give me a reason

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
"read all of that"?

Not much there, really. Why not addressing his questions, though? Where'd you pull "most liberal senator" crap from? Hannity's talking points?

No, it's a score compiled each year sonce 1981 in National Journal, and is based on lawmakers' votes in 3 areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Kerry ranked #1 in 2003. Edwards was #4.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
"read all of that"?

Not much there, really.

That's for sure. Nothing like a poorly-formatted paragraph of gibberish. Sure, there seems to be some sort of theme buried in it, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my time trying to figure it out.

Why not addressing his questions, though? Where'd you pull "most liberal senator" crap from? Hannity's talking points?

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)


Looks like he was #1 in 2003. Not quite that high in earlier years, but still pretty damn far left.

Sure, it's not much more than a right-wing talking point and you can pick it apart with such things as the fact that Kerry's missed quite a few of the votes in 2003, so the results are somewhat skewed. So what? Are you trying to argue that Kerry is a moderate?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur
"read all of that"?

Not much there, really. Why not addressing his questions, though? Where'd you pull "most liberal senator" crap from? Hannity's talking points?

No, it's a score compiled each year sonce 1981 in National Journal, and is based on lawmakers' votes in 3 areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Kerry ranked #1 in 2003. Edwards was #4.

But, but, but.. it's a conservative statement, therefore it must be a complete lie stemming from someone at Fox news..

It never fails to amaze me that the very same people who are so quick to yell "Sheep!" are the very same ones who spout the same tired excuses over and over again. *yawn*

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur
"read all of that"?

Not much there, really. Why not addressing his questions, though? Where'd you pull "most liberal senator" crap from? Hannity's talking points?

No, it's a score compiled each year sonce 1981 in National Journal, and is based on lawmakers' votes in 3 areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Kerry ranked #1 in 2003. Edwards was #4.

But, but, but.. it's a conservative statement, therefore it must be a complete lie stemming from someone at Fox news..

It never fails to amaze me that the very same people who are so quick to yell "Sheep!" are the very same ones who spout the same tired excuses over and over again. *yawn*

Exactly. My response would be, of course it's a conservative statement. Would you expect a stat like that to come from Kerry supporters? The question shouldn't be what is the source of the statement, but is there any validity to it? I'd like to rebutt every anti-Bush statement with, "Where'd you hear that, Michael Moore?"

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: cougarls88
What was so bad about it? The image that sticks with me about much of "the right" is of lemmings. They'll jump off a cliff to a certain death if their leader was signalling them on (and even if they're actually told that following orders will result in their demise).

thats pretty funny because i have the same mental image of libbies. they want so badly to not make a decision by themselves [they call it open mindedness] that they let someone else make a decision for them, and then they back it with all their heart and soul, not careing if its good or bad, right or wrong, or [and the most horrible of all] good for the WHOLE country instead of their personal agendas.

 

[jetaime]

You guys ever wonder why you are against so many liberals in this forum? What is the majority age group in here? Teens and college kids? In this age group, you have people who have yet to fully developed their minds. As the saying goes, the older the wiser. But what is an ultra liberal? Does the picture of a hippy in the 60's come to mind? Hippies want no government, free love (Clinton and Monica anyone?), freedom to smoke pot (Clinton, "I never inhailed"), and rebel against society just like a teenager. Just like a kid they need to be taught right from wrong. They need to know that lying and name calling is wrong. But sometimes these kids don't learn and thats how we get John Kerry.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: jetaime
You guys ever wonder why you are against so many liberals in this forum? What is the majority age group in here? Teens and college kids? In this age group, you have people who have yet to fully developed their minds. As the saying goes, the older the wiser. But what is an ultra liberal? Does the picture of a hippy in the 60's come to mind? Hippies want no government, free love (Clinton and Monica anyone?), freedom to smoke pot (Clinton, "I never inhailed"), and rebel against society just like a teenager. Just like a kid they need to be taught right from wrong. They need to know that lying and name calling is wrong. But sometimes these kids don't learn and thats how we get John Kerry.

are you retarded?
anyone that still brings up "Clinton smoked pot" (especially when we all know GWB was once a coke head) has got the wrong priorities. personally I dont care about someones past drug use.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I am voting for Bush because:

A: He's not ultra liberal.
B. He gives me and my family a tax cut.
C. I am Indian, and Kerry's outsourcing policies hurt us.
D. Bush has promised to try and defend marraige.
E. Bush will stop partial birth abortions.
F. Education has substantially improved in the area where I live in the past 4 years. The average SAT score has gone from 1020 to a 1210.

I'll come up with more reasons later on.

"C. I am Indian, and Kerry's outsourcing policies hurt us."

We've had President Kerry the last four years???

 

[EXman]

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has a slight lead over Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in an Associated Press poll, but the president has a big advantage on protecting the country ? the issue voters say they care about most.

"If we don't take care of the terrorists, we certainly won't have to worry about the economy," said Janet Cross, 57, of Portsmouth, Ohio, who switched from Democrat to Republican for the last election.

in a nutshell that is the reason for four more years. Then They bomb the crap outta us when Hillary gets elected.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: oldman420
if it is possible i would like to give the bush supporters a chance to present there side of the debate in a safe "non flaming" spot here at AT.
please if you plan on voting for bush tell us why and please no flames folks lets let the bush supporters have there say here

It really depends on what issues you support.

Bush is pro-life, pro-tax-cuts, pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, anti-gay marriage

He is also kinda stupid, but you have to examine his cabinet as well... I like Powell and Rummy.... I dislike Cheney and Ashcroft... everyone else I could care less about.

However I do feel Bush would take a tougher stance on terrorism than Kerry. Bush is also less likely to run from Iraq with his tail between his legs.

It's a very tough choice for me... I'm pro-choice, pro-deathpenalty, pro-gay marriage, pro-tax cuts, and I think Kerry would do a better job with domestic and social issues, but Bush would do a better job with foreign policy. I guess it hinges on what are the most important issues to you.

-Max

 

[bobbybe01]

2. He uses war for a last resort.

ROFL

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: EXman

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has a slight lead over Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in an Associated Press poll, but the president has a big advantage on protecting the country ? the issue voters say they care about most.

"If we don't take care of the terrorists, we certainly won't have to worry about the economy," said Janet Cross, 57, of Portsmouth, Ohio, who switched from Democrat to Republican for the last election.

in a nutshell that is the reason for four more years. Then They bomb the crap outta us when Hillary gets elected.

And what "terrorists" would that be... Osama bin Laden?

 

[Gaard]

Bush will undoubtedly get a ton of votes strictly because he's Republican...and the same for Kerry/Democrats. IMO, this is n degrees worse than the "Anyone but X" reason.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: jetaime
You guys ever wonder why you are against so many liberals in this forum? What is the majority age group in here? Teens and college kids? In this age group, you have people who have yet to fully developed their minds. As the saying goes, the older the wiser. But what is an ultra liberal? Does the picture of a hippy in the 60's come to mind? Hippies want no government, free love (Clinton and Monica anyone?), freedom to smoke pot (Clinton, "I never inhailed"), and rebel against society just like a teenager. Just like a kid they need to be taught right from wrong. They need to know that lying and name calling is wrong. But sometimes these kids don't learn and thats how we get John Kerry.

actualy sir i have polled these forums and have found a majority of anandtechers are men in there 25-40 range
anual incomes are roughly 30,000-40,00 anual most are democrats but there are a few republicans and others.
a majority are single and most think kerry is a flip flpooer but realy dislike or even hate gwb so they feel they are in some ways stuck. kerry has some excelent qualities so that helps but he is untested.
links to my at polls.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...25&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...23&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...88&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...38&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...84&highlight_key=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...39&highlight_key=y

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: bamacre
If I vote for Bush, it's only because Kerry is a horrible candidate.
If I vote for Kerry, it's only because Bush is a horrible candidate.

The truth is, if either one of these guys was anything CLOSE, to resembling, a good candidate, he'd be slaughtering the other guy in every poll.

This is yet another sad election year for Americans.

Well here is the crux of the distincyion between Bush and Kerry.

Kerry may be a horrible candidate as you say, but what kind of an administration would he run/ I don't know. I submit no-one really knows.

On the other hand Bush may be a horrible candidate, as you say--but make no mistake--Bush's candidacy IS his presidency. So if he is a horrible candidate, then he is equally a horrible president, and his administration is 3.6 years of proof of a horrible administration.

That is the difference. Bush has a track record of ineptitude and corruption. Those are the hallmarks of his 3.6 year long administration.

You want to know what a Bush administration would be like in the next 4 years--just look at the previous 3.6.

In a nutshell, Bush has proven to me his administration is a failure, and I will not re-elect them. By their deeds, not by their words.

 

[oldman420]

fjord i completly agree with you and after looking at my poll turns out there are quite a number of Republican anandtechers as well

 

[Ozoned]

At this stage in the game, and if you really need to rely on other people's reasoning to decide how you are going to cast your vote, perhaps you should not vote. :|

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
At this stage in the game, and if you really need to rely on other people's reasoning to decide how you are going to cast your vote, perhaps you should not vote. :|

Haha, agreed. If you are undecided, you are uninformed.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
At this stage in the game, and if you really need to rely on other people's reasoning to decide how you are going to cast your vote, perhaps you should not vote. :|

LOL, while I can resonate with your incredulity that anyone could possibly still be undecided at this late point in the game, as least {b]oldman420[/b] is here carefully gathering data and seeking answers. He is patently not relying "on other people's reasoning to decide" -- that would be your average dittohead -- but rather doggedly using our reactons and replies to arrive at his own conclusion.

Upon reflection, you can readily perceve this distinction, nicht wahr?

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Ozoned
At this stage in the game, and if you really need to rely on other people's reasoning to decide how you are going to cast your vote, perhaps you should not vote. :|

LOL, while I can resonate with your incredulity that anyone could possibly still be undecided at this late point in the game, as least {b]oldman420[/b] is here carefully gathering data and seeking answers. He is patently not relying "on other people's reasoning to decide" -- that would be your average dittohead -- but rather doggedly using our reactons and replies to arrive at his own conclusion.

Upon reflection, you can readily perceve this distinction, nicht wahr?

Thank you sir

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: oldman420
give me a reason
Topic Summary: why should i vote for bush?

New Reason today. Ruthless Dictator in N Korea with in the open WMD, golden money shot for "The War President". The Dub is the only one that can save us and the World.

 

[Grakatt]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger



Drilling in ANWR - Why not?

I guess as long as it last for my lifetime, screw all those unborn kids, right!!

BAH! a SINGLE solar fluxuation does MORE damage to the earths Atomosphere then man has done in his entire existance. Sorry but there is no other reasion other then to keep things the same.

A single fluctuation? Flux?
Says who, where? As it sounds rather like one of those freak theories one or two relevant scientists or elsewise miraculously come up with that will take away man's responsobility for earth's raising temperature.

What the hell has that got to do with drilling in Alaska, anyway?

http://www.bushwatch.com/drilling.htm


As for abortion - that should be every woman's right, but some checks are obviously needed so stupid people can't abuse the right. Accidental pregnancies will continue to happen, in a world where there are already too many people, so why take away such a basic right?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jetaime
You guys ever wonder why you are against so many liberals in this forum? What is the majority age group in here? Teens and college kids? In this age group, you have people who have yet to fully developed their minds. As the saying goes, the older the wiser. But what is an ultra liberal? Does the picture of a hippy in the 60's come to mind? Hippies want no government, free love (Clinton and Monica anyone?), freedom to smoke pot (Clinton, "I never inhailed"), and rebel against society just like a teenager. Just like a kid they need to be taught right from wrong. They need to know that lying and name calling is wrong. But sometimes these kids don't learn and thats how we get John Kerry.

Uh, I am a Republican, and I am smart enough to know that legalizing pot would be much better than keeping it illegal. Of course, I am smart enough to know that Bush has done a horrible job, too.

With Bush and Kerry being the only two guys with a chance to win, we could ALL use some pot.
Someone wake/sober me up in 2008, please.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jetaime
You guys ever wonder why you are against so many liberals in this forum? What is the majority age group in here? Teens and college kids? In this age group, you have people who have yet to fully developed their minds. As the saying goes, the older the wiser. But what is an ultra liberal? Does the picture of a hippy in the 60's come to mind? Hippies want no government, free love (Clinton and Monica anyone?), freedom to smoke pot (Clinton, "I never inhailed"), and rebel against society just like a teenager. Just like a kid they need to be taught right from wrong. They need to know that lying and name calling is wrong. But sometimes these kids don't learn and thats how we get John Kerry.

This coming from a French-loving n00b?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
But as a citizen in a free country, I am entitled that freedom to make that risk. It's MY money. I earned it. Why does the government decide what I do with it for retirement? True, there has been many opportunities in the past few years to lose money in the stock market, and liberals are using that as ammunition for the non-privitization of SS. But not everyone has lost money in recent years. It's this attitude that I'm too stupid to know how to invest for my retirement, and I need the government to take care of me.

Sure, until someone like Ken Lay or the other corrupt (but as yet unpunished criminals) accidentally loses it all like they did their employees retirement. The private firm uses the money to cover other losses until it becomes bankrupt, or uses it to buy stock on margin to prop up the highly overvalued stock price until it collapses, etc.

So, here you are, 60 years old, and all of your savings have disappeared overnight. You cannot afford to retire. Your money is simply gone, vanished into another corporate stock fraud, and now you'll spend your time eating hand to mouth (if you are lucky and still employable) or will have to find some way to subsidize your life.

Guess who will be crying to the government to help them out in that case?

The simple fact is that the stock market is not nearly as secure as keeping social security within the province of an established and regulated system.

Just imagine if social security was already privatized and 90% of its value was lost to our current recession or corporate fraud - how do you propose we help the millions of current retirees drawing social security?

Or do you want them to live under the bridges and starve. Or have 70 year olds working as baggage clerks to ensure that they can afford to eat.

Don't think for a second that your 65 year old self wouldn't come crying to the government to help you out if it was your money that magically vanished.