The issues locally were not of Democrat or Republican, but of who actually had the conservative values. Don Sherwood most certainly did not.
As to the Democratic leaning in Washington, I think the idea was to balance the far overboard crap that the top of the republican party is prone to lately. Moderates want stem cell research, moderation in religious rhetoric, and a bit less in the area of taxation.
The sole reason I voted FOR Bush in 04 was because he was intent on lowering cap gains and getting rid of "death" taxes. I hope he is still able to do this.
However, on the other side of the coin, he's dumped us into a war that cannot be won (duh!, his DAD knew it!).
Flip the coin again, and you'll see that Gore wouldn't have done near as much to go after the source of the 9/11 attacks.
Sadly, when it comes right down to it, Bush isn't a very good republican either.
I'd take a moderate Republican over Bush, and a Conservative democrat over a liberal anything.
Not with Dems controlling congress. They want any form of higher taxes they can get.
I believe things would be far worse with Gore or Kerry in the WH. Edwards would cause major problems if allowed.
Very true. He's not a conservative in any way.
Same here except party members generally do not act as an individual. If they are democrat they go with the parties votes, same with republican. Only a handful are ever strong enough to vote based on their own beliefs.
Gee, and why doesn't every one do that???? Perhaps because those in power like to keep it that way and it's really not what you know, it's who you know. As for my greed, more right wing spin. When you can explain to us how anyone is capable of actually working hard enought to earn over $1,000,000 dollars, then you can say that. Otherwise, they are simply taking it and it really isn't theirs either.
Really, it did in the past. Like I have said many times, you really need to crack open a history book. Here is another thing about history Miles, it tends to repeat itself.
I never said that but what you are doing is simply blowing smoke. The only way that a tax cut can raise revenue in taxes is if they cause the creation of high paying jobs to increase the tax base but that has simply not happened and the type of tax cuts the idiot brought out does the opposite. Most of the new job being created are either low paying retail jobs or lower paying versions of the jobs lost.
I do understand it Miles as do many and most are no longer falling for your right wing spin anymore. Despite the crap of record low unemployment and a great economy, many are not living as well as they were before and most are getting tired of it. The sad thing is that the economic numbers are good so who is getting all of the money? Why, the ones who need it the least, just like with the tax cuts.
Probably not now but if they take a lesson from their right wing friends, they will blame everything that they didn't do on the right and push for more power. If the right manages to deadlock congress as I'm sure they will try, they will be hurting themselves and will probably lead to a Democratic President and a further loss of seats in congress so more power to them.
Now that depends on how liberal you are talking about. The far left, of course not but people are tired of getting screwed by corrupt business owners and employers. The economy was the number 1 issue, even outweighing the war and if the economy is doing as well as the right claims, what does that tell you about what the people want. Sorry Miles, but what's left of the middle class and the poor hugely out number the wealthy and now with the lower class being filled with people who once had things, it leads to strong motivation for change.
Probably so for the far left ideas but if you think differently, name a few. Funny how Arizona killed making gay marriage unconstitutional. I would say that happened because that law would also make unions also illegal so the public is not as far right as you would like.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't but it is more than obvious that the right doesn't either and they had 12 years to get it right and failed. Stay the course puts a bad taste in peoples mouths anymore and that includes the current course of the economy.
LOL, no, they just want to balance the budget without screwing the majority of Americans, something the Reps have long forgotten how to do.
What you believe and what you can prove are two very different things. The point is that we will never know and our current President did not deserve a second term.
LOL, and what exactly is your definition of conservative. Sorry Miles, he is very much a full blown conservative. He is just not bright enough to lie well like many of the others in politics.
That is because they are party members. If you want someone to act as an individual, elect an independant but people like you would never do that.
Actually, both sides want to balance the budget, but both sides forget that notion when their pet projects lose funding.
If you believe the "history repeats itself" comment you invoked in a previous post, it might interest you to know that Kerry wanted to increase troops in Iraq. This parallels another Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who increased troops in Vietnam. Now, if you wish to convince me that increasing troops in a war without context and against an enemy hidden among the population, all while attempting to keep "collateral damage" to a minimum, is a good idea, you'll have to erase the late 60's.
The answer to your supposition that Bush didn't deserve a second term is a question: Why did the Democrats deserve to have a chance at the White House at that point? Further, since its the Dems who are trying to reinstate the draft, perhaps you have an answer for that situation as well. The fact is, we shouldn't be in Iraq on the scale we are now. In general, the Republicans are more apt to follow the advice of the experts, the Generals. Until he was re-elected, Bush was doing so. Kerry screamed that he had a solution. Then he screamed that he had a solution again. And he kept saying he had a solution, but all he talked of was putting more of our military on the line.
The real question here is: Are we as a nation, no matter who is driving the ship, going to learn that 15 years of Vietnam was too many and figure out an exit strategy to the Iraq situation before we hit the 10 year mark?
Actually, Bush is not a conservative. Conservatives believe in less government; Bush created another Cabinet position, shoved the Patriot Act through Congress, and spent millions on "Homeland Defense" positions throughout the nation.
As far as the lying part... by others, do you mean Clinton? Is that what it takes to impress you?
Actually, people like the two parties would never allow an independant on the ballot if they can do it.
Oh geez, typical liberal. Always blame their problems on someone else. If you wanted something bad enough and had the abilities you'd have it instead of whining and wanting something that belongs to someone else.
If it's so easy then go do it yourself instead of whining. Most wealthy people I know worked their way from the bottom. They spent many years living a rather poor life and putting everything they have into it to get where they are today. Most people are not willing to do that or they're a liberal and blame others for their own failures.
When has raising taxes in a down economy created growth and prosperity?
Complete bull. Lower taxes puts more money into the hands of the people. The current tax revenues have skyrocketed over your idol Clintons years. It is because consumer and corporate spending has increased. Look at the figures, the tax revenue increases match the rate of money changing hands almost exact contrary to your warped explanations.
Crap? Low unemployment is crap? The figures today are computed exactly the same way they always have. So if they are bad today then things really sucked under Clinton. The median income has gone up. That means the new jobs are not low paying as your liberal BS propaganda tries to claim without any proof otherwise.
Got proof people are living worse? Funny how people can afford more expensive houses if they are doing so poorly.
You're talking about Prop. 107. You need to read Arizona's constitution. It already does ban gay marriage. Failure of 107 doesn't change that fact at all. Gay marriage is constitutionally banned in Arizona.
Middle class tax rates were considerably higher under Clinton than they are now. Besides, raising rates will not automatically result in higher revenues but you seem to not understand that concept.
Bush a conservative????? ROFL!!! Oh now thats funny.
You mean like Lieberman? Oh wait, he said he'd caucus with the Democrats. So much for being independent.
And this has what to do with what???? Lets see some numbers. The point is that he did not make unrealistic tax cuts that we cannot afford which results in massive cuts of needed services causing a substantial increase in the cost of living to those who can afford it the least.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't either. Actually, LOL, it was on the news yesterday that the huge gains in tax revenue were from the Amnesty and active prosecution of tax invaders, to the tune of around 40 billion and not from the crap you spew out about the cuts doing it.
All for the rich, screw everyone else, pretty much like you, yea.... he is a conservative alright.
Lieberman ran as an independant because the idiots in the Democratic party ran someone else and did it because he did vote as an individual so yes Miles, he is an excelent example.
Can't afford? Tax revenues have increased, not decreased. Your claims about tax amnesty and better collection techniques are not substantiated. What is substantiated is the higher cash flow.
That is because he is still a Democrat but the fact remains the same that even though he is a Democrat and loyal to his party, he will still vote against the party line if he feels it is important. As for independents, most of them tend to lean toward the left in many ways and yet have conservative values as well.
He stated he would caucus with the Democrats. Yes he did go against his party. He has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war. So why are you defending him?
"miles" wrote in message news:3lQ8h.590$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe10.phx...
LOL, who said it was a problem of mine and spin as you may, many problems are caused by others.
Hahahaha, more complete right wing crap.
As I said before, it's not what you know but who you know or in your case, how many people you are willing to screw and this still doesn't answer the question above.
Why do you keep hiding behind this small business bullshit and most of them are well off, not wealthy. I am talking about the corporate execs making in excess of millions a year with no risk of losing everything which is something else you like to hide behind.
LOL, who is talking about just rising taxes. I am talking about the rules and regulations and they did create growth and prosperity and spread it out to the masses, not just the select few as you would have. Did you open that history book yet?
Yes, most of your argument is just that.
Again, more complete right wing bull. Flat tax cuts are hugly expensive and put the most money in the hands of those that need it the least and are the least likely to spend it as they already have and take far more money than they spend. Doing this actually takes more money out of circulation which hurts the economy.
I have still not seen a single number, just the typical right wing crap.When I see a full breakdown as to exactly where all of these revenues are comming from then I will believe it but that will not happen until next year at best when the democrats do their part in the new make the other guy look bad game that our gubberment has become.
Lets see a link to these figures and a breakdown as to where they are comming from.
And for the most part, they were crap then too. The worse the economy is, the more inaccurate they are due to assumptions made in their calculations regardless of who is President.
More right wing spin. More people were doing well under Clinton then at any time in this countries history.
Complete crap. Please show some proof and not the right wing crap that you did the last time which was based on total household income of up to 4 people, including children.
LOL!!!! Let me get out the soap box and give you an example that shows you to be full of shit. We have one of these families of 4 from the median income crap that you posted and in this classic family, only the father was working in the tech industry making $60,000 a year while the mothers job is taking care of the household and their 2 young children. Now in your great economy, the father loses his job due to outsourcing. He manages to find another one a few months later but the due to the high real number of the unemployed, especially in his industry, the best that he could do salary wise is $40,000 because after all, the market value for his skills are now lower. Now I know that you will be screaming that the unemployment figures are low so this example is invalid but again, that is complete bullshit. Unemployment numbers are based on the number of people filing for unemployment insurance and not everyone can. Then on top of that, after your unemployment insurance runs out, you are considered to no longer be looking for work and are removed from that figure. When the job losses are massive, a person could easily exceed his unemployment insurance without finding work that can support his family. Like I said, when the economy is good this can be a somewhat valid assumption but when we have massive job losses like in the beginning of Bush's first term, it is completely invalid which makes these figures complete crap. Now lets get back to the example. This loss of 20 thousand a year makes it impossible for this family to make ends meet so rather than lose their home, the wife gets a job as well. The problem there is that she has been out of the job market for years and with the large number of unemployed skilled workers, the best she can do is $25,000. And on top of that, now she needs limited day car that costs the family $$$$ and severely limits their time together. Now according to your bullshit right wing example, the median income of this family has gone up but in reality, the disposable cash for this family is less than before due to new expenses such as daycare and the median income of the individual people in that family has also gone down and by a large amount. Until you can present valid data showing INDIVIDUAL income higher, all you got is smoke and mirrors, IOW, the right wing method. Now I can put my soap box away.
God, the right wing snow storm ever end. Did you see the stock market yesterday??? Do you know why it fell like a rock? How about a sharp decline in the consumer index. People in this country typically live above their means and with the past housing boom, they were living off of the increasing value of their homes. Now that the bubble has burst and prices are falling, people are realizing that they don't have the money that they thought that they had and are cutting back. If people were buying based on their income, there would be no decrease in the index. Actually, it should increase sharply this time of year.
And who exactly is buying these expensive homes? Most of them were being bought by investers sight unseen on the net and resold to other investors also on the net and for huge profits. Sound familiar to you.... like a certian tech bubble. If people are doing as well as you claim, why have home sales flattened out for the past 8 months and why are prices actually dropping? Sorry Miles, once again your right wing spin has no traction.
You make no sense Miles. If it is already constitutionally banned, why was it part of 107?
LOL, he is actually not a strong supporter. He simply understands that we are stuck there until we can come up with a valid exit plan and setting a time limit without one is a stupid idea. I agree with that completely. We were sent their by a retard and it will take a genus to get us out of there intact.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.