is not frightened of science...
Three years ago, President Bush made the decision to open, for the first time, the laboratory doors to federal funding for human-embryonic-stem-cell research. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-15-stem-cells_x.htm)
He will give us the spiciest First Lady since Jackie...If she wants to be the spiciest, she had better get off the sauce.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

HBox

09-02-2004, 03:36 PM

By drilling in Alaska?

There's not enough oil there to make more than a minimal impact. As long as we are dependent on oil, we are dependent on Sauid Arabia.

Three years ago, President Bush made the decision to open, for the first time, the laboratory doors to federal funding for human-embryonic-stem-cell research.

Spinsanity handled this well. (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_29_archive.html#1093955559618822 68)

Which ally(s) would that be?

Give Kerry a break. They all can't handle the massive diplomacy required to get the Micronesia's of the world to support us.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Hottub

09-02-2004, 03:38 PM

Nice job, FTL. You sound like a young me, baack when I had the time to be up to date on world affairs. When I get back in to the political groove, (which won't be for about another year, due to personal reasons) You and me can conquer the board with logic and reason.

Also, there are more and more of us who can be conservative, yet still be pro...

Gay Union
stem Cell
Love the Bunnies
etc,

because this is not going to effect the "Big Picture"

Smaller Gov't
Strong Defence
No tax and spend
defecit reduction ( yeah, I know the war is kickin' our ass on this one...

<img src="http://siebert.home.att.net/coolhomersig.gif" border=0 align=right>
"Ahh, Beer. The cause of, and answer to all of life's problems"
Big A.S.S.#22127
The Cruising Vessel (http://www.silentpix.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Myalbums&file=thumbnails&album=41)

SatCam

09-02-2004, 05:00 PM

Kerry is a communists!!!111!!!11!1!

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

curtoid

09-02-2004, 05:09 PM

Smaller Gov't
Strong Defence
No tax and spend
defecit reduction ( yeah, I know the war is kickin' our ass on this one...

Gee - four for four - you just made the perfect case against GW Bush, if Republicans who claim to be socially moderate yet fiscally conservative were actually honest with themselves.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

Dudeman

09-02-2004, 05:15 PM

Three years ago, President Bush made the decision to open, for the first time, the laboratory doors to federal funding for human-embryonic-stem-cell research.

This is a disgustingly ignorant statement. Unless you have an MD or a PhD in molecular cell biology (or both...) don't open your mouth about scientific issues around this research. (The ethic are a different question, but the Bushes have been supporting their view with scientific issues, not their ultra-right wing christian conservative moral beliefs.) And if you are looking for an opinion, just ask the roughly 50 American noble laureates about their opinion about Bush, science, and stem cells who back Kerry.

Oh yeah, and Lincoln mishandled the civil war because he didn't use the Air Force...

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

FollowThisLogic

09-02-2004, 05:45 PM

Mojo - I'm all for alternative fuel sources. Where are they? They're not ready yet. Not ready to completely replace oil, anyway. It would be great if we didn't have to depend on oil... but we do. And if you're going to argue that the government needs to fund it more... okay, fine, but why only the government? Why doesn't MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Vets for Truth kick in a few bucks toward it? Wouldn't that make it all go faster?

General question..... shouldn't you be voting FOR a candidate instead of AGAINST one?

JerryTaker - Typical liberal response... ignore the question, for the most part, and instead try to wreck the credibility of the person who's questioning your precious, incorrect beliefs. You hate Hannity but you must love proving him to be correct.

By the way folks.... if you listen to any economist, they will tell you... the way to reduce the deficit is to make the economy stronger, rather than raise the taxes.

Liberals don't quite get that idea.... lowering taxes INCREASES REVENUE. Lower taxes means more spending, which boosts the economy. Boosting the economy means more jobs. More jobs means more people PAYING TAXES. Hence, more revenue.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I Y my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

HBox

09-02-2004, 06:01 PM

Why doesn't MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Vets for Truth kick in a few bucks toward it? Wouldn't that make it all go faster?

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.

Liberals don't quite get that idea.... lowering taxes INCREASES REVENUE. Lower taxes means more spending, which boosts the economy. Boosting the economy means more jobs. More jobs means more people PAYING TAXES. Hence, more revenue.

What? You want to get into an economics argument? Fine. Do you really think these kinds of deficits help the private sector. They don't! With the government borowing the massive amount of money it has been, there's less available for the private sector. And what's left is at higher interest rates. All these private corporations have to compete the most reliable borrower in the world, The United States of America. The money's going to America first, and what's left is more expensive.

And that's not even to mention that to FINALLY erase Reagan's deficits required Clinton raising taxes. That doesn't really fit in with your theory. Why were the tax rates of the greatest economic exapnsion in our country's history too high? Why did they all of a sudden become such a drag on the economy?

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

NewYorkDragons80

09-02-2004, 06:19 PM

Three years ago, President Bush made the decision to open, for the first time, the laboratory doors to federal funding for human-embryonic-stem-cell research.

Spinsanity handled this well. (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_29_archive.html#1093955559618822 68)
I didn't find anything there that contradicted the fact that this was the first president to support stem cell research.
This is a disgustingly ignorant statement.
Far from a statement, it is objective evidence laughing in your face.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-2-04 @ 10:21 PM

Doomstone

09-02-2004, 06:29 PM

To the Honorable George W. Bush,
President of the United States

We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. We join with other research institutions and patient groups in our belief that the current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, which enable scientists to conduct stem cell research within the rigorous constraints of federal oversight and standards, should be permitted to remain in effect. The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells is a significant milestone in medical research. Federal support for the enormous creativity of the US biomedical community is essential to translate this discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases.

The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem-cells is remarkably broad. The cells have the unique potential to differentiate into any human cell type. Insulin-producing cells could be used to treat - or perhaps even cure - patients with diabetes, cardiomyocytes could be used to replace damaged heart tissue, chondrocytes could be used for arthritis, and neurons for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS and spinal cord injuries to name a few examples. There is also the possibility that these cells could be used to create more complex, vital organs, such as kidneys, livers, or even entire hearts.

Some have suggested that adult stem cells may be sufficient to pursue all treatments for human disease. It is premature to conclude that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic stem cells -- and that potential will almost certainly vary from disease to disease. Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated.

The therapeutic promise of pluripotent stem cells is based on more than two decades of research in mice and other animal models. This research confirms that pluripotent stem cells are capable of generating all of the cell types of the body. Most importantly, the therapeutic potential of these cells has already been demonstrated. Cardiomyocytes generated in the laboratory from these cells have been transplanted into the hearts of dystrophic mice where they formed stable intracardiac grafts. Nerve cells have successfully reversed the progression of the equivalent of multiple sclerosis in mice and have restored function to the limbs of partially paralyzed rats; and insulin-secreting cells have normalized blood glucose in diabetic mice. These findings suggest that therapies using these cells may one day provide important new strategies for the treatment for a host of currently untreatable disorders.

While we recognize the legitimate ethical issues raised by this research, it is important to understand that the cells being used in this research were destined to be discarded in any case. Under these circumstances, it would be tragic to waste this opportunity to pursue the work that could potentially alleviate human suffering. For the past 35 years many of the common human virus vaccines -- such as measles, rubella, hepatitis A, rabies and poliovirus -- have been produced in cells derived from a human fetus to the benefit of tens of millions of Americans. Thus precedent has been established for the use of fetal tissue that would otherwise be discarded.

We urge you to allow research on pluripotent stem cells to continue with Federal support, so that the tremendous scientific and medical benefits of their use may one day become available to the millions of American patients who so desperately need them.

Yours respectfully,
Kenneth J. Arrow*, Stanford University
Julius Axelrod*, National Institute of Mental Health, Education & Welfare
Baruj Benacerraf*, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Paul Berg*, Stanford University
J. Michael Bishop*, Univer

HBox

09-02-2004, 06:31 PM

Bush happened to be in office when the issue arised. And then he placed undue, arbitrary limits on research funding. Every day these limits are in place delays the discovery of potential cures, if they exist. And people will die will unneccesarily die because of these delays. This is NOTHING to be proud of.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

ADF

09-02-2004, 06:35 PM

Liberals don't quite get that idea.... lowering taxes INCREASES REVENUE. Lower taxes means more spending, which boosts the economy. Boosting the economy means more jobs. More jobs means more people PAYING TAXES. Hence, more revenue.

Gee, that plan worked out great for Reagan. How's it working for Bush?

Hmm... not so great. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a> Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</center>

HBox

09-02-2004, 06:39 PM

Speaking of promises, Bush has promised more funding for community colleges, more tax cuts, Social Security reform (which will be hugely expensive in the short term), health care coverage for rural communities, more funding for job training, and expanding Pell Grants. And to pay for this. And I'm quoting here: "restraining federal spending." Not cutting.

Will you hold Bush to Kerry's standards? After all, he's already sent federal spending, even outside of the military, skyrocketing. So, what going on here?

EDIT:
If you say the heart and soul is in Hollywood, then you are not the candidate of conservative values.

YEAH! The Republican Governor of California is found in Hollywood, you silly liberals!

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 9-2-04 @ 10:42 PM

TheMojoPin

09-02-2004, 08:14 PM

Mojo - I'm all for alternative fuel sources. Where are they? They're not ready yet. Not ready to completely replace oil, anyway. It would be great if we didn't have to depend on oil... but we do. And if you're going to argue that the government needs to fund it more... okay, fine, but why only the government? Why doesn't MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Vets for Truth kick in a few bucks toward it? Wouldn't that make it all go faster?

I'd bet there's more privately funded alternative fuel research/use in America today than federal programs. I could be wrong, but it's just a hunch. The "not ready" way of thinking I don't see. They're not ready because we've thrown a minimum or effort at best into introducing these fueling methods. It's like Laura Bush's "we don't know how long it'll be until we see the possible benefits of stem cell research, so why start in earnest?'-argument.

That said, I am woefully unimpressed with Kerry's ecological history and plans, and he seems to be all talk and little action, much like Clinton/"Eco-Rambo" Gore.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-3-04 @ 12:15 AM

fluffernutter

09-02-2004, 08:36 PM

I am certainly not suited to respond to any of these political threads cause I have no idea what I am talking about in the political sense so I generally keep my mouth shut.

This thread has however taught me so much about BOTH candidates good and bad here today. That is the one thing I LOVE about this board as lame and boring or as cool and exciting it can be at times. This here is a forum of my peers. All sorts of shit can be discussed here from religion to politics to sports to film to music to social issues. One may not want to respond but DAMN if it can't be some seriously enlightening and educational conversation. The only thing that usually drags these kinds of discussions down are name calling and finger pointing and for the most part it has been kept to the minimum here which I am really tickled to see.

Carry on politically smarter than me, I'll go back to my sports, music, movies, food and boobs.

EDIT: And after I dragged 20 miles East to the Edit Button, I'm not being hard on myself here just honest about what I do and do not know.

Carry On Folks.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=fluffernutter

EAT! Ron and Fez Cereal! (http://pleaseforgetme.com/PTV/RFCereal.swf)

This message was edited by fluffernutter on 9-3-04 @ 12:38 AM

JesterOfSadness

09-02-2004, 08:38 PM

I am certainly not suited to respond to any of these political threads cause I have no idea what I am talking about in the political sense so i generally keep my mouth shut.

This thread has however taught me so much about BOTH candidates good and bad here today. That is the one thing I LOVE about this board as lame and boring or as cool and exciting it can be at times. This here is a forum of my peers. All sorts of shit can be discussed here from religion to politics to sports to film to music to social issues. One may not want to respond but DAMN if it can't be some seriously enlightening and educational conversation. The only thing that usually drags these kinds of discussions down are name calling and finger pointing and for the most part it has been kept to the minimum here which I am really tickled to see.

Carry on politically smarter than me, I'll go back to my sports, music, movies, food and boobs.

I give you a standing ovation man, I'm pretty much in the same ballpark as you.

HBox

09-02-2004, 08:52 PM

This sums up my confusion as to why conservatives would support Bush pretty well, in better words than I could give, and this is coming from a conservative, who until this winter was supporting the President. (http://www.andrewsullivan.com)

THE END OF CONSERVATISM: But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?

This guy fits the bill of most conservatives on thsi board, liberal on social issues, but very conservative on financial and defense issues.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 9-3-04 @ 12:54 AM

TheMojoPin

09-02-2004, 09:51 PM

The problem isn't conservatism...it's not a bad thing. The bad thing is "neo-conservatism," which seems to exist ONLY to contrast "liberals" at every turn, just because it/they can. Even Patty Buchanan gets it.

<img src=http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312341156.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-3-04 @ 1:51 AM

shamus mcfitzy

09-02-2004, 10:18 PM

What would John Kerry do for this country?

Maybe it is overused, but he'd consider war like a person who's been there. That's like really important to me. That outweighed like half of everything about Wesley Clark for me.

Also, I think that Kerry's stands on the issues that many rightists (just meaning on the right side of the spectrum) on the board are saying they support are more long-lasting than the things they support Bush on. Abortion, gay unions and stem-cell research are things that definitely will be important in the future of this country.

And here is something that I have at least accepted as fact for at least the next 8 years: we are a pretty militaristic nation. Whether its because we're still used to it from the Cold War (i think this) or because we are forced to by someone crazy at least every 4 years (also believe this), we are not gonna change soon. In that way, i don't think things like this are that important and the military is a pretty "right now" issue.

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 9-3-04 @ 2:20 AM

Bestinshow

09-02-2004, 11:02 PM

it cracks me up when the liberals on this board start talking about all the things Kerry is going to do, because Kerry doesn't know what he's going to do. Where is this platform of his that you speak of? I hear no economic plan. I hear no plan of how he will straighten out the middle east. Why will he be so sucessfull at fixing something thats been broken for decades? Please link me to these pearls coming from Kerry's mouth because i hear none.

But the funniest part is when you guys start talking about taxes. Do you have a clue about the nuts and bolts of the tax reforms? First of all , a major portion was aimed at the middle class as far as removing the marriage penalty and adjusting the brackets. The capital gain tax rate reduction is aimed at stimulating the stock market. Boys and girls, we know what happens when the stock market falls, don't we? What do you think made the market rebound? But of course thats only for the rich. F the stock market.

Ask your boy Kerry to define middle class. I would bet my left nut, if Kerry wins, all of us in the .middle clas get the biggest hit. There are alot more rich democrats than they like to admit.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

shamus mcfitzy

09-02-2004, 11:27 PM

Boys and girls, we know what happens when the stock market falls, don't we? What do you think made the market rebound?

You know this is a great thing because unemployment goes up and the economy is doing better and unemployment goes down and the economy is not doing so good. In that respect, I'm rooting against the economy.

FollowThisLogic

09-03-2004, 02:42 AM

Dudeman

09-03-2004, 04:55 AM

not let the assult weapon ban expire.

(and where's rudy (mr. tough on crime) on that one? looks like
someone's trying to kiss up to the right. in the past he would
have been going nuts about this.)

(and speaking of tough on crime, remember, kerry was an
assistant district attorney, while bush was using daddy's money
to snort cocaine and getting dui's.)

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

This message was edited by Dudeman on 9-3-04 @ 9:00 AM

ADF

09-03-2004, 05:01 AM

it cracks me up when the liberals on this board start talking about all the things Kerry is going to do

It cracks me up when conservatives act overly patronizing. Clearly, they have all the answers to America's problems.

John Kerry's plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) is as clearly defined as Bush's, which isn't saying much. They both call for more spending than is feasible, but every politician promises more than he or she can deliver.

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a> Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</center>

Mike Teacher

09-03-2004, 05:02 AM

Unless you have an MD or a PhD in molecular cell biology (or both...) don't open your mouth about scientific issues around this research.

Now that a bold statement, and agreed. It's not easy, I dont understand a lot of it, and science knows even less.

=

But I'll be bold and cross the line; no PhD for me, or MD, but...

What I said on R+F was this: We really don't know shit about the cell. This is the Yin/Yang of science that many, including me, struggle with, meaning:

Can a statement be true, and it's 180 degree opposite Also be true? I say not only yes, but its an excellent test of the truth of a statement. Sounds insane. I agree.

Example: Compared to 100 years ago, the knowledge of the cell, total guess here, has increased by say 4 or 5 orders of magnitude, we know maybe 1,000 times more? a million? a billion times more about the working of the cell then a century ago. So the Statement:

Cell Research is going strong, look at what we know now compared to then! My God we're opening the Book of Life! We have entire blueprints on the DNA of lifeforms! We've unlocked untold mysteries of the cell, and the results have ben a stirring, almost Global Revolution in medicines, and treatments and what I would absolutely call Miracles.

=

Flip Side of the coin:

We dont know shit about cells. We were all, everyone of us, once a single cell. That cell divided, 2,4,8... and off you went. At one point one of these cells, just one, decided to become the human brain, this one cell will bcome the trillion cell enchanted loom [what someone who saw an image of the forest of neurons called the picture] we call the brain.

How cells decide to become what they become [going from differentiated to unidifferentiated]? Were essentially Clueless, in the stone age. How cells signal each other? Clueless. How cells recognize the good guys and the bad guys, meaning foreign things like invaders and donated hearts? Clue-fucking-less.

Oh we know tons. See above. But if you really look at how we treat these things, we see we really dont know Shit.

We throw poisons at cancer cells and try to kill them before it kills you. Not sure which killed my Dad, but it was a close race, the chemo turned a handsome man into what he referred to as ET.

With that; I can say: We know nothing about the Cell.

=

There are many cell lines available. But there are 1,000s, not hundreds, not dozens, Thousands of Cell types, and they arent being studied as well as they could be.

=

Pure Science: Fuck any Goals. Find the smartest hungriest Cell-nerds around and let them loose. Historically, two things will happen. One, it will be a colossal waste of time and money. On the other hand, they might Change the World.

=

Have to go take Mom to a Doctor for a mammogram; essentially a stone-age detection method. But also saves 1000s of lives.

Anyone else seeing the Yin/Yang?

We know a lot; but we do not really know so much...

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

TheMojoPin

09-03-2004, 07:44 AM

I'd bet there's more privately funded alternative fuel research/use in America today than federal programs. I could be wrong, but it's just a hunch. The "not ready" way of thinking I don't see. They're not ready because we've thrown a minimum or effort at best into introducing these fueling methods.
My point of them not being ready is, alternative fuel sources can't offer the performance that this coutnry is used to, and desires. I really doubt you can convince a Cadillac driver to go pick up a Toyota Prius. You can't convince an SUV-driving soccer mom that a Honda Insight will solve all her problems. This country is way to into things being big - I don't see us ever going European-style, all driving 1.6-liter manual compacts. So the only other option is that the alternative sources have to be able to provide the speed, acceleration, and power we're used to, without sacrificing the size of the car. It's got a long way to go.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I Y my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

You're right, it IS a long way to go. So we'd better start now. The government already offers small incentives for buying hybrids (Tax refunds, solo use of HOV lanes, etc.), and they need to work with local state governments to step that up, and also streamline the technology so that it's cheaper for the average car buyer. But we need to make that a MAJOR push for it to work. Opting instead to drill in Alaska is completely ass backwards to this mentality, and just prolongs our dependence on oil unecessarily, and it can't even come close to fullfilling our current fuel needs. As long as we're dependent on oil, we're dependent on the Middle East, period. All the drilling in the available space in the US won't even put a dent in that.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Dudeman

09-03-2004, 08:32 AM

Unless you have an MD or a PhD in molecular cell biology (or both...) don't open your mouth about scientific issues around this research.

Now that a bold statement, and agreed. It's not easy, I dont understand a lot of it, and science knows even less.

even though my cloning and transfections haven't worked this week, those 5 letters after my name allow me to be a bit more confident when discussing the matter then nyd80. oh yeah, and i'm also a stones throw away from some of the people listed above in the letter to president.

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

Dudeman

09-03-2004, 08:38 AM

How cells decide to become what they become [going from differentiated to unidifferentiated]? Were essentially Clueless, in the stone age. How cells signal each other? Clueless. How cells recognize the good guys and the bad guys, meaning foreign things like invaders and donated hearts? Clue-fucking-less.

no we aren't. we can take an udifferentiated cell in culture and turn it into a neuron, a myocardial cell, a pancreatic insulin producing cell, etc...

as for the immunology- of course we have great insight innate and adaptive immunity; we have great insight into rejection of pathogens and host vs. graft rejection.

to say "WE" are clueless is wrong.

and getting back to the topic of this thread- john kerry discovered all of this.

-I'll log off now, and listen to your
response.-

curtoid

09-03-2004, 08:59 AM

You're right, it IS a long way to go. So we'd better start now...we need to make that a MAJOR push for it to work....As long as we're dependent on oil, we're dependent on the Middle East, period.

We've already lost a lot of ground.

For all of the shit he gets today, Jimmy Carter was actually pointing the country in the right direction in the late seventies when it came to this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

curtoid

09-03-2004, 09:02 AM

it cracks me up when the liberals on this board start talking about all the things Kerry is going to do...

Yeah - easy for you to say now, but if no one had answered this thread ("What would John Kerry do for this country?") then FTL would have pouted.

Ask your boy Kerry to define middle class. I would bet my left nut, if Kerry wins, all of us in the .middle clas get the biggest hit. There are alot more rich democrats than they like to admit.

Ok, Kreskin.

For the record, Tom Green made the same bet about his television show staying on MTV "forever and ever...!"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

TheMojoPin

09-03-2004, 09:35 AM

So I'm not supposed to vote for Kerry, because he's going to fuck up the middle class even more...but I AM supposed to vote for Bush because he's raped the middle class LESS than Kerry supposedly plans to?

This election sucks hard.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 10:33 AM

Raped the middle class? You show me where Bush raped the middle class? I am middle class and married filing jointly and i save a couple of thousand every year from Bush's tax cuts. You show me where Bush is costing you for being middle class.

F/y/i in 2000 for single ind, tax on first $26250 was 15%, 26250-63550 was 28%, 63550-132600 was 31%.

proj in 2004(Per US master tax Guide) first $7150 will be 10%, 7150-29050 15% and 29050-70350 will be 25%, 70,350-146750 is 28%

You do the math!

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

TheMojoPin

09-03-2004, 10:37 AM

Wait, so YOUR taxes proves that everyone else in the shrinking middle class is "OK?"

Where were MY tax cuts? Literally, I received zero. I've saved zero. Nothing has changed on my paychecks or tax filings.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

09-03-2004, 10:41 AM

I don't know how many times I have to say this. John Kerry has specifically said he would only raise taes on people making over $200,000. People making that much money may not be rich, but they ain't part of the middle class, either.

Now, if you have any other ideas about what's going ot happen in John Kerry becomes President, it's not coming from John Kerry. He's been clear in what he's said. Furthermore, while you might be doing well Best in Show, it's simply not true of the country as a whole. 1.5 million people more are now living in poverty, 45 million have no health insurance, increases in the price of healthcare, gas and other staples has outstirpped wage growth. These are facts. There may be little President's can do to control such things but that is the truth of the day.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

LordJezo

09-03-2004, 10:51 AM

[font=Century gothic][color=navy][size=2]I don't know how many times I have to say this. John Kerry has specifically said he would only raise taes on people making over $200,000. People making that much money may not be rich, but they ain't part of the middle class, either.

That's right. They are small buisness owners trying to make a living, mom and pop stores, small startups, that sort of thing.

But hey, who cares? They make too much money so tax em to hell! The government knows how to spend their money better then they do.

------------------------
I KISS YOU!

HBox

09-03-2004, 10:55 AM

That's right. They are small buisness owners trying to make a living, mom and pop stores, small startups, that sort of thing.

But hey, who cares? They make too much money so tax em to hell! The government knows how to spend their money better then they do.

Where did this idea come from that the Clinton-era tax rates were oppresive? Small business owners were doing fine in the 90s. And it's a dodge anyway because the majority of the tax cuts for rich Americans came in the form things like capital gains tax cuts, dividend tax cuts, and the elimination of the estate tax.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 10:56 AM

I'm simply stating that Bush is not raping the middle class as many Democrats love to allege. In fact, many of his tax cuts were targeted for middle class.

And Mojo, did you read my post? Its impossible for you to have not gotten any benefit out of those bracket changes. If you havent, you need a new accountant.

(I'll do your taxes for you....cheap ;) )

BTW, those weren't just MY taxes. Last I checked, those brackets were for all Americans.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-3-04 @ 2:59 PM

TheMojoPin

09-03-2004, 10:57 AM

Well, I may need one in the first place. But I monitored my paycheck for months after the tax cuts. Nothing changed, up or down.

Or maybe I'm not even middle class.

What's the official income bracket for that?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

09-03-2004, 10:59 AM

Spinsanity deals with the Small Business tax situation. ( http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_22_archive.html#1093397605828778 46)

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 11:03 AM

Mojo, you cant go by take home pay per week. That is just withholdings. You have to actually look at your tax return at your tax computation vs your wages. Trust me, you saved. If you want to go over the numbers , you can pm me and maybe somehow I can walk you through it.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Recyclerz

09-03-2004, 11:24 AM

OK, since this thread has devolved into the usual mudslinging, I now feel comfortable enough to wade in.

It cracks me up when conservatives act overly patronizing. Clearly, they have all the answers to America's problems.

I agree with ADF. It was OK when William F. Buckley acted like Evelyn Waugh because at least he had thought through the issues and arrived at his conclusions in an intellectually honest manner. (And he had actually read Evelyn Waugh.) When the current crop of Right-wing pontificators do it, they are at best derivative and more likely just plain dishonest by cherry-picking inconsistent views that benefit themselves & their buddies in the short run. When some of the people on this Board just repeat bits of what they hear on WABC or Fox News it is even more frustrating.

Liberals don't quite get that idea.... lowering taxes INCREASES REVENUE. Lower taxes means more spending, which boosts the economy. Boosting the economy means more jobs. More jobs means more people PAYING TAXES. Hence, more revenue.

As an expert on the Laffer Curve, surely you will admit that this only happens if the marginal tax rates are so high that they act as a disincentive to individuals so that they are dissuaded from additional productive activity. The deficits that followed from Reagan's tax cuts are empirical proof that the suboptimal point on the curve hadn't been reached yet.

So, most times, lower tax rates mean less money for the government. Now whether or not that is a good thing or not depends on how you view the world and the people on it (and a lot of other things as well).

But if you're going to be a shill for Grover Norquist you had better find out what he's selling first (for your own sake, if for no one else.)

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 11:32 AM

Yeah, Than Clinton got rid of the capital gain incentives and we had a nice little recession that everybody likes to blame on Bush. For those with short memories , the stock market, led by the Nadaq crash, started to plummet in early 2000.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 11:45 AM

When the current crop of Right-wing pontificators do it, they are at best derivative and more likely just plain dishonest by cherry-picking inconsistent views that benefit themselves & their buddies in the short run. When some of the people on this Board just repeat bits of what they hear on WABC or Fox News it is even more frustrating.

When you talk about "right wing pontificators" are you talking about the board because thats who adf was addressing? And I would like to see where us "Neoconservatives" as the new catch phrase falsely describes us, are "derivative" and "dishonest"? Show me the Kerry policies that we describe out of contest, or spin to back our arguments? Cherrypick inconsistent views????? Inconsistent with what? I haven't heard anything out of Kerry that I could spin if I wanted to. The last pearls of wisdom I heard from him about Iraq he said he wouldnt be upset if he only disagreed about one thing. He said he would do everything different. What John???????? What would you do different????????????? I'd get other countries to help. yeah okay. Thats his whole platform. See everything thats going wrong. I'd do it different.

Maybe you are just watching too much CNN.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Recyclerz

09-03-2004, 11:47 AM

I'm simply stating that Bush is not raping the middle class as many Democrats love to allege. In fact, many of his tax cuts were targeted for middle class.

BestinShow,

I'll stipulate that your point above is true. But surely you can't deny that in terms of actual $, the majority of the currently implemented tax cuts and those yet to be implemented accrue to those at the very top of the income charts.

And since you're an accountant, how do you resolve the liability side of the ledger? The demographic bulge (aka the Baby Boomers) which you & I are at the tail end of, is going to be sucking up a lot of tax money in a very few years. If you're not paying down the national debt now,(as the Clinton/Rubin team was) how are you going to be servicing the debt and paying off Grandma, Grandpa and your parents as they cash their checks down in Atlantic City and not wind up with an economy like Argentina's?

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

Doogie

09-03-2004, 11:57 AM

:::Le Sigh::: Its at times like these that I miss the Horde King to deliver some words to silence everyone.

<IMG SRC=http://members.aol.com/doogcool/myhomepage/obi1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>

phixion

09-03-2004, 12:03 PM

is it wrong that i wouldnt vote for kerry because i like him but i would vote for kerry because i like the his running mate?

the dude wants crack and cocaine to be the exact same drug in the federal court system bravo man!! hes the first politician to my knowledge who even addresseed the situation.

<IMG SRC="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/phx_sig.gif">
"Everybody wanna be like Mike but Mike wanna be like L"
Monsterone, many much thanks.

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 12:04 PM

those tax cuts that you state benefit the rich are necessary because they stimulate the stock market. At the end of clintons second term and even more so after 9/11 the stock market became very soft. As you know, the stock market is the heart of our economy which surely dives along with the stock market.

As for the deficit, there are so many theories on that I dont think anyone has it figured out. If anyone could figure how to balance the deficit and stimulate the economy and the stock market, without impacting interest rates and inflation , and at the same time lower unemplyment, hed be able to run for king.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Recyclerz

09-03-2004, 12:09 PM

By Right wing Pontificators I was referring to the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly group of chatterers who get paid to do it.

They (and their lemming-like followers) are intellectually dishonest because they keep harping on the government as a bad actor in society, while enjoying/ignoring the income-transferring activities that benefit them. Some examples:

Cut my tax rates (but don't cut my tax breaks: mortgage interest deductions, 401(k), IRAs, etc.) but don't cut SS, Medicare (or Medicaid if we've shipped Grandma to a nursing home)

Get government off my back, but let it be there to provide tax breaks, loans or protective tariffs to industry if my job is in jeopardy

etc.

If you don't fall into this category, then my criticisms don't apply to you. But they certainly do apply to Bush's policies and proposals.

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

Recyclerz

09-03-2004, 12:17 PM

hed be able to run for king

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/04.05/photos/11-rubin-150.jpg

I'd hit it. ;)

But seriously, it is not that hard to see where this administration's policies lead to a train wreck in 5 to 10 years: big current account deficits get compounded by Social Security trust fund cashing in its t-bills so there is no money to do anything else besides pay Grandma and the Chinese (debt service), interest rates shoot up to the sky to get other countries to buy our junk bonds; meanwhile thanks to Bush's tax reforms, all investment income is tax free so tax revenue comes strictly from wages, leading to a bunch of grumpy workers angry at complacent rich people living in gated communities with armed guards.

Are you trying to bring back communism? ;)

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 9-3-04 @ 4:28 PM

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 12:28 PM

Cut my tax rates (but don't cut my tax breaks: mortgage interest deductions, 401(k), IRAs, etc.) but don't cut SS, Medicare (or Medicaid if we've shipped Grandma to a nursing home)

Are you kidding me??????You are going to attack mortgage interest deductions and the tax deferrals of IRA's and 401K????? Do you have any idea how important those items are to middle class America? How they stimulate home ownership and savings and provide some sort of stability to the avg middle class homeowner. This is the demographic you want to focus on? And thats right, I would like some say as to where my money goes. Sounds to me like you want to socialize everything.

Get government off my back, but let it be there to provide tax breaks, loans or protective tariffs to industry if my job is in jeopardy

Be there to provide tax breaks??? Tax structure is an integral part of government and the budget.

I've never heard Rush, Hannity or any conservative for that matter address the government making loans as any significant policy. If anything, most government loans are for special interest groups.

And tariffs are integral for balanced trade in order to keep income here.

There is a big differnce between big government and no government which is what you are talking about.

I guess your criticisms do include me , but thats okay. I'll stick with my theories.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-3-04 @ 5:17 PM

Recyclerz

09-03-2004, 04:08 PM

Are you kidding me??????You are going to attack mortgage interest deductions and the tax deferrals of IRA's and 401K????? Do you have any idea how important those items are to middle class America? How they stimulate home ownership and savings and provide some sort of stability to the avg middle class homeowner. This is the demographic you want to focus on? And thats right, I would like some say as to where my money goes. Sounds to me like you want to socialize everything.

OK, either you're not reading what I'm writing or I'm doing a bad job of explaining myself. I'll assume it is the latter and just make some unvarished points.

You think tax and spend politics is bad. Maybe, maybe not - it is a subjective thing. (We'd probably agree on more than you think.) I'm arguing borrow and spend is even worse.
Bush and the Republican Congress are handing out pork barrel goodies to all their supporters (including big agricultural subsidies, below market price sale of public lands, etc.) even beyond increased security spending. They are also proposing to effectively eliminate taxes on investment income by stealth, leaving wage earners to pay all the taxes.
By "Buying now and paying later" Bush and the Republican Congress are setting up a fiscal trainwreck for the country that, if given another four year headstart, will not be fixed in my lifetime (I just turned 43).
I believe this administration and Congress are hypocrites and moral cowards for not living up to their fiduciary responsibilities as leaders of this country and by taking advantage of the average citizen's lack of financial knowledge and/or sophisication.

I'm not even going to go into the waste of money and American lives that is the Iraq Experiment (well, in this thread anyway.)

This is not a plan for limited government intervention with low taxes that has traditionally been the Republican theology. (I don't fully agree with it but I respect it.) Bush and Congress are showing a rough draft for a blueprint of a plutocracy like the one Teddy Roosevelt fought against 100 years ago. I'm not sure if that is what you're defending; it is what I am ranting and raving against.

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

NewYorkDragons80

09-03-2004, 04:12 PM

I have every intention of voting for Bush, but at least I can respect Mojo for supporting Nader. At least he's voting for someone he agrees with, not someone who he has marginally less hatred for.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

SatCam

09-03-2004, 04:25 PM

I'm voting Steve C. for class president.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

Bestinshow

09-03-2004, 05:07 PM

This is not a plan for limited government intervention with low taxes that has traditionally been the Republican theology. (I don't fully agree with it but I respect it.) Bush and Congress are showing a rough draft for a blueprint of a plutocracy like the one Teddy Roosevelt fought against 100 years ago. I'm not sure if that is what you're defending; it is what I am ranting and raving against.

You are right I misunderstood you. I'm not sure if I agree with you however that thats the way its going to go down. maybe I haven't read enough (Who has time), or maybe I'm naive , but I don't believe his policies are as slanted as you portray them. If they were though, yes I would agree with you because that would certainly be government intervention. I guess we will soon find out.

I believe this administration and Congress are hypocrites and moral cowards for not living up to their fiduciary responsibilities as leaders of this country and by taking advantage of the average citizen's lack of financial knowledge and/or sophisication.

I strongly disagree with you here. I don't get where you see him pulling the wool over anyones eyes. How is he taking advantage of anyones lack of knowledge? Whether you agree with his policy or not, it was all out there for everyone to see.
I don't know, I don't get this at all.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

I believe this administration and Congress are hypocrites and moral cowards for not living up to their fiduciary responsibilities as leaders of this country and by taking advantage of the average citizen's lack of financial knowledge and/or sophisication.

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-3-04 @ 9:12 PM

Yerdaddy

09-03-2004, 06:28 PM

I have every intention of voting for Bush, but at least I can respect Mojo for supporting Nader. At least he's voting for someone he agrees with, not someone who he has marginally less hatred for.

I don't agree with any of them, really. Kerry comes closest, and Bush farthest. How do I win your respect?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

monsterone

09-03-2004, 06:47 PM

I don't agree with any of them, really. Kerry comes closest, and Bush farthest.

the lesser of 2 evils; didn't we go through that 4 yrs ago?

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"> </center>

<center>

do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.


</center>

TheMojoPin

09-03-2004, 08:26 PM

I don't agree with any of them, really. Kerry comes closest, and Bush farthest.

the lesser of 2 evils; didn't we go through that 4 yrs ago?

And in '96, 8 years ago, too.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

reeshy

09-04-2004, 01:26 AM

How do I win your respect?

AAh, YerDaddy, you know you have MY respect...and my love too!!!!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

Mike Teacher

09-04-2004, 02:09 AM

no we aren't. we can take an udifferentiated cell in culture and turn it into a neuron, a myocardial cell, a pancreatic insulin producing cell, etc...

Thats *what* is done. How the cells do this is what I was referring to; if you wish to explain how the cellular signaling takes place in the cells, for each of the 1000s of somatic cell type, not what but *how*, I'm all ears. Cause there's a Nobel waiting for that person. And that big list of Nobel people in that list saying, essentially, 'please let us learn more about the cell. It is Most important'.

*we* dont turn the cell into a neuron, the cell does. Thats akin to 'we' make the baby, coz we made the sperm and egg meet.

I'm with ya though, yes we know things, my Advanced Cell Biology book is 1,400 pages long and that scratches the surface of things we know. What I mean is an understanding at a much much deeper level.

=

For the grafting/transplant stuff. Do you know how we deal with that? By shutting down the immune system so the body doesnt reject the new organ. Because right now, thats about all we know what to do to stop the cells from attacking each other. Shutting down = we dont know how to treat it anyway else, so we just shut it down.

Ditto with Chemotherapy. Yeah, there's a real understanding of the cell. We poison you, hope the stuff finds the cancer cells and kills them before it kills you! You'll lose your hair, your appetite, your white count, so much so, you may just choose to screw the treatment and die, as many do.

This is a good understanding of the cell? This is what we are about in medicine in 2004?

Tel that to the parents of a six year old going through treatment with Platinol, that this is the great result of our deep understanding of the cell.

I'm less then impressed, compared to what we should and could know.

[If it sounds like I'm going off on someone on the cancer thing; it's no one here, it's the Cancer I'm pissed off at. Took my dad at 66, and the chemo turned him from one handsome mofo into what he referred to as 'ET']

=

As for us being clueless, reading the post would show an attempt at the duality between what we do know [which I said is a lot] and what we don't [which is much much more]. So, Youre absolutely wrong, and simultaneously 100% right! :)

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 9-4-04 @ 6:36 AM

curtoid

09-04-2004, 06:53 AM

It's simply the known vs. unknown for me.

I know that Bush will repeal the "roadless rule," will appoint Federal Judges that would make decisions on women's health, would listen to the Bible over science when making very serious decisions, and I suspect he will continue tampering with our environmental laws.

I am pretty sure John Kerry would not do any of those things.

I also know the current President would take the country into a war without gaining stronger international support, I know he will continue to push to make sure homosexuals don't have the same rights as the rest of Americans, I'm sure he will sign any law thrown at him by the FCC (through congress) to limit freedom of speech in order to protect The Family, I know he will continue to increase our debt, I know that by weakening our standing and clout in the world we are not safer, and I know he and his administration has dubious ties to private organizations, big business and foreign nations that all directly undercut the average American's best interest.

I don't know for a fact that John Kerry will be 100% opposite of George Bush on any of those things, but it's an excellent time to find out - and if Kerry fails, then we get a new person in there.

I have no problem voting or a Republican if the right one comes around, but right now, the way the religious zealots and those have taken control of the party and the direction of the party, I can't see them nominating a true moderate - not until they lose.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 9-4-04 @ 10:56 AM

kc7586

09-04-2004, 07:31 AM

It's the ignorant people that will end up fucking us in the ass this November. The whole bush sucks so Kerry just has to be better mentality is awful. If you can't be bothered to find out what's what then don't even vote you brainless waste of human.

And as for Kerry....His senate record is what people should be looking at, he hasn't done shit in the last 20 years. Everything he voted for he probally ended up voting against the next week. His only platform is just simply "I'm not Bush." That is weak, and to me that kind of attitude will kill us. He can't do anything for our country, there is absolutely nothing. So my advice is don't take the easy way out, go out and learn what the hell is going on before November 2nd.

<marquee>I am woman hear me roar, bitch, and whine.</marquee>
<center>
<IMG SRC="http://www.vampchick.com/hitlerkerrysig.gif">
</center>

John <3 John (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/180007)

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>Vampire girls suck....</marquee>
Good girls are bad girls that dont get caught.
Life's a bitch.....then you strangle one.

Yerdaddy

09-04-2004, 07:37 AM

The whole bush sucks so Kerry just has to be better mentality is awful. If you can't be bothered to find out what's what then don't even vote you brainless waste of human.
Nice sig pic. Where'd you get it, Lobotomies R' Us?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-4-04 @ 11:37 AM

kc7586

09-04-2004, 07:40 AM

Nice come back, it's been up for a while, guess you have nothing to say in defence of your precious johny so you have to attack the truth in my sig. If Kerry is elected this country will be very close to the hell hitler imposed on the world.

<marquee>I am woman hear me roar, bitch, and whine.</marquee>
<center>
<IMG SRC="http://www.vampchick.com/hitlerkerrysig.gif">
</center>

John <3 John (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/180007)

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>Vampire girls suck....</marquee>
Good girls are bad girls that dont get caught.
Life's a bitch.....then you strangle one.

Yerdaddy

09-04-2004, 07:53 AM

If you can't be bothered to find out what's what then don't even vote you brainless waste of human.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

TooCute

09-04-2004, 08:24 AM

Just to get back to answering the original question, personally one of the issues that is important to me is the environment. As far as that goes, I am far more in favor of Kerry's record thus far (e.g. voting against increased funding for forest roads, trying to strengthen the clean air act, enforcing existing environmental laws, encouraging use and development of renewable energy sourcesetc.) than Bush's (spurning the Kyoto agreement in favor of his own plan that would in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions, attemtping to increase funding to loggers, attempting to weaken the endangered species act (like by counting fish living in fisheries when counting wild populations to determine if they're endangered??!), that whole drilling in Alaska thing, etc. etc.)

In that respect I think that John Kerry would be far better for this country than George Bush. I can respect that some people feel that these issues are not as important as others such as the economy or the so-called war on terror, but I'm not commenting on those issues. I'm just commenting that I think that this is one area where John Kerry would do something for the country that George Bush clearly has not done and will not do.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

FollowThisLogic

09-04-2004, 08:29 AM

Wow, I take YerDaddy's side over my own girlfriend... what is the world coming to? I told her it was a stupid, hypocritical sig based on the fact that MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler, she didn't care.

We bumped Kyoto because we were expected to pay for much of it.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I Y my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

TooCute

09-04-2004, 08:54 AM

We bumped Kyoto because we were expected to pay for much of it.

Really?
And what about the alternative that Bush proposed that would increase greenhouse gasses... that is, IF the proposed voluntary emissions tracking worked? I'm not saying that he was wrong in putting some blame on developing nations like China and India, but we can't ignore the fact that the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world.
Bush said that he wouldn't go with the Kyoto Protocol because it would cost the US too much in money and jobs, but there are any number of studies that have been done suggesting otherwise. Not to say that I know who is right and who is wrong, by any means, but personally I would prefer an administration that would at least make an attempt at reducing the US's contribution of greenhouse gasses (for example by NOT increasing logging and increasing funding for the development of renewable energy sources and less polluting technology), than saying no, we won't sign it and offering a plan instead that would increase our emissions and actively trying to increase logging, prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels (whether foreign or domestic), etc. To me the whole we need fossil fuels because we need SUVs argument doesn't make much sense. We're going to run out of fossil fuels to run our big cars; that's a fact. Far better to put the money into coming up with alternatives now than throw the money into trying to find a few more pockets of oil in the world and figure the technology isn't here yet but it will be by the time the oil runs out... of course at which point who knows how bad the atmosphere will be?

Eh, that ozone layer wasn't important anyhow, right?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

Mike Teacher

09-04-2004, 09:13 AM

What she said!

Kyoto was an inperfect, but real step towards reducing these emissions. Is the warming due to them? Even if they arent, I say let's err on the side of caution and do Something about the rise in COx levels globally.

There are so many variables, but hey, here's one: You burn something in oxygen, you produce CO2. Fossils fuels are wonderfully powerful and spectacularly dirty. So for now, we enjoy both: the autos, and the pollution.

Do we have to make Everything out of plastic? I mean really? I sound like a socialist but I really dont need Lunchables if theyre made in a tray made of oil with an oil based wrapping around cardboard that is then shrunk wrapped in more oil based plastic. What the fuck is with our packaging?

=

Some peeps were discussing alternative energy systems for cars. My dad was in the auto industry, specializing in zinc, as in back in the day zinc-cadmium batteries. Long story short: while gas is so powerful when you look at power/cost; people want cars with gas type performace, and so far thats not happenng with a lot of systems.

And conspiracy theorists will love this one. Because many of the patents for the alternative systems are owned by the Auto Companies, and even if they dont hold them, it would seem they are taking their damned sweet time to develop something thats very green, very renewable, and very powerful, and cheap, simultaneously.

Get those Four together and you're the next in line for the Billionaire Auto Makers Club.

Green: gota be clean, really clean, as in...

Renewable: Ya know, some of these systems, like electric card, ya know where they get the electricity? From oil burning generators! Less Gooder!

Powerful: You want a solar powered car that will go from 0 to 60 in under ten seconds? I think right now that solar panel would have to be pretty fucking huge. Again, we gotta refine the technology.

Cheap: We've all heard the 'we pay more for bottled water then gas' but hey, we do. Its cheap, for now.

=

Real Solution = Chuck a shitload or solar panels into space, harness the solar power, send it back down

or

get a working fusion reactor; DeLorean style. seriously.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

HBox

09-04-2004, 09:32 AM

It's the ignorant people that will end up fucking us in the ass this November.

Everything he voted for he probally ended up voting against the next week.

You're priceless.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

kc7586

09-04-2004, 10:44 AM

I was exaggerating ass, plus I did not want to post inaccurate information.

I'm priceless...and you're a dumbass lib what's your point?

<marquee>I am woman hear me roar, bitch, and whine.</marquee>
<center>
<IMG SRC="http://www.vampchick.com/john&john- copy.gif">
</center>

John <3 John (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/180007)

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>Vampire girls suck....</marquee>
Good girls are bad girls that dont get caught.
Life's a bitch.....then you strangle one.

TheMojoPin

09-04-2004, 12:04 PM

If Kerry is elected this country will be very close to the hell hitler imposed on the world.

The hell?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 <> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

fluffernutter

09-04-2004, 03:51 PM

I mean no offense but comparing anyone to Hitler is a pretty far stretch. What, would John Kerry start up an eradication of an entire race just to suit his dominance on not only this continent but then his plans to take over the entire world? Sorry, it just seems off base.

BUT, if there is something I have not read to show me that Mr. Kerry is as much of an animal as Hitler was and how he could perhaps impose a resemblance to the hell that Hitler did, I an open to reading it.

Why am I picturing that old animation of the black taking over all of Europe with the swastika but only with the swastika replaced with a Heinz 57 logo.

http://pleaseforgetme.com/SIGS/Map1.jpg

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=fluffernutter

EAT! Ron and Fez Cereal! (http://pleaseforgetme.com/PTV/RFCereal.swf)

HBox

09-04-2004, 04:01 PM

That was way too much of a reply for a comment that was the intellectual equivalent of a fart.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Yerdaddy

09-04-2004, 04:02 PM

You just offended my fart.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

furie

09-04-2004, 04:03 PM

http://www.nata2.info/humor/pictures/bedfellowssm.jpg

that's right, HELL!!!

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

fluffernutter

09-04-2004, 04:14 PM

That was way too much of a reply for a comment that was the intellectual equivalent of a fart.

I just tend to get bit longwinded at times.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=fluffernutter

EAT! Ron and Fez Cereal! (http://pleaseforgetme.com/PTV/RFCereal.swf)

Marist Mike

09-04-2004, 04:24 PM

Hey don't mess with fluff he's the man,.....lol

<img src=http://www.osirusonline.com/maristmike.gif>
Jim McGreevey LOOOOOVES the cock!!!!!!!

fluffernutter

09-04-2004, 04:25 PM

Not quite but thank you for the bode of confidence.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=fluffernutter

EAT! Ron and Fez Cereal! (http://pleaseforgetme.com/PTV/RFCereal.swf)

furie

09-04-2004, 04:27 PM

I mean no offense but comparing anyone to Hitler is a pretty far stretch.

http://de.wikipedia.org/upload/thumb/b/b9/177px-Stalin.jpg

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

curtoid

09-04-2004, 05:08 PM

It's the ignorant people that will end up fucking us in the ass this November. The whole bush sucks so Kerry just has to be better mentality is awful. If you can't be bothered to find out what's what then don't even vote you brainless waste of human.

The words of a true compassionate conservative. lol!

Let's all take voting pointers from about getting all educated from someone who can't get beyond "dumbass lib" name calling.

GOP tool! - and that's coming from a Registered Republican.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg

"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 9-4-04 @ 9:10 PM

NewYorkDragons80

09-06-2004, 08:19 AM

I don't agree with any of them, really. Kerry comes closest, and Bush farthest. How do I win your respect?
I understand your admiration of me and you desire to earn my respect, but it's hard to earn my respect when (I assume) the biggest issues for you are the Patriot Act and the Iraq War; both of which your boy Kerry voted on the side which you are so vehemently against.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

Bestinshow

09-06-2004, 10:45 AM

Democrats on Sunday said President Bush's post-convention bounce was triggered by "four days of mean, vicious attacks" on John Kerry, and would be short-lived.

Faulting Bush on almost every aspect of his move toward war, Kerry said the United States is carrying the burden in casualties and cost. He called the president's coalition "the phoniest thing I ever heard."

And I especially enjoy some of the rants from messrs. Gore and Kennedy and lets not forget Hillary.
The Republicans can surely take lessons for a friendly kind spirited campaign from the Democrats.

Kerry has said he would restore taxes to pre-Bush levels only for people earning more than $200,000, and would cut them for middle- and low-income earners

And how does he define these taxes? Does this include capital gains and dividends that you libs keep screaming about? Hey F the stockmarket! We don't need it anyway. Maybe we should start distributing corporate ownership through social programs.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today