I disagree. That would require the well-married cosmetically-enhanced Senator Kerry to hold a level of conviction grounded in a principled-based ideology that his record would suggest is completely foreign to him. On second thought, Stalin did have a similar coif, did he not? Hmmm. . . .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kerry
- Thread starter cdbern
- Start date
I disagree. That would require the well-married cosmetically-enhanced Senator Kerry to hold a level of conviction grounded in a principled-based ideology that his record would suggest is completely foreign to him. On second thought, Stalin did have a similar coif, did he not? Hmmm. . . .
Just saw a commercial of Kerry promising every American health care. Has he changed his position on health care? Is he planning a Canadian style health care system or does he have a band aid idea and trying to make himself look good in commercials? I know a lot of people don't like this but with insurance premiums rising faster than Warren Buffets portfolio, it will eventually be richer than all of us. Since the US is already paying more per person than Canada, the US does not need to raise taxes to do this and will actually save money. I think it's the conservative thing to do since costs are going up so fast.
I'm an extreme republican that would consider living through Kerry's weakening of our national defense and his gigolo life style if he would fix the out of control health care system the US has.
Only thing is he already said he would raise taxes so there is no way I would vote for him.
I'm an extreme republican that would consider living through Kerry's weakening of our national defense and his gigolo life style if he would fix the out of control health care system the US has.
Only thing is he already said he would raise taxes so there is no way I would vote for him.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
You think the independents that voted for Gore will vote for Bush now?
LMAO.
Absolutely. Gore benefited from his position in the popular with moderates Clinton administration. Many Reagan Democrats felt that Clinton/Gore turned the Party back to the center. Although those voters certainly aren't pro-Bush they'll vote against the too liberally defined John Kerry. Keep in mind ART, close to 95% of those eligible are employed and that John Q. Public really doesn't care at the end of the day about rapidly fading from the headlines Iraq. If you disagree ART I suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Right now on Tradesports $36.50 will win you a hundo if GWB is not re-elected in November.
If I disagree with you I should place a bet on the election?
Lunacy.
Lunacy.
Quote from Pabst:
Absolutely. Gore benefited from his position in the popular with moderates Clinton administration. Many Reagan Democrats felt that Clinton/Gore turned the Party back to the center. Although those voters certainly aren't pro-Bush they'll vote against the too liberally defined John Kerry. Keep in mind ART, close to 95% of those eligible are employed and that John Q. Public really doesn't care at the end of the day about rapidly fading from the headlines Iraq. If you disagree ART I suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Right now on Tradesports $36.50 will win you a hundo if GWB is not re-elected in November.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
If I disagree with you I should place a bet on the election?
Lunacy.
Lunacy? Isn't your point that Bush will receive negligible support from voters who identify themselves as independents? Given that no Republican can be elected nationally without the majority of purported moderates would your thesis not deduce a Bush loss in November? The notion of tripling your stake on a trend that you see developing is not appealing?
Quote from Pabst:
Lunacy? Isn't your point that Bush will receive negligible support from voters who identify themselves as independents? Given that no Republican can be elected nationally without the majority of purported moderates would your thesis not deduce a Bush loss in November? The notion of tripling your stake on a trend that you see developing is not appealing?
Pabst my friend, you are under the mistaken identity that ART trades for a living. I don't think he does. Therefore, taking a trade on Bush losing with this much edge clearly does not appeal to him. Art is a quasi-socialist democrat that sees no utility in two grown men buying and selling an asset to each other with the hopes of taking the others money with no product being made or service provided.
ART's existence on this board is more of a theoretical exercise in various forms of the transferring of wealth whether it be through trading or government taxation.
I imagine every day ART has to fight the urge to buy that one way plane ticket to France. His only hope is to get a Massachusetts liberal like Kerry elected so ART can realize his theories and change his theoretical world into a reality.
Ever hear of Blackâs Law Dictionary? When laws are crafted, Websterâs Dictionary is never used. Also when in doubt, courts in past referred back to Congressional intent. However in the last several decades the Supreme Court has taken the position of exclusive mandate.
Socialism doesn't limit empowerment? Why milk the cow if you can get the milk delivered. Why should I do anything myself if the government is going to provide for me. That isnât limiting empowerment?
Empowerment is an inside job.
Yes, inside the individual. Unfortunately there are more takers than givers. See above.
Iâm viewing everything through the lens of a Constitutionalist.
Obviously as a liberal, or one with liberal tendencies, you donât understand human nature. People take the path of least resistance. As I said before, necessity is the mother of invention. Remove the need, remove the thrust to take responsibility.
There is no one single âcauseâ. However, allowing Socialism to manifest itself in our political and social structure will cause the greater harm.
If the Constitution needs to be amended, which it has been, then so be it. But follow what is there. That hasnât been done. Thats the point Iâm making. Everyone wants to add their own meaning or disregard its intent, throwing out every conceivable absurd reason imaginable. Doing so erodes our liberties.
"The reality is that the constitution is no longer their constitution, nor
their society....it is our constitution and our society."
They didnât write the Constitution for themselves. The wrote it for every inhabitant of this country. Our job is to preserve it at all costs, for future generations.
"What parts have to change? What hasnât been accounted for? The Constitution isnât whats broken here.
That is your opinion."
ART, in addition to making a statement, I was asking you for your opinion. What part needs to change?
"Yes, there is whim and fashion in society. That is why the idea of a supreme court is a group of non fashionable and non whimsical individuals to determine what is actually constitutional."
Non fashionable? Non whimsical? Knock, knock, hello ART, are you home?
"The point is that socialism itself is not unconstitutional in nature."
The concept of Socialism is certainly unconstitutional. The Constitution places VERY STRICT guidelines on the role of government.
Socialism doesn't limit empowerment? Why milk the cow if you can get the milk delivered. Why should I do anything myself if the government is going to provide for me. That isnât limiting empowerment?
Empowerment is an inside job.
Yes, inside the individual. Unfortunately there are more takers than givers. See above.
Iâm viewing everything through the lens of a Constitutionalist.
Obviously as a liberal, or one with liberal tendencies, you donât understand human nature. People take the path of least resistance. As I said before, necessity is the mother of invention. Remove the need, remove the thrust to take responsibility.
There is no one single âcauseâ. However, allowing Socialism to manifest itself in our political and social structure will cause the greater harm.
If the Constitution needs to be amended, which it has been, then so be it. But follow what is there. That hasnât been done. Thats the point Iâm making. Everyone wants to add their own meaning or disregard its intent, throwing out every conceivable absurd reason imaginable. Doing so erodes our liberties.
"The reality is that the constitution is no longer their constitution, nor
their society....it is our constitution and our society."
They didnât write the Constitution for themselves. The wrote it for every inhabitant of this country. Our job is to preserve it at all costs, for future generations.
"What parts have to change? What hasnât been accounted for? The Constitution isnât whats broken here.
That is your opinion."
ART, in addition to making a statement, I was asking you for your opinion. What part needs to change?
"Yes, there is whim and fashion in society. That is why the idea of a supreme court is a group of non fashionable and non whimsical individuals to determine what is actually constitutional."
Non fashionable? Non whimsical? Knock, knock, hello ART, are you home?
"The point is that socialism itself is not unconstitutional in nature."
The concept of Socialism is certainly unconstitutional. The Constitution places VERY STRICT guidelines on the role of government.
Quote from Hello_Dollars:
I disagree. That would require the well-married cosmetically-enhanced Senator Kerry to hold a level of conviction grounded in a principled-based ideology that his record would suggest is completely foreign to him. On second thought, Stalin did have a similar coif, did he not? Hmmm. . . .
Out of kindness and a desire to shun my past, I have avoided calling today's democrats communists. However, the more I witness their passive behavior in the face of communists and other aggressors, I am sometimes forced to conclude the purpose for stepping aside is to assist in communist advancement.