21-10-2004 00:27									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think the liberals in the US today are socialists in the main, true.

You crack me up. Liberals are weak-spined, slack jawed centrists comapred to socialists, Neddie.

	21-10-2004 00:29									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You crack me up. Liberals are weak-spined, slack jawed centrists comapred to socialists

Be fair, they aren't necessarily weak-spined in any normal sense of the term.

They are centrists or, at 'best', moderates compared to Socialists though.

-Drachasor

	21-10-2004 01:01									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You crack me up. Liberals are weak-spined, slack jawed centrists comapred to socialists, Neddie.

I guess there is no median that can be reached with you then.

	21-10-2004 01:05									#64
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You crack me up. Liberals are weak-spined, slack jawed centrists comapred to socialists, Neddie.

Agreed. There are a lot of liberals who espouse both socialist and capitalist values in the same sentence and who seem to be quite unaware in their inherent incongruity.

	21-10-2004 01:08									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

No, Che is not a believer in compromise. He has stated, repeatedly, that he has no use for moderates.

As such, I have no use for him (politically speaking, of course, not personally).

-Arrian

	21-10-2004 01:10									#66
	Suffering from ads?

Because American politics have shifted so far to the right... liberals are basically centrists... the moderates... the level-headed thinking folks.

Over 40% of America could be classified as right-wing extremist... or about 90% of Bush supporters. Althought it's hard to know how many are just plain ignorant. I think very few are die-hard righties... maybe 75% of Bush supporteres are ignorant, 25% hard-core righties.

	21-10-2004 01:14									#67
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui why in the world would anyone in their right mind vote for Bush?

Because he has lowered taxes on working families resulting in a better economy and is aggressively fighting terrorists resulting in a safer America. All you need to know about Bush's record is that the Economy is recovering and there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Those are 2 good reasons to vote for Bush.

Kerry on the other hand will "soak the rich" with higher taxes and be less aggressive against terrorists. How would that be good for America?

	21-10-2004 01:21									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sava Over 40% of America could be classified as right-wing extremist... or about 90% of Bush supporters. Althought it's hard to know how many are just plain ignorant. I think very few are die-hard righties... maybe 75% of Bush supporteres are ignorant, 25% hard-core righties.

Hmmm, interesting math.

You first claim that 40% of america can be classified as right wing extremist (a Sava made up number)

You then go on to say that only 25% of Bush supporters are hard core righties. (yet another Sava made up number)

Depending on the polls, around 45% of America voters will be supporting Bush. So, 25% of 45% would mean that only 11.25% of america are hard core righties...

So which is it... 11% or 40%

Great math Sava

	21-10-2004 01:22									#70
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sava Because American politics have shifted so far to the right... liberals are basically centrists... the moderates... the level-headed thinking folks.

I don't think you can say that America has shifted to the far right. If we had shifted to the far right, we'd already have a ban on abortion and gay marriage.

	21-10-2004 01:25									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ming Hmmm, interesting math. You first claim that 40% of america can be classified as right wing extremist (a Sava made up number) You then go on to say that only 25% of Bush supporters are hard core righties. (yet another Sava made up number) Depending on the polls, around 45% of America voters will be supporting Bush. So, 25% of 45% would mean that only 11.25% of america are hard core righties... So which is it... 11% or 40% Great math Sava

I numbers and fun with them.

	21-10-2004 01:28									#72
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Sava, you must admit that you are a socialist. Where do you think that places you in the political spectrum?

	21-10-2004 01:33									#73
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned Sava, you must admit that you are a socialist. Where do you think that places you in the political spectrum?

I'm not a socialist. I don't want socialized medicine... I want the most efficient and highest quality health care system.

What socialist ideas do I hold? I can't think of any.

I'd classify myself as a Progressive... like Teddy Roosevelt.

My ideals:
progressive tax system
free education
most efficient health care (if a single-payer system is the best, then so be it... but I really don't know if socialized medicine could do better.)
government regulated economy (not government controlled... two different things)
America having the strongest, most advanced military

I'm a bigtime social liberal... I am libertarian in that aspect. But in terms of economics, I'm slightly left of center.


but a socialist? nope... although I agree with them on some things... like abuses by corporations and such.

	21-10-2004 01:35									#74
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Because he has lowered taxes on working families resulting in a better economy and is aggressively fighting terrorists resulting in a safer America. All you need to know about Bush's record is that the Economy is recovering and there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Those are 2 good reasons to vote for Bush.

Better economy? Than a depression? The economy was going to recover on its own, and it is still a mess. Over half a million net jobs still gone, and that says nothing of the lack of growth that is needed for the 9 million new immigrants and general population growth.

Big business recovered because of Bush, company profits are up. Working Class families are in a mess, and the measly Bush tax cut is a joke.

As for the terrorist attacks, well, any quarter-way competent President would have done that, and there are still huge holes and huge financing problems on national security. A nuke could be snuck into NY tomorrow or today because we aren't careful enough about cargo.

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Kerry on the other hand will "soak the rich" with higher taxes and be less aggressive against terrorists. How would that be good for America?

Kerry will be very aggressive against Terrorists, he just won't invade any country he feels like invading, and he won't treat other countries like they are inferiors to the U.S. He will be tough when needed, and use DIPLOMACY (know that word?) when needed. Bush doesn't know how to use diplomacy; he alienated are allies quite rapidly after 9/11, a time when they were more in support of us than normal. That is anti-diplomatic skills. Contrary to some notions, America needs allies to survive, and needs allies to maintain its status in the world.

As for "soaking the rich", he only intends to roll back the tax cut Bush gave them, an ill-conceived tax cut. On the other hand, he is working to lowe the cost of medical coverage and many other things to help small businesses and consumers. When consumers are given more money to spend, they spend it, and that helps business immediately. Trickle-down economics is stupid, but giving people money to directly spend that benefits both them and companies is very smart. That's why you don't increase their taxes, that's why you give them more benefits for less (essentially a tax-break), that's why they should have less of a relative tax burden than the rich. It's just smart economics.

-Drachasor

	21-10-2004 01:37									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat ... there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Those are 2 good reasons to vote for Bush.

How many terrorist attacks were there on American soil before 9-11?

	21-10-2004 02:16									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

1993 WTC bombing. The one in the midwest that turned out to be a home-grown wacko. That's two...

-Arrian

	21-10-2004 02:27									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm presuming we're only really concerned with terrorist attacks from radical Islamic groups. So, let's see....225 years of nationhood before 9-11 and one terrorist attack. Yep, I can see how they would be a weekly occurance without Bush based on that precendent!

	21-10-2004 02:38									#78
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think the liberals in the US today are socialists in the main, true. I just never thought you were a socialist, Mr. Fun. That is why I question why you are proud to be a liberal.

Che is ignorant about liberalism as well, the way he spews out hateful labels such as "spineless" but you are WORSE in your ignorance about liberalism.


I am not a socialist -- I am a moderate liberal (I don't consider myself absolutely centrist, but to the left of centrism).

	21-10-2004 02:40									#79
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I'm presuming we're only really concerned with terrorist attacks from radical Islamic groups. So, let's see....225 years of nationhood before 9-11 and one terrorist attack. Yep, I can see how they would be a weekly occurance without Bush based on that precendent!

The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

	21-10-2004 02:43									#80
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

And they wouldn't be able to if anyone else was president? They never foiled any attacks before 9-11?

	21-10-2004 02:47									#81
	Increase the size of your Attachments

In reply to original question:

Even if you were 18 you live in Idaho, which will go to Bush. So feel free to vote third party.

The rest of it is just a bunch of labelling, being pragmatic isn't spineless and a mixed market is wholly consistant since even the most hardcore market worshipper admits that it does fail at times.

	21-10-2004 03:14									#82
	Put an end to popups!

It is so funny how people's reasons for voting against Kerry are "he's not Bush." One of the main reasons presented (esp by that whiney Firefly guy, who wrote an excessively emotional disseration on the matter) is the Iraq war. And yet Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and only decries the war now because he was losing to Dean in the primaries.

I'd rather have a decisive president who wont' take any crap, rather than an indecisive panderer. I know what Bush would do if there's another 9/11, he'd be aggressive and NO terrorist nation would **** around with us, see Libya turning over their WMDs. But Kerry? Who knows

	21-10-2004 03:15									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki How many terrorist attacks were there on American soil before 9-11?

Actually there were quite a few. All but one of them, however, were homegrown terrorists (unless Puerto Ricans are considered foreigners). Since 9/11 there have been three high profile terrorist attacks in the U.S. Again, all were homegrown (the sniper, the anthax mailer, and the smilie bomber).

We have only been attacked twice by foreign terrorists on our soil, so we have no accurate measure to see how good Bush has done. Under Clinton, at least one major terrorist attack was foiled, quite by accident, the millenium plot. IIRC, there have been other plots that were uncovered, but I don't recall them.

Since Bush has been pres, as far as we know (which admittedly could be a great deal), there have been no further attempts to attack us at home. This could be because he has disrupted them, as may be the case with the Lakawana, NY "cell" (who may well also have been just some unlucky pilgrams), the University of South Florida "cell" (AFAIK, no charges have yet been brought, and previous attempts to bring charges against the "ringleader" were dismissed with derission by a Federal judge in the 90s). It is reasonable to believe that by shutting down the airlines, further hijack-attacks were stopped (at least two in following days are known to have been planned).

But we don't know what has or hasn't happened in the shadows. Bush can neither be creditted nor be called lucky as far as no attacks occuring since 9/11. We simply do not have the data to make an informed choice.

	21-10-2004 03:17									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and only decries the war now because he was losing to Dean in the primaries.

No he didn't. On Frontline last week, they showed an excerpt of Kerry's speach before voting to authorize the use of force. It was clear that he was voting to authorize force to use as a lever against Hussein to allow the inspectors into Iraq, and not simply to allow the President to invade willy-nilly. That's what he said then. That's what he says now. He didn't change his tune because of Dean.

	21-10-2004 03:18									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

You have no evidence on which to base that assertion.

	21-10-2004 03:20									#86
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf I know what Bush would do if there's another 9/11...

But wouldn't that be a sign that he's failed?

	21-10-2004 03:21									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Richelieu But wouldn't that be a sign that he's failed?

To be fair, no. He should have stopped 9/11, but we can't assume that the next time will be so obvious and leave so many clues lying all over the place.

	21-10-2004 03:21									#88
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: No he didn't. On Frontline last week, they showed an excerpt of Kerry's speach before voting to authorize the use of force. It was clear that he was voting to authorize force to use as a lever against Hussein to allow the inspectors into Iraq, and not simply to allow the President to invade willy-nilly. That's what he said then. That's what he says now. He didn't change his tune because of Dean.

Huh? He said "I'm giving the President the power to invade this country, and I support this power, but only to scare Saddam?" If so he's a flaming moron.

P.S. OH BY THE WAY Kerry doesn't deny that Saddam should've been taken out. He just thinks we should've done it better, ie more troops, more peace after the war, etc, which is real easy to say now.

What a crappy candidate. At least Dean stood for something, before he became the dentist-politician-pawn of DNC that he is now.

	21-10-2004 03:28									#89
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf He said "I'm giving the President the power to invade this country, and I support this power, but only to scare Saddam?" If so he's a flaming moron.

Check your facts, Wiggie. He said he was authorizing the use of force in order to force Hussein into readmitting the inspectors, and that he hoped that the President would use the power wisely and build a coalition with our allies and invade only if and when it was necessary. I believe you can't give the Pres conditional authority to use force. It's an all or nothing scenario.

	21-10-2004 03:32									#90
	Got spare money?

quote: I believe you can't give the Pres conditional authority to use force. It's an all or nothing scenario.

So do I. So Kerry's bullshitting around the issue is confusing, convenient, and still not convincing.

He wanted the coalition. Well, we got one in Gulf War I and he voted against it. We've got one now - albeit a small one militarily - and he insults it. Whatever.

"Only when necessary"? In a post 9/11 world, a fundamentalist islamic nation state advocating terrorism in violation of dozens of international laws and stalling inspectors AND not telling us what the **** happened to the nerve gas they used in the 90's SURE AS SEEMS NECESSARY TO ME, check your facts.