Why are you Democrat/Republican?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 24, 2004, 8:26 am

i don't vote for the party, i vote for the person.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 24, 2004, 10:38 am

I'm neither. I'd vote for whoever seems like the best candidate, regardless of what 'party' they're in.

It just so happens that the republican party has a jackass like Bush, so therefore in this election, I'll be democrat.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 24, 2004, 11:43 am

I don't identify with any particular party. In my opinion, both parties are too heavily influenced by their own extreme elements and by outside special interests to truly represent my own beliefs, values, objectives, etc. Since I first voted in 1988, I've chosen candidates based on how well they align with my ideals, not their party affiliation. As a quick summary of my own political / social beliefs in no particular order, I...

...am pro-choice.
...support gay rights (to include marriage, the ability to adopt, anti-discrimination).
...think that religion's place is in the churches/temples/synagogues/etc., and not in our government.
...believe in the court system's duty to protect small groups from "the tyrany of the majority," what right-wingers like to call "judicial activism."
...dislike long-term welfare programs, favoring short term bootstrap initiatives (job training, education, etc.).
...believe that our current k-12 education system is woefully inadequate and needs to be overhauled.
...think a greater emphasis needs to be placed on vocational training (and retraining in depressed areas).
...favor large scale investment into (non-military) scientific and medical research programs.
...favor strong military, although I don't believe in projecting our power casually.
...strongly support stricter gun control laws.
...support massive investments in renewing the country's urban centers.
...believe that the country needs real mass transit (inter- and intra-city) as a viable option to driving all over our sprawling population centers.
...believe that the US should make a greater effort to work with the rest of the world as a member of the global community rather than against it, as we have in many cases.
...support responsible environmental / conservation policy.
...favor legalizing / decriminalizing most drugs, along with prostitution, gambling and most other "vice" crimes.

edit: fixed a typo...

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 24, 2004, 12:02 pm

Philosophically I am a a libertarian (not a member of the official party). I think that people should be free to do what they want provided they don't cause harm to others. That freedom does however mean you are responsible for your actions.

Thoughts about various policies and things that have been mentioned.

As has been pointed out, we don't elect presidents by popular vote. The electoral college is specified in the original constitution. Its also not the only case where different regions representation is not based purely on population. Each state gets two senators, regardless of population. Its designed to be one of the checks and balances in our system.

The Democrats and Republicans both do a lot of things that I am not particularly fond of. I think people overestimate how much the religious right drives the agenda of the Republican party. They certainly get a fair amount of lip service, but not as much actual legislation I think as people make out. And the much of the legislation that is proposed is often stuff that is unlikely to actually pass. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't agree with a lot of what the religious right is pushing, and I certainly don't want to see it made into law. But I think the chances of that significantly happening are somewhat low, but certainly something to keep an eye on. A lot of the Democrats agenda in terms of expansion of the federal government I think are more of a concern just from the standpoint of them being more likely to actually get passed. Then again, the Republicans under Bush have shown themselves to not be adverse to expanding the federal government either. Since I am not that fond of either of them, I generally prefer when control of the house,senate,executive branch is split. It at least slows them down a bit.

I think we need a vastly smaller, less intrusive government.

I support free trade. Personally I think we should just drop our own trade barriers/tariffs. If other countries want to pursue economically poor policies that is their own affair.

I am pro-immigration. I think we should increase the number of people we let immigrate to the country. I also think that if you want to come into the country to work, you should be able to.

I support free speech.

I think we need a simiplified tax system. There are a lot of proposals out there, flat taxes, consumption taxes, negative income taxes. Different ones have various pro/con points. But there should be something better than the current byzantine system.

I support the legalization of drugs. Personally I have never done drugs, and have no particular desire to do them. I don't even smoke or drink. But if someone wants to take them and is an adult past the age of consent, that is their business. They are still responsible for their actions, just as you are still responsible for your actions when you drink. The War on Drugs has consumed huge amounts of money and has been the excuse for the destruction of a lot of civil liberties.

I support free markets.

I don't think corporations are evil. Corporations are made up of people. Some of those people are good, some of those people are bad, many are a bit of both. I don't approve of when corporations try to get the government to skew things in their favor, but I also don't approve of a lot of the unnecassary (imo) regulations that the government places on corporations. I also don't think corporations have near the influence that many people make them out to have. They have influence, sure. But if it becomes politically expediant to do so politicians have no problem hanging them out to dry.

That is hardly a comprehensive list, but this is getting longish so I will leave it at that for the moment.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 24, 2004, 12:40 pm

I don't like the Republican party, but I despise Democrats. They are both full of nothing but career politicians...and that means corruption.

I am

Pro:
Choice -- for the most part. I don't agree with doing it because you were just irresponsible. I would much rathe see the use of the "morning after" pill than the standard abortion practices

Cutbacks on welfare -- it is time for people to get off their ass and try.

Birth control for those on welfare and other support -- anyone living off the taxes of others should not be allowed to pop out kids so they can get paid more.

Military -- if spending more money on defense means that we require less people dying in conflicts then spend it.

Concealed carry -- There is no way to remove guns from this country. Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families if they so desire. Criminals will not stop using guns just because you tell them to. It has proven to reduce crime in every state it has been passed.

Death penalty -- no reason to keep paying for a piece of shit that has no regard for the society at all.

Against:

Foreign spending -- we need to keep money on aid in the country until we fix our own problems

Gun control -- at least for the most part. No reason to allow full auto weapons or anything like that....but we already have laws for gun control. We just don't enforce them the way they allow us to.

Current government -- we need an overhaul of our entire presidential and congressional system. They need to start from scratch and remove career politicians and get people into office that actually REPRESENT the PEOPLE.

Oil -- push hard for alternative energy sources. When we stop becoming reliant on oil, then we will have no interests in the middle east and they can go back to their 2000 years of war without us.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 24, 2004, 1:13 pm

"There's evidence that we are nearing an ice age rapidly."

not

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 1:28 pm

Hey Avestan if a surplus is so bad, how come companies like Microsoft and Intel are sitting on such giant piles of cash?

answer is, for future use. Which is what we needed the surplus for, to pay medicare and social security benefits for our aging population.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 1:30 pm

As time has gone on, I've grown further away from both major parties.

I resent the GOP kowtowing to the religious right. The more bullshit morality legislation they bring, the bigger our already bloated and massively inefficient government gets.

I fucking hate the Democrats because their ideology is based around big government programs, while perversely slashing the military. I hate the way they suck up to every special interest not aligned with the GOP, just to oppose the GOP.

I want a party that doesn't bring Jesus (or Yaweh or Allah) to Washington. I want a strong enough military to keep the world safe. I want all the lobbyists and lawyers killed, and the corporations banished from DC. Before I die, I like to see one, JUST FUCKING ONE, honest man sit in the Oval Office.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 24, 2004, 1:44 pm

I'm registered non-partison. I vote for the best overall platform that suites my needs personally at the time of election.

I like economically based platforms, ie...money money money based ideas on your ticket.
I am for the death penalty to murderers.
I am against "overkill" on the Politicaly Correct side.
I hate big government.
I hate the idea of church sneaking in to government.
I hate helping people who refuse to better themselves after receiving said help.

I don't know, there are way to many issues to ever agree 100% with a candidate...but the way this year is going, I will be voting to third parties again

I have totally lost faith in our government, and probably will be jaded for the rest of my life.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 1:54 pm

i wish there was a 3rd party that was producing viable candidates, but there isnt, and i think the stakes are too high in this election to waste a vote on one.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 2:00 pm

Just the rumor of Dubya backing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage makes me cringe thinking of the sway the God squad could have in his second term.

I fucking wish McCain would run again. He's not perfect, but at least he's honest.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 24, 2004, 2:06 pm

masteen wrote:Just the rumor of Dubya backing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage makes me cringe thinking of the sway the God squad could have in his second term.

I fucking wish McCain would run again. He's not perfect, but at least he's honest.

I'm 26 and I've never even registered to vote. Had McCain been the nominee in 2000, I absolutely would have registered and voted for him. As it is, I have yet to see a presidential candidate that I felt qualified for the office of president. It sure as shit wasn't Gore or Bush.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 2:08 pm

How's this for a 2008 race: Guliani/Powell vs. Clinton/Gephardt.

Jeb is not an option.

More random thoughts:
Reinstate the draft but only for people over the age of 65. This will take care of the Social Security Shortfall. We'd lose most of these guys in Basic Training.

Make Cuba, Puerto Rico, the DR and Haiti states. Pave them and make two new baseball teams.

get rid of the PMI. Why in the hell do I have to pay mortgage insurance. That is a fucking scam!!

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 24, 2004, 2:13 pm

masteen wrote:Just the rumor of Dubya backing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage makes me cringe thinking of the sway the God squad could have in his second term.

I fucking wish McCain would run again. He's not perfect, but at least he's honest.

It's not a rumor anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » February 24, 2004, 2:22 pm

I'm a Republican.
I'm a card carrying member of the NRA.
I'm a white irish catholic.

Hi, I'm your stereotypical Republican drone.

Except

I believe in a flat tax across the board, I do not like that a huge percentage of the nation is on welfare. I do not like that some states are fighting the death penalty. I do not like that people are trying to legislate gun control. I do agree with foreign involement - why? When you are the agressor and on the offensive, it prevents others from being so. I do not agree with the ban on gay marriages, why? Gays and Lesbians are tax payers and as a result you can tax their marriage, why would you remove that facet of taxation from the equation? I can give a shit if they want to play hokey pokey in the butt, but they are tax payers and as a result its their constitutional right to pursue that tax break^^

Religion aside, even though we are suppossed to be a nation seperated by church and state, we are not so. I do not like that we have to constantly legislate against an organized religion being wide spread. Especially when on our god damn money it says "In God We Trust". Just let it be, if you stop trying to legislate against religion then it will not be an issue anymore.

I do not like the anti-war protesters, I agree with Bush in involving our martial might in the middle east. Sure it was a drain on our economy, but if it wasn't the war it would have been something else. We removed one dictator from power, concreted a hold in the middle east and you know that we will continue to do so regardless of which party is in the oval office.

I prefer the conservative front, I am not pro-choice. Yeah its your body that's great, but that child is half mine. If they are going to continue with the abortion issue then perhaps they should develop a means of embryiotic transplant to a woman who wants to have a child. They can transplant a brain, a lung, eyes, hell even a vagina (look at masteen) why can't they transplant a baby?

anyway my boss is coming, peace.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » February 24, 2004, 2:24 pm

I'm for the Democrats for basically the same reasons as the other "pro-democrat" people posted in this thread.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 24, 2004, 2:29 pm

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."

Okay, without knowing enough of the facts, I was getting a little down on Bush. If that's what he supports, the rest is just a semantics issue. I think I'm going to start trying to come up with a way cooler word, "marriage" is associated with religion, and I'm not real cool with organized religion anyway.

I want me and my "ladyperson" to get "hitched" in the same place that two "fellalovers" can. Feel free to substitute any other word for any of the words in quotes. As long as you know what I mean, I don't really care which words are used.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 2:31 pm

sylvos, they can't do brain transplants

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » February 24, 2004, 2:32 pm

well whatever!
Dammit Jim I'm a Ranger not a Doctor!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 2:35 pm

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue yesterday.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 24, 2004, 2:36 pm

So, assuming a ladyfriend of yours became pregnant by you by accident, you want the power to force her to carry the child to term against her will?

Just checking if I've got this straight.

edit: typo

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » February 24, 2004, 2:41 pm

You mean, I do not want an unborn child slain, correct.
Aborting a child is never an easy thing to do anyway, its horrdily tramatic on both the woman's psyche and body, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
However, I'm a guy and as a result you get the "You dont know what its like, or, You have no right to decide what I do with my body" The funny thing is, most woman are pro-life and in the senate/house the females there - a majority of them are also pro-life. So I guess I'm just agreeing with the wisened female leaders of our nation.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 24, 2004, 2:45 pm

Ranting aside I'll take that as a yes.

Interesting.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 2:48 pm

"most women are pro-life"

huh?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » February 24, 2004, 2:56 pm

what's to huh? about.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 2:58 pm

I think he means that most old, post-menopausal, political harpies are pro-life.

Sylvos wrote:They can transplant a brain, a lung, eyes, hell even a vagina (look at masteen)...

I only wish!

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 3:00 pm

I'm pro Bang-Bus

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 24, 2004, 3:12 pm

Seebs wrote:I'm pro Bang-Bus

...but then, who isn't pro Bang-Bus, really?

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » February 24, 2004, 3:13 pm

Arundel Pajo wrote:
Seebs wrote:I'm pro Bang-Bus
...but then, who isn't pro Bang-Bus, really?

The guy who cleans the Bang-bus?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 24, 2004, 3:17 pm

As Jay so eloquently put it, the Jizz-Mopper.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 3:20 pm

I'm anti-Bang Bus because of the high skank factor.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 24, 2004, 4:04 pm

masteen wrote:I'm anti-Bang Bus because of the high skank factor.

It's not the people that are appealing...because, yeah...*yecchh* It's the concept. It's a bus.....where they bang people! It's just so....so....so....so very Internet pr0n. It's like, "hey! We have the same old cookie-cutter, bad amateur pr0n that everybody else has, but get this - we're on a freaking bus, dude!"

Genius.

And yeah, I imagine it does suck for the mopper. blegh.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 4:29 pm

Bring it to adetail shop .. tell them you spilled three Vanilla Milk shakes from Burger King.

Film that as well ...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 24, 2004, 4:31 pm

Winnow,

1. Its naive to think that man hasn't greatly contributed to global warming
2. Your party historically avoids addressing environmental issues and often flouts them. So what seems to be something that concerns you does not concern your party
3. To me, Reagan with advanced Alzheimers is preferable to Bush as president right now
4. What is it about the Republican party you agree with? You aren't religious, or "family values," they spend as much or more as the Democrats, the Pres is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution...You're a smart guy. Why would you align yourself with them?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 4:52 pm

Not Winnow, but to your items:

1. Its naive to think that man hasn't greatly contributed to global warming
2. Your party historically avoids addressing environmental issues and often flouts them. So what seems to be something that concerns you does not concern your party
3. To me, Reagan with advanced Alzheimers is preferable to Bush as president right now
4. What is it about the Republican party you agree with? You aren't religious, or "family values," they spend as much or more as the Democrats, the Pres is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution...You're a smart guy. Why would you align yourself with them?

1. Its Naive to think that Nature won't take care of itself. Everytime someone in Africa clearcuts some jungle it seems that a new virus apprears. Unless you are driving an electric car, put down the stones.
2. Great, your party complains more about the environment. Not sure they do a goddamn thing about it. sk the folks in Southern California if they've changed their tune about controlled burns, which your party gets into a fever pitch about.
3. You lose all credibility at this point. Neither clever or nice.
4. Winnow's fight since you are trying to convert him. What kind of idiot would not be for Family Values? Its not a republican thing, its a society thing. You one issue guys are pathetic to me.

Drolgin Steingrinder · February 24, 2004, 4:54 pm

Seebs wrote:get rid of the PMI.

I read that as PMS and I was ready to vote for you.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 24, 2004, 5:02 pm

Its Naive to think that Nature won't take care of itself. Everytime someone in Africa clearcuts some jungle it seems that a new virus apprears.

huh? clarity of thought please. Besides not addressing my statement, you made no sense at all. Nature will take care of itself. We're talking about the effects on people dumbass.

Great, your party complains more about the environment. Not sure they do a goddamn thing about it. sk the folks in Southern California if they've changed their tune about controlled burns, which your party gets into a fever pitch about

And what is my party? If you scroll up, you'll see I don't align myself with either retard. Once again, you need to work on your writing skills. The last sentence is incomprehensible.

You lose all credibility at this point. Neither clever or nice.

You never had any credibilty Seebs. You are just a wannabe Sparty, and a bad one at that.

Winnow's fight since you are trying to convert him. What kind of idiot would not be for Family Values? Its not a republican thing, its a society thing. You one issue guys are pathetic to me.

Your response=Barely comprehensible. "Family values" when used in quotes represents a Republican platform that uses as Drolgin aptly says "the idea that legislating your way to some misunderstood-1950s idea of a nuclear family is the best way to go about things". People with any sense recognize this.

Vailex Darkfury · Post by **Vailex Darkfury** » February 24, 2004, 5:15 pm

We should all vote Nader just to see what happens. It might be worth it. If it doesnt work out after a year we can impeach.

VOTE NADER Bitches!

Who's with me??

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » February 24, 2004, 5:15 pm

I'll just tell you what my Grandfather used to tell me.
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, they're wrong, but its their opinion to be".

Secondly

"Two things you never get into a debate about Religion and Politics, you have more self proclaimed experts and holier than thou's sprout up like wheat. It's generally better to just pistol whip them before they get started"

I miss my grandfather he kicked ass.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 24, 2004, 5:20 pm

Seebs: Nature will take care of itself. It won't take care of us. That's the exact point. Nature might take care of itself by moving into another ice age and leaving us to fend for ourselves. The goal is to preserve ourselves by preserving nature, not to preserve nature for it's own ends.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 5:27 pm

Sueven wrote:Seebs: Nature will take care of itself. It won't take care of us. That's the exact point. Nature might take care of itself by moving into another ice age and leaving us to fend for ourselves. The goal is to preserve ourselves by preserving nature, not to preserve nature for it's own ends.

Clearly, Nature is conspiring to destroy us. We must strike first. I'm calling for a drastic increase in our output of greenhouse gasses. If that bitch Nature thinks she can freeze us out, she's got another thing coming!

Lalanae wrote:"Family values" when used in quotes represents a Republican platform that uses as Drolgin aptly says "the idea that legislating your way to some misunderstood-1950s idea of a nuclear family is the best way to go about things". People with any sense recognize this.

I must have missed the memo from the AP officially defining the phrase family values in quotes as a Drolginism.

p.s. One Seeber is worth 10 of you.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 24, 2004, 5:45 pm

Seebs wrote:Its Naive to think that Nature won't take care of itself. Everytime someone in Africa clearcuts some jungle it seems that a new virus apprears.

Explain to me exactly how a bunch of new virus types popping up is a good thing? Nature being able to take care of itself would be regrowing itself as quickly as humans are fucking it up.

Seebs wrote:Unless you are driving an electric car, put down the stones.

I'm not driving an electric car because they're not available. If they were, I would be. As it is, I've already committed myself to buying a hybrid for my next purchase. And as for what I'm driving now, a small sized car that has great gas mileage and a motorcycle with even better gas mileage that I use when I don't need the car.

Seebs wrote:Great, your party complains more about the environment. Not sure they do a goddamn thing about it.

Clinton did more to improve environmental protection than you'd want to believe. Bush on the other hand, has repealed a great many of those improvements to cater to big business interests (logging, poluting, etc). Not exactly the greatest news source, but 2 or 3 Rolling Stone issues ago, there were a couple large articles with more information. I suggest looking them up if you can, they're very informative.

You are just a wannabe Sparty

I'd have to agree with that. Glad someone else pointed it out.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 5:55 pm

To clarify ...

Nature will kills us if we continue to mess with it. Its what it does. Lakes clean themselves, animals evolve, viruses mutate. It's life, get over it. Not sure if we need to buy a parka or SPF80, but we'll endure, and the Lalanae's will complain.

And Siji, Viruses aren;t popping up, they were always there, humans just bulldozed the wrong section of trees. Now they die. Sucks to be them.

Not going to address the personal attacks individually, but I'll state as I did when I debated in college. First one to use personal attacks or insults is always the loser of a debate.

Siji, Lelane < Seeber

Lastly, I don't know who Sparty is, but I'm certain that I'd like him.

Now you two go run off and listen to your Barbra records and worship your Timothy Robbins/Michael Moore posters on recycled hemp paper. (its okay to insult after the blod has been drawn)

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 5:57 pm

Oh, and I promise not to quote anything from Drudge if you leave Rolling Stone out as sources.

Are you serious? Jesus.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 5:59 pm

Lalanae wrote:Winnow,

1. Its naive to think that man hasn't greatly contributed to global warming
2. Your party historically avoids addressing environmental issues and often flouts them. So what seems to be something that concerns you does not concern your party
3. To me, Reagan with advanced Alzheimers is preferable to Bush as president right now
4. What is it about the Republican party you agree with? You aren't religious, or "family values," they spend as much or more as the Democrats, the Pres is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution...You're a smart guy. Why would you align yourself with them?

I'm a military brat like Midnyte. My father flew F4's in the air force, brother flew helicopters in the army, grandfather was a belly gunner in a B-17 in WW2. I grew up in an environment that allowed me to see the positives of a strong military even in times of peace. I'm a skeptic in that I don't believe world peace is right around the corner and would like to keep our military at a level capable of handling any crisis thrown at it. The thought of democrats cutting back military spending concerns me. I view the military in much the same way I view spending money on NASA. John Q Public benefits in many ways from the research and development poured into military (and NASA's) hardware development. I suppose that's the foundation of why I'm republican and must be convinced otherwise. Give me a democratic candidate that has strong foreign affairs skills keeps our military strong and the rest of their message I might be able to swallow.

I want strong and capable leadership but not big government. I believe the president's cabinet is more important than the president himself. Delegate authority for issues you don't have a clue about and have the skills to handle foreign affairs without appearing unsure of yourself. It's easy to nitpick Bush but he's handled himself well throughout 911, Afghanistan and so far in Iraq. Instead of beating up on Bush, tell me who would do a better job of it.

I am by no means a republican fanatic and mostly republican for the position of president. To be honest, no democratic candidates have impressed me. I am liberal on many issues but it's not easy to shake the uneasiness I feel with recent democrats calling the shots in times of crisis. I am all for environmental issues for the most part and will side with them whenever I can including voting for democrats in the senate and congress. I believe a republican as president with democrats controlling the house or senate works well.

Now that you know the biggest stumbling block for me endorsing a democrat or independent, I'm open to suggestions and debate on candidates!

Pro Choice
Pro separation of church and state

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 24, 2004, 6:02 pm

Seebs wrote:To clarify ...

Nature will kills us if we continue to mess with it. Its what it does. Lakes clean themselves, animals evolve, viruses mutate. It's life, get over it. Not sure if we need to buy a parka or SPF80, but we'll endure, and the Lalanae's will complain.

And Siji, Viruses aren;t popping up, they were always there, humans just bulldozed the wrong section of trees. Now they die. Sucks to be them.

Not going to address the personal attacks individually, but I'll state as I did when I debated in college. First one to use personal attacks or insults is always the loser of a debate.

Siji, Lelane < Seeber

Lastly, I don't know who Sparty is, but I'm certain that I'd like him.

Now you two go run off and listen to your Barbra records and worship your Timothy Robbins/Michael Moore posters on recycled hemp paper. (its okay to insult after the blod has been drawn)

spelling and sensible sentence structure. Try those out first and then come back to actually debate. Your inferences that we are liberal granola just because you don't know your ass from the ozone layer, is your failure of understanding. You don't have a clue what you are arguing about, or even why you are.

The fact you don't know who Sparty tells all. Welcome to VV.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 24, 2004, 6:06 pm

Winnow wrote:I'm a military brat like Midnyte. My father flew F4's in the air force, brother flew helicopters in the army, grandfather was a belly gunner in a B-17 in WW2. I grew up in an environment that allowed me to see the positives of a strong military even in times of peace. I'm a skeptic in that I don't believe world peace is right around the corner and would like to keep our military at a level capable of handling any crisis thrown at it. The thought of democrats cutting back military spending concerns me. I view the military in much the same way I view spending money on NASA. John Q Public benefits in many ways from the research and development poured into military (and NASA's) hardware development. I suppose that's the foundation of why I'm republican and must be convinced otherwise. Give me a democratic candidate that has strong foreign affairs skills keeps our military strong and the rest of their message I might be able to swallow.

I want strong and capable leadership but not big government. I believe the president's cabinet is more important than the president himself. Delegate authority for issues you don't have a clue about and have the skills to handle foreign affairs without appearing unsure of yourself. It's easy to nitpick Bush but he's handled himself well throughout 911, Afghanistan and so far in Iraq. Instead of beating up on Bush, tell me who would do a better job of it.

I am by no means a republican fanatic and mostly republican for the position of president. To be honest, no democratic candidates have impressed me. I am liberal on many issues but it's not easy to shake the uneasiness I feel with recent democrats calling the shots in times of crisis. I am all for environmental issues for the most part and will side with them whenever I can including voting for democrats in the senate and congress. I believe a republican as president with democrats controlling the house or senate works well.

Now that you know the biggest stumbling block for me endorsing a democrat or independent, I'm open to suggestions and debate on candidates!

Pro Choice
Pro separation of church and state

You can't seriously be applauding the current governments policies on foreign affairs. Opinion on America in the world has to be at it's lowest since the days of the American revolution. Bush is reviled by a majority of the world for his conduct, and the conduct of his government. Yea, they'll all play nice, take the photo ops, shake the hands, because you guys are the most powerful nation in the world. It's dangerous not to lest you fall into the Axis of Evil. Hell, Bush even managed to piss off Canada, and we don't get mad at just about anyone.

Your points on military, ok, I won't try and debate that. I don't know nearly enough about the military to try. I'm all for being prepared, I'm all for the benefits that can come from development in military projects (not so keen on the instruments of death tho). And yes, I'm way pro-space programs!

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 24, 2004, 6:08 pm

Winnow, would you vote for Kerry is he chose Bill Richardson as his VP?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » February 24, 2004, 6:09 pm

Typical. Attack when you have no ground to stand on.

The fact that you don't have the backbone to belong to a party speaks even more volumes about your lack of sack. Your views are so fucked that you can't label them. Clever.

Amazing that you cannot be cordial to someone that disagrees with your point of view. Well, not amazing, still typical.

Perhaps you should have been one of those abortions you support ...

oh, and you are a boogerhead.

now kindly remove the Pancakes from your avatar. You are not worthy.

kk thanks.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 24, 2004, 6:15 pm

Seebs wrote:Typical. Attack when you have no ground to stand on.

The fact that you don't have the backbone to belong to a party speaks even more volumes about your lack of sack. Your views are so fucked that you can't label them. Clever.

Amazing that you cannot be cordial to someone that disagrees with your point of view. Well, not amazing, still typical.

Perhaps you should have been one of those abortions you support ...

oh, and you are a boogerhead.

now kindly remove the Pancakes from your avatar. You are not worthy.

kk thanks.

Woah. Woah. Lack of sack for not pigeon-holing herself into a political stereotype? How does demonstrating enough free will to not follow like a lemming display a lack of guts? She votes based on what she sees as the best option. Lack of sack would be not voting at all. Her views have a label: hers.

You were amusing at first, but it's starting to become tired. The fun-filled shock is starting to look less whacky, and more ignorant. And don't even bring up cordiality, I think we both know that shouldn't be in your vocabulary, at least here on these boards