Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...
If you think being a conservative means voting for big government
entitlement programs for every special interest group, a complicated
tax code, trade barriers and concessions to big labor... I supose then
you'd be right.


If you believe those are conservative principles then you have verified that
it is you that does not understand conservative principles.

Apparently you can't even read. Even a trite strawman is less
frustrating to disect than absolute incompetance.

What I was suggesting, if you can wrap your head around this, is that
conservative principles are for small government, no pork, free trade,
that sort of thing. Has this changed to mean something else? Now if
you have redefined conservative principles to mean any spending
program the congress wants, the president signs and any spending
program the president wants, congress delivers, I suppose Mr Bush
certainly is your candidate.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:21:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

:If you think being a conservative means voting for big government
:entitlement programs for every special interest group, a complicated
:tax code, trade barriers and concessions to big labor... I supose then
:you'd be right.

Well, give that last paragraph of yours, what is it you think KERRY
offers again?

Kerry offers a presidency that a Republican congress won't roll over
for. It's not that Kerry has any better ideas (almost all of them are
worse), but with a Republican congress, he won't be able to implement
them. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that we are war,
or with whom, so it's not sufficient reason to install him.

"Dez Akin" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
If you think being a conservative means voting for big government
entitlement programs for every special interest group, a complicated
tax code, trade barriers and concessions to big labor... I supose then
you'd be right.


If you believe those are conservative principles then you have verified
that
it is you that does not understand conservative principles.

Apparently you can't even read. Even a trite strawman is less
frustrating to disect than absolute incompetance.

What I was suggesting, if you can wrap your head around this, is that
conservative principles are for small government, no pork, free trade,
that sort of thing. Has this changed to mean something else? Now if
you have redefined conservative principles to mean any spending
program the congress wants, the president signs and any spending
program the president wants, congress delivers, I suppose Mr Bush
certainly is your candidate.


You still do not understand. Review my previous messages until you do.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:21:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

:If you think being a conservative means voting for big government
:entitlement programs for every special interest group, a complicated
:tax code, trade barriers and concessions to big labor... I supose then
:you'd be right.

Well, give that last paragraph of yours, what is it you think KERRY
offers again?

Kerry offers a presidency that a Republican congress won't roll over
for. It's not that Kerry has any better ideas (almost all of them are
worse), but with a Republican congress, he won't be able to implement
them. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that we are war,
or with whom, so it's not sufficient reason to install him.


Bingo! At least somebody understands.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

:
:"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
: On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:21:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
: McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
::If you think being a conservative means voting for big government
::entitlement programs for every special interest group, a complicated
::tax code, trade barriers and concessions to big labor... I supose then
::you'd be right.
:
:Well, give that last paragraph of yours, what is it you think KERRY
:offers again?
:
: Kerry offers a presidency that a Republican congress won't roll over
: for. It's not that Kerry has any better ideas (almost all of them are
: worse), but with a Republican congress, he won't be able to implement
: them. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that we are war,
: or with whom, so it's not sufficient reason to install him.
:
:Bingo! At least somebody understands.

But a philosophy of "vote for gridlock no matter who the idiot is"
often gives you an idiot like Clinton, who is willing to compromise on
all the wrong issues and stands firm on all the wrong issues.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
It's worth remembering that the Republicans were then the party of the
downtrodden working man, and the Democrats were more or less aligned with
big business and the establishment. (Caution, I oversimplify.)

You're not oversimplifying, you're wrong. The Democrats were dominant in
the south.

The Democrats were strong in the south because the Republicans were anathema
there after the war. But that wasn't the sole Democrat power base.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:By that logic, then conservative means facist.

Not even close. The fascists were socialists too, you silly git.

No, the fascists *started out* as socialists. They changed their tune
fairly quickly.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

gives you an idiot like Clinton

What's your problem with Clinton? The USA was in much better shape by
the time he left the Oral Office. The Clinton-Gore decade was a golden
era for America. He will be in history as a great President. He created
a truly 21st century USA, which GWB-Cheney-Rumsfeldmarsall sorrowfully
rolled back to 1984.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

You're not oversimplifying, you're wrong. The Democrats were dominant in
the south.


The Democrats were strong in the south because the Republicans were
anathema
there after the war. But that wasn't the sole Democrat power base.


The Democrats dominated the south before and after the war. The Republican
party was formed as an anti-slavery party.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...

What's your problem with Clinton? The USA was in much better shape by the
time he left the Oral Office. The Clinton-Gore decade was a golden era for
America. He will be in history as a great President. He created a truly
21st century USA, which GWB-Cheney-Rumsfeldmarsall sorrowfully rolled back
to 1984.

How did Clinton create that? What Clinton policies led to all that
wonderfulness?