Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: 1 reason not to vote for John Kerry  (Read 9751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« on: August 27, 2004, 04:44:40 pm »
If you do, I will kick you in the genitals.

I am taking off the entire month of November and touring the country in a MaddenCruiser to accomplish this.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2004, 04:56:02 pm »
In ChadTower's defense, "Everything Else", was starting to look a little bare with only one American President post in it.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2004, 04:57:05 pm »
Actually, it's a statement on the onesidedness of the presidential posts... and about the level of useful debate within them. :P

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2004, 07:45:57 pm »
Are you planning to kick me in the genitals?

I ask because, while I will be voting for John Kerry, I live in Utah, so he won't actually receive any meaningful (read: electoral) vote from me.  I'm still going to vote on principal, but I'd like to avoid the kick in the nuts if at all possible.  All things being equal it seems like my genitals, in this particular case, aren't worth the trip.

Thank you in advance.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:July 03, 2020, 12:46:03 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2004, 12:34:19 am »
Chad, you warned him.  I think it's your responsibility to now follow through with your promise.  Kick him.  Hard.  Right in the eggs.  If necessary, repeat until the problem goes away (Sometime in November oughta do it, can you kick that long, or do you want me to line up volunteers to spell you?)

He's got a commie-sympathizer friend named danny_galaga too, should I bring him around for a few whacks?  It's no problem, really  ;D ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

MasTequila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
  • Last login:November 13, 2004, 12:07:53 pm
  • I'm a llama! Here me roar!
    • GameTruth
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2004, 01:23:20 am »
I will be voting for John Kerry, come to the Boston area and you are welcome to try to kick me in my large hard-as-steel genitals and while your at it start yelling about dubya and see how you are recieved oh and also why don't you say  you love the Yankees and hate the Red Sox.  Then we see who gets kicked in the genitals. ;)

~Mas

gap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Last login:November 02, 2004, 09:06:12 pm
  • Howdy!
    • MAMEGAP
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2004, 05:48:29 am »
Are you kidding?  Of *course* we should all vote for Kerry.

He's promised to cut taxes for 99% of Americans while cutting the deficit in half.  Anyone that can do that deserves our vote.

hulkster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2382
  • Last login:June 05, 2019, 09:42:51 am
  • HulkaMAMEia is runnin' wild!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2004, 07:54:19 am »
hmmm....its a good thought, but i have a better one.  how about instead of kicking the voters in the nuts, you go kick john kerry in the nuts (if they havent already shriveled away) so that way while he is the hospital, he wont be able to make his rounds of the nation....and only retards will vote for him then.  

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2004, 09:06:08 am »
Instead of kicking them in the nuts, you could just have a small child throw a baseball at their nuts and film it.

That way you could put it on America's Funniest Videos and make money while you do it.

It's a win win situation.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

DarkKobold

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1040
  • Last login:June 18, 2013, 11:31:23 pm
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2004, 01:07:18 pm »
It's time that we all invested in a John Kerry innagural Jock strap.

I'll be ready Chad, I'll be ready....
-------------------------------------
My games: Tapper, Asteroids, Cocktail-MAME, Tron, ROTJ, Tempest, Star Wars (not working)
My wants: Warlords Cocktail

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:July 03, 2020, 12:46:03 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2004, 11:38:13 am »
Instead of kicking them in the nuts, you could just have a small child throw a baseball at their nuts and film it.

That way you could put it on America's Funniest Videos and make money while you do it.

It's a win win situation.
OOOORRRRR, Mike Moore could use it in his next movie about how Kerry voters were disenfranchised and couldn't get to the polls to vote because after they fell to the ground from the egg-kicking, their left (voting) arm was twisted until they cried Bush.  ;) ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2004, 12:08:13 pm »
I will be voting for John Kerry, come to the Boston area and you are welcome to try to kick me in my large hard-as-steel genitals and while your at it start yelling about dubya and see how you are recieved oh and also why don't you say  you love the Yankees and hate the Red Sox.  Then we see who gets kicked in the genitals. ;)

~Mas

Okay, here's recipient #1!  I already live in the Boston area so this could just be an afternoon trip.  

BTW, I'm not ---smurfing--- dumb enough to start yelling that I love the Yankees around here.  I like living.

MrBond

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
  • Last login:March 10, 2012, 03:50:37 pm
  • ...The name's Do......Mr. Do!...
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2004, 04:28:52 pm »
Kerry is so far liberal and has flipped flopped on almost everything relative to the job, that the only valid reason for voting for the man would be to get Bush out.  Kind of like "I'd vote for anyone just to get the incumbent out".  That's fairly scary in my mind.  What if the second candidate turns out to be the same or worse in one's eyes.  And I really fail to see how he would have "done it differently".  I read something a while back that stated Kerry's position on going to war (pre Iraq), and Bush could have been following it to the letter.  Too bad those who actually represent the Democratic party (or the majority of its ideals) don't have a real candidate with integrity and balls to follow through with their decisions.  

No kicking required.  8)

Opinions will always very, and quite often collide.  Vote for who you think will do the better job.  (Then if you're Kerry, change your vote for the other guy because you changed your mind)...(Then after the election, say you would have kept your original position given the current circumstances)  ;D

<edit spelling>
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 04:33:56 pm by MrBond »
...they only live twice!...
(>")>----MAME----<("<)

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2004, 03:05:11 pm »
With the election approaching, I just thought I'd remind people.  If you plan to vote for Kerry, become accustomed to wearing a cup.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2004, 06:52:43 pm »
Quote
If you plan to vote for Kerry, become accustomed to wearing a cup.


And if you plan to vote for Bush, become accustomed to wearing a swastika and goosestepping down to the reeducation center.  :-*

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2004, 07:16:43 pm »
And if you plan to vote for Bush, become accustomed to wearing a swastika and goosestepping down to the reeducation center.

I love posts like these.


The NSDAP (thats the acronym for the Nazi party) had a platform of 25 points.

Todays liberals soundly embrace 18 of them.




mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2004, 07:47:38 pm »
Funny. I bet you could rattle off all 25 of them. Not me. Guess I didn't get the memo from lefty headquarters.

Btw, I cleaned up your sig picture from you...
« Last Edit: September 27, 2004, 08:26:46 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2004, 09:42:53 pm »
Funny. I bet you could rattle off all 25 of them. Not me. Guess I didn't get the memo from lefty headquarters.

Actually, its that you didnt get a quality education, and I did.  Let me help you out:

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm



Btw, I cleaned up your sig picture from you...

Hey, now -thats- cool.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2004, 12:02:26 am »
Quote
Actually, its that you didnt get a quality education, and I did.

Yeah, definitely. Your indoctrination really shines through!!

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2004, 12:07:05 am »
MrC,

Re-education and goose stepping is way old hat.

Now you just wake up and find a pod under your bed.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2004, 04:29:34 am »
MrC,

Re-education and goose stepping is way old hat.

Now you just wake up and find a pod under your bed.

A free ipod?!?  And I've been wasting so much time on the conga line thing...

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2004, 04:40:08 am »
Seems like Godwin's Law claim yet another thread.
This signature is intentionally left blank

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2004, 08:40:08 am »
Okay, I'll bite on this troll.


The NSDAP (thats the acronym for the Nazi party) had a platform of 25 points.

Todays liberals soundly embrace 18 of them.


Which 18?

I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.  

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.


18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Look at the differences in the frequency of use of the death penalty between Texas and Vermont, arguably the most conservative and most liberal states, respectively

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

Favoring strong central government over state's rights.  (i.e. creating an amendment forbidding gay marriage vs. letting each state decide for itself)


If you want to twist meanings a little bit you could expand this list to a few more.

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2004, 10:03:39 am »
Which 18?

16 are certain:
7,9,10-17, 19-23, 25
2 are arguable:
6, 24


I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.

Ah - the "Neoconservative".
Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?



5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

Interesting, given that one of the valid neoconservative criticisms against Bush is his apparent willingness to allow non-citizens to work here as much as possible.



18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

I think you'll be hard pressed to show that any "neoconservative" wants 'common criminals' punished with the death penalty.



Favoring strong central government over state's rights.  (i.e. creating an amendment forbidding gay marriage vs. letting each state decide for itself)

The gay marriage amendment is all about states rights- that is, the right of a state to not have its laws imposed upon by other states.   It is the liberal that looks to strengthern the central government over that of the states.


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2004, 11:18:34 am »
Quote
The gay marriage amendment is all about states rights- that is, the right of a state to not have its laws imposed upon by other states.

At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2004, 11:26:46 am »
At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

No.  I'm not.

All amendments to the Constitution are at the federal level.
That doesnt preclude them from protecting states' rights.  
See Amemdnemt X.

The proposed amendment will protect a state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state.  As it stands now, a gay marriage in State A has to be regocnized in state Z because of the FF&C clause of the Constitution.  the amendment will change this.

This means states will retain the right to define marriage, through legislation or Constitutional specification, as they see fit and no state will have to recognize a marriage that doesnt fall under that definition

That's very clearly a states' rights position.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2004, 11:52:21 am »
At a federal level. So, in other words, you're wrong.

No.  I'm not.

All amendments to the Constitution are at the federal level.
That doesnt preclude them from protecting states' rights.  
See Amemdnemt X.

The proposed amendment will protect a state from having to recognize a gay marriage from another state.  As it stands now, a gay marriage in State A has to be regocnized in state Z because of the FF&C clause of the Constitution.  the amendment will change this.

This means states will retain the right to define marriage, through legislation or Constitutional specification, as they see fit and no state will have to recognize a marriage that doesnt fall under that definition

That's very clearly a states' rights position.

It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2004, 11:58:07 am »
It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  

You mean the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996?   That defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and said that states didnt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?

Its been federal law for 8 years.

The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.


abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2004, 12:09:33 pm »

I count a few that NeoCons soundly embrace as well.

Ah - the "Neoconservative".
Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?


Certainly, Neoconservatism is the name given to the platform of the Republican party from the mid 1980s onward, which sought to depart from the traditional conservatism that suffered large political defeats during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  Neoconservatism seeks to gain the approval of the large popluation of Religious fundamentalists in the south and midwest, by seeking to impose the morals and values of these religions on the popluace as a whole.  It also features prominently the Machiavellian/Orwellian concept of the outside enemy, that the populace must continue to be afraid of and must be defeated at all costs.  Most often at the costs of the federal defecit, as military production must be ramped up to defeat this outside enemy.  It also abandons the traditional conservative approach of responsible and sensible spending, a position the Liberals are happy to *try* to claim (though arguably, without the internet financial boom and the increased tax revenues from Capital Gains, they would have failed miserably, not having sufficient funds to support their social service programs).  The three Neoconservative presidents also ran for office on a platform of reducing the size of the federal government, and all three have succeeded in increasing the number of federal workers during their tenure.


That's what I think of when I say Neoconservative, anyway.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:July 03, 2020, 12:46:03 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2004, 12:29:41 pm »
now, I re-read your reply three times, stopped....re-read it a third time, looking this time for the phrase "archaeo-conservative", and only found your diatribe re:"neocons".  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but when replying to "Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?" and not contrasting it with "archaeo-conservativsm", you are choosing to skip over that for a reason.

Disingenuousness, thy name is abrannan.  

Is it the fear that he's going to make a point, if you EVER contrast the two, that disagrees with your skewed viewpoint?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2004, 12:44:53 pm »
Wow.   This is easily among the most thoughful post I've seen here.


Certainly, Neoconservatism is the name given to the platform of the Republican party from the mid 1980s onward, which sought to depart from the traditional conservatism that suffered large political defeats during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.

OK, I'll agree to the when, but not the why.  Its not a matter of 'normal' conservatives changing tack.



Neoconservatism seeks to gain the approval of the large popluation of Religious fundamentalists in the south and midwest, by seeking to impose the morals and values of these religions on the popluace as a whole.

I think you'll find a problem here, in that this conflicts with your original statement - conservativim changed tack because it suffered defeats because of conservativism, and so is still engaged in same?


It also features prominently the Machiavellian/Orwellian concept of the outside enemy, that the populace must continue to be afraid of and must be defeated at all costs.

Again - another conflict with your original statement.   The above is a large part of the argument made for Vietnam.



It also abandons the traditional conservative approach of responsible and sensible spending

The question here, of course, is:
Was the current strings of deficits created by ideologically based policy or extragovernmental forces?  

And you can answer that question by asnwering this one:
If there had not been a war and a recession, would there still be deficts?

 

The three Neoconservative presidents...

If "neoconservative" is propoerly applied to Bush, then there's been a lot more than three of them...


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2004, 01:27:39 pm »
The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.

This doesn't justify an Amendment to the frickin' Constitution. It may warrant more sensible revisions to the benefits granted to gays in the DoMA. The DoMA is about 'States Rights', the Marriage Ban/Hate Amendment is all about pudgy old white men (including Alan Keyes who is whiter than Gumble) afraid of their own sexuality and who think it a fabulous idea to impose their latent homosexuality at a federal level.

Example:
Cheney (R) - Has offered support for amendment - Often appears to have rouge on cheeks. Gay daughter

Bush (R) - Created Hate Amendment - Possibly gay himself.

Alan Keyes (R) - Rampant homophobe - Sings show tunes (Video), possibly gay himself. Gay Daughter.

Rep. David Dreier (R) - Raises money for Hate Amendment - GAY!!!!

Congressman Ed Schrock (R) - Co-sponsor of Hate Amendment - GAY!!!!



These hypocrites are being outed, and I can't wait to see who's next.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2004, 01:36:41 pm »
This doesn't justify an Amendment to the frickin' Constitution.

It does, because the only way to get around the FF&C clause is to amend it.  The FF&C clause cause the DoMA to be overturned.



It may warrant more sensible revisions to the benefits granted to gays in the DoMA. The DoMA is about 'States Rights', the Marriage Ban/Hate Amendment is all about pudgy old white men (including Alan Keyes who is whiter than Gumble) afraid of their own sexuality and who think it a fabulous idea to impose their latent homosexuality at a federal level.

Thats amazingly funny
-The DoMA and the amendment affect marriage and the states in the same way
-The DoMA and the amendment are both at the federal level.

The only difference is that one will fall before the FF&C clause and one wont.   If you agree with the DoMA then there isnt any rational way you can disagree with the amendment.



abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2004, 01:44:38 pm »
now, I re-read your reply three times, stopped....re-read it a third time, looking this time for the phrase "archaeo-conservative", and only found your diatribe re:"neocons".  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but when replying to "Can you compare and contrast 'neo-conservativism' with 'archaeo-conservativism'?" and not contrasting it with "archaeo-conservativsm", you are choosing to skip over that for a reason.

Disingenuousness, thy name is abrannan.  

Is it the fear that he's going to make a point, if you EVER contrast the two, that disagrees with your skewed viewpoint?

So I used the term traditional conservatives rather than the term archaeo-conservatives, whoop-dee-freakin-doo.  Now, perhaps I misunderstood the original compare and contrast challenge, and TA Pilot's use of the term achaeo-conservative.  If so, I apologize, and would be happy to repeat the assignment if provided a definition of archaeo-conservative with which to contrast my definition of neoconservative, provided teacher will still allow me to earn proper credit for the assignment.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2004, 01:47:52 pm »
Now, perhaps I misunderstood the original compare and contrast challenge, and TA Pilot's use of the term achaeo-conservative.

Well, if Neo-conservatives are "new" conservatives, then archaeo-conservatives are "old" - that is, 'normal' - conservatives.

In other words:  What's "new" about Neoconservatives?

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2004, 02:17:38 pm »
Wow.   This is easily among the most thoughful post I've seen here.


I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

Quote

OK, I'll agree to the when, but not the why.  Its not a matter of 'normal' conservatives changing tack.


I'm a little unsure what you're saying here, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not that the people changed tack, but that the people themselves changed (it's a whole new group of people).  Am I reading that right?


Quote

I think you'll find a problem here, in that this conflicts with your original statement - conservativim changed tack because it suffered defeats because of conservativism, and so is still engaged in same?


Again, I may be misreading you here (it's my mid-afternoon mental slowdown kicking in), so forgive and correct me if I'm not seeing your point.  Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather than trying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.


Quote

Again - another conflict with your original statement.   The above is a large part of the argument made for Vietnam.

Yeah, I'll admit that one was too much of a stretch.  The concept/use of a foreign enemy predates what I'm calling the neoconservative era.  I do feel that Liberals have tried to use that tactic less since Kennedy/Communism, though.

Quote

The question here, of course, is:
Was the current strings of deficits created by ideologically based policy or extragovernmental forces?  


I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

Quote
And you can answer that question by asnwering this one:
If there had not been a war and a recession, would there still be deficts?

IMO, the recession was already underway, even if the economic indicators weren't there, and was unavoidable by either Bush or Gore (if he had won).  But that wasn't your question.  Your  questino is very difficult for me to answer, because I haven't seen much of what Bush's presidency would have been like had 19 hikackers not gotten on four planes.  I do think his $300 tax credit would still have occurred, recession or no, which leads me to believe he would have been fiscally irresponsible regardless of world political climate.  So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.  And I don't think they had to be as large as they are even with the recession and war in Afghanistan.

 

Quote

If "neoconservative" is propoerly applied to Bush, then there's been a lot more than three of them...



I guess I was looking at it strictly from a timeline perspective, though you're right, there have been a lot more presidents that would meet the definition I put forward for neoconservative.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2004, 02:30:31 pm »
I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

LOL
No, I mean it.  you plainly though about your response.


I'm a little unsure what you're saying here,

I agree that neoconservativiem was born in the 80s...but it isnt as you describe.



Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather thantrying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.

But this is part of 'old' conservativism as well.  As such, its cant be a defining tenet of 'new' conservativism.



I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

You're not looking at a large enough picture.  The deficits were caused by a LOT of things, with the war being only a small part of it, and there's a lot more to 'ideology' than just the war.



So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.

And so the conclusion must be:
The deficit, or at least a latge part of it, comes from extragovernmental forces.  

See, spending didnt climb any more, year to year, than in previous years - revenue fell becauseof the recession.   Clearly, this didnt result from 'neoconservative' ideology...

So then, what validity is there to the argument that neoconservatisim has deficit spending as a tenet?

 



abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2004, 02:34:03 pm »
It's also the Republicans fall-back position to prevent gay marriage, since the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would have outright outlawed gay marriage) was defeated by a vote for cloture.  

You mean the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996?   That defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and said that states didnt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?

Its been federal law for 8 years.

The problem is that due to developments in the state of MA, it will be challenged in Federal court, and possibly struck by the USSC.  This is why there is a push for the Amendment.



No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  It's the one that would strip the Federal courts' power to rule on challenges to the DoMA.  

It's really interesting to me how the gay marriage issue has really parallelled the desegregation issue, from the legal tactics to the arguments made on both sides.  Today we look back on those who opposed desegregation as ignorant and racist.  How will we look back on those who opposed gay marriage?
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2004, 02:40:18 pm »
No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  

You mean this year?   Never heard of it.
Did it pass the Senate?  Bush sign it?



It's the one that would strip the Federal courts' power to rule on challenges to the DoMA.  

Yes, thats another possible move that can be made - makre sure its never challenged.  Not as good as an amendment.


abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2004, 02:57:10 pm »
I see you've been studying my habits, and you have discovered the easiest way to get me to stick my foot in my mouth is to compliment me.  Thank you.

LOL
No, I mean it.  you plainly though about your response.


I find thinking about my response is a lot better than calling our president a repressed homosexual, or threatening to kick people who disagree with me in the beanbag.




Quote
I'm a little unsure what you're saying here,

I agree that neoconservativiem was born in the 80s...but it isnt as you describe.

Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?


Quote
Conservatism is still conservatism, yes, but rather thantrying to draw the line along (for example) racist boundaries, it is seeking instead to draw them along religious boundaries.  It's seeking a larger exclusionary group to appeal to.

But this is part of 'old' conservativism as well.  As such, its cant be a defining tenet of 'new' conservativism.

I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  


Quote
I'd say ideology, but that leads to a whole discussion on whether the war in Iraq was ideologically motivated, or necessary for national defense, and I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions on that.  

You're not looking at a large enough picture.  The deficits were caused by a LOT of things, with the war being only a small part of it, and there's a lot more to 'ideology' than just the war.

I disagree that the war is only a small part of it.  The cost of rebuilding Iraq (estimated at between $80 and $500 billion), Military payrolls (including hazard pay), supplies, medical expenses for the wounded, fuel, etc are all part of the costs incurred.  Yes, there is a lot more to ideology than the war, but Iraq is the most obvious example of the ideology.



Quote
So, to finally answer your question, yes, I do believe we'd have deficits, though they wouldn't be as large.

And so the conclusion must be:
The deficit, or at least a latge part of it, comes from extragovernmental forces.  

See, spending didnt climb any more, year to year, than in previous years - revenue fell becauseof the recession.   Clearly, this didnt result from 'neoconservative' ideology...

So then, what validity is there to the argument that neoconservatisim has deficit spending as a tenet?


If spending does not decrease when revenue decreases, that's due to ideology, IMO.  And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Page 26, columns 1 & 2 years 2000-2004, which includes record deficits in 2003 and 2004.

Other record deficits: 1991 (Bush Sr.), 1986, 1985, 1983(Reagan)
That's what I offer up as validity.
 


 



Quote
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.