Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Yes go to our national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and
:: :Yosemite and see the evil socialism at work.
:
:: No, you need to go to the inner city for that.
:
:Yes, I have been to several Eurpoean inner cities and NEVER felt as
:threatened as in one in the US. Have you?

Many. You have a point (other than on the top of your head)?

:: :Oh and then go to Las Vegas
:: :and see capitalism at its finest. Don't miss the light and water shows,
:
:: Been there. Done that. I wouldn't say 'at its finest' but its
:: certainly prettier than South Central LA.
:
:I was being sarcastic as many conservatives have trouble with the "Sin
:City" aspect of LV but not the capitialism. Let's just say that LV
:confuses them. Ask William Bennett!

No, you were being stupid, which is apparently your one great talent.

:: :and don't gamble away your kid's college fund.
:
:: No kids, so no problem. If there were kids I could probably just pay
:: cash, so that's no problem, either.
:
:No kids and seemingly clueless about how they get paid for as well.

Well, if you think you have to buy kids, you should get out more. Or
perhaps take a biology course.

:Oh
:well, how can I fault someone's parenting skills when they are not a
arent?

Oh, I'm sure you'll find a way. It's the sort of idiocy many have
come to expect of you.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: "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.
:
:Yet Clinton was one of the better presidents we have had as of late.

If you define 'as of late as 'as of 1992'. He is certainly "one of
the better presidents" during that period. He is second from the top,
in fact.

:And he got into power because Perot (anti gridlock). THERE is the irony!

No, I believe he would have won with or without Perot. So do most
folks with a few neurons to rub together. For just one of many, try
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm.

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
:
:: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
:: ...
::
:: : The US national parks predate modern liberalism.
::
:: So?
:
:: So they are not a product of liberalism as it is understood today.
:
:They are a product of socialism.

Wrong.

:So if liberalism = socialism as you have
:defined it, then somewhere you are clearly lacking understanding. Because
:NPS IS socialistic, as is the military and the interstate system.

I'd say you need a clue, but that hardly begins to cover it.

:: : Yellowstone was the first
:: : National Park, established in 1872. The Republicans were in power.
::
:: Teddy Rooselevlt was a liberal. He left the Republican Party and help form
:: the Bull Moose Party.
:
:: You're confusing modern liberalism with classic liberalism. They are polar
:: opposites.
:
:And you're clueless! How can they be polar opposites?

Gee, I don't know. How can black and white be polar opposites?

:: The Republican Party you want to ignore is the one in which Harding was
:: president.
:
:: I thought the subject was conservatives?
:
:No, it is your indefensible defense for the Republican Party.

A pity you apparently really believe the idiocy you spout. I keep
hoping you'll do something amusing because I can't imagine anyone so
seriously stupid for real.

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
::
:: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
:: ...
::
:: That defeat created the modern terrorist movement. I have still yet to see
:: any spoils of that "victory".
::
:: How do you define "modern terrorist movement"?
:
:Former countries from the USSR that are Muslim,

In other words, you have adopted a circular (mis)definition and then
proclaimed it as truth.

:aligned with other
:anti-western Muslim countries to the point where they produce enough of a
:force that is willing to die at our expense.

I don't know how to break it to you, but those "former countries from
the USSR that are Muslim" pretty much have zero to do with Western
terrorism. Mostly they're too busy blowing up Russian school
children.

:What is so bad that these people are willing to commit suicide to kill
:us? They obviously are missing something...

And obviously so are you.

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

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: :
: : : The 1990s in the U.S. were as good economically as they were because
: of
: : : the "peace dividend" that resulted from the 1991 end of the Cold
: War,
: : : and it was presidents Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush that pushed the
: : : policies that defeated the Soviet Union.
: :
: : That defeat created the modern terrorist movement. I have still yet to
: see
: : any spoils of that "victory".
: :
:
: : How do you define "modern terrorist movement"?
:
:
: Former countries from the USSR that are Muslim, aligned with other
: anti-western Muslim countries to the point where they produce enough of a
: force that is willing to die at our expense.
:

: So what about terrorist acts prior to GW1? Were they part of an "ancient
: terrorist movement"?

Terrorism has been around for much longer than 9/11 and all the events
that led up t it.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: :
: : : The 1990s in the U.S. were as good economically as they were
because
: of
: : : the "peace dividend" that resulted from the 1991 end of the Cold
: War,
: : : and it was presidents Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush that pushed the
: : : policies that defeated the Soviet Union.
: :
: : That defeat created the modern terrorist movement. I have still
yet to
: see
: : any spoils of that "victory".
: :
:
: : How do you define "modern terrorist movement"?
:
:
: Former countries from the USSR that are Muslim, aligned with other
: anti-western Muslim countries to the point where they produce enough
of a
: force that is willing to die at our expense.
:

: So what about terrorist acts prior to GW1? Were they part of an
"ancient
: terrorist movement"?

Terrorism has been around for much longer than 9/11 and all the events
that led up t it.


Now you're catching on.

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
: :: ::
: :: :: That definition is obsolete. In American politics today liberal means
: :: :: socialist.
: :: :
: :: :By that logic, then conservative means facist.
: :
: :: Not even close. The fascists were socialists too, you silly git.
: :
: :The way the military is revered in this country by the GOP, it all fits!

: Congratulations. You clearly demonstrate that you don't know what
: 'fascism' means (along with most other words, apparently).

Look up Mussolini and tell me that!

Eric

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

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Yes go to our national parks like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and
: :: :Yosemite and see the evil socialism at work.
: :
: :: No, you need to go to the inner city for that.
: :
: :Yes, I have been to several Eurpoean inner cities and NEVER felt as
: :threatened as in one in the US. Have you?

: Many. You have a point (other than on the top of your head)?

Europe is safer than the US when it comes to inner cities.

: :: :Oh and then go to Las Vegas
: :: :and see capitalism at its finest. Don't miss the light and water shows,
: :
: :: Been there. Done that. I wouldn't say 'at its finest' but its
: :: certainly prettier than South Central LA.
: :
: :I was being sarcastic as many conservatives have trouble with the "Sin
: :City" aspect of LV but not the capitialism. Let's just say that LV
: :confuses them. Ask William Bennett!

: No, you were being stupid, which is apparently your one great talent.

Are you drunk again, or is simply part of your upbringing?

: :: :and don't gamble away your kid's college fund.
: :
: :: No kids, so no problem. If there were kids I could probably just pay
: :: cash, so that's no problem, either.
: :
: :No kids and seemingly clueless about how they get paid for as well.

: Well, if you think you have to buy kids, you should get out more. Or
: perhaps take a biology course.

: :Oh
: :well, how can I fault someone's parenting skills when they are not a
: arent?

: Oh, I'm sure you'll find a way. It's the sort of idiocy many have
: come to expect of you.

You can barely speak for yourself, so you might want to refrain from
speaking for many.

Eric

: --
: "The odds get even - You blame the game.
: The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
: You bet your life."
: -- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: "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.
: :
: :Yet Clinton was one of the better presidents we have had as of late.

: If you define 'as of late as 'as of 1992'. He is certainly "one of
: the better presidents" during that period. He is second from the top,
: in fact.

I'd say since Nixon, Clinton has been one of the better presidents.

: :And he got into power because Perot (anti gridlock). THERE is the irony!

: No, I believe he would have won with or without Perot.

Proof? All indications I have seen show that Bush I would have won had
Perot not run in 1992.

: So do most
: folks with a few neurons to rub together. For just one of many, try
: http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm.

Okay.

Eric

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

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
: :
: :: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: :: ...
: ::
: :: : The US national parks predate modern liberalism.
: ::
: :: So?
: :
: :: So they are not a product of liberalism as it is understood today.
: :
: :They are a product of socialism.

: Wrong.

Can you own property in a national park? Can you carry a firearm? Can you
set up a kiosk without government approval? Can you take artifacts?

Hey idiot, ALL indications are that national parks ARE socialistic in
nature. The fact that you hate socialism and like national parks does not
change the nature of the park service. You are a classic revisionist with
no clear understanding about the world.

: :So if liberalism = socialism as you have
: :defined it, then somewhere you are clearly lacking understanding. Because
: :NPS IS socialistic, as is the military and the interstate system.

: I'd say you need a clue, but that hardly begins to cover it.

But you can't argue the facts. The military is socialistic you boob! What
part of the fact that it is paid by taxes funded through public funds
(socialism) don't you get?

: :: : Yellowstone was the first
: :: : National Park, established in 1872. The Republicans were in power.
: ::
: :: Teddy Rooselevlt was a liberal. He left the Republican Party and help form
: :: the Bull Moose Party.
: :
: :: You're confusing modern liberalism with classic liberalism. They are polar
: :: opposites.
: :
: :And you're clueless! How can they be polar opposites?

: Gee, I don't know. How can black and white be polar opposites?

: :: The Republican Party you want to ignore is the one in which Harding was
: :: president.
: :
: :: I thought the subject was conservatives?
: :
: :No, it is your indefensible defense for the Republican Party.

: A pity you apparently really believe the idiocy you spout. I keep
: hoping you'll do something amusing because I can't imagine anyone so
: seriously stupid for real.

You keep responding. Imagine that?!

Eric

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