POLL: Will you or are you...

[CADsortaGUY]

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

None of them are a worthy cause!

 

[dmcowen674]

What did you edit out CADDY? The fact that you've been a Bush shill all along???

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

None of them are a worthy cause!

 

[TheBDB]

Hahaha I don't think I'm even going to vote, much less work for a candidate.

 

[Gaard]

Dari went undercover to a Dean rally. Does that count?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari went undercover to a Dean rally. Does that count?

Was he the guy in the Pink Tights and Tutu?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari went undercover to a Dean rally. Does that count?

Was he the guy in the Pink Tights and Tutu?

No, that was his mentor.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

6 people are or are going to work for the kerry campaign? Really? Why might I ask would you volunteer for kerry's campaign?

CkG

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
6 people are or are going to work for the kerry campaign? Really? Why might I ask would you volunteer for kerry's campaign? CkG

So many reasons, I'll just list the first three that came to mind:

Potential retirees from the Supreme Court.

John Asscough.

George Bush, that smirking little weenie his own damn self.

 

[Shuxclams]

Actually I just want a fun party...... I think Bush is the right man......













SHUX

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
6 people are or are going to work for the kerry campaign? Really? Why might I ask would you volunteer for kerry's campaign? CkG

So many reasons, I'll just list the first three that came to mind:

Potential retirees from the Supreme Court.

John Asscough.

George Bush, that smirking little weenie his own damn self.

So top 3 reasons you are going to work FOR a campaign because you are against Bush and his admin.

Do the other 6(now) feel the same way? or are you working FOR kerry's campaign for other reasons?

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

I wouldn't volunteer a snot rag to any of the people running.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY 6 people are or are going to work for the kerry campaign? Really? Why might I ask would you volunteer for kerry's campaign? CkG

So many reasons, I'll just list the first three that came to mind: Potential retirees from the Supreme Court. John Asscough. George Bush, that smirking little weenie his own damn self.

So top 3 reasons you are going to work FOR a campaign because you are against Bush and his admin. Do the other 6(now) feel the same way? or are you working FOR kerry's campaign for other reasons? CkG

Yeah, the lying weenies of BushCo. are that bad. Kerry is not my dream candidate, but he's the only one with any chance to defeat Bush, and the stakes, my friend, are high.

You know that lying crap about Bush being a uniter? Worked for me, just not like he intended.

Edit: Hey, CAD, who do you support? Why? Will you work for them? If so, again, why?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I have volunteered to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign.(Ankeny Precinct 3 coordinator- not much but you have to start somewhere)
Not because I think kerry would be bad for the US.
Not because I don't like democrats or their tactics.
Not because I don't like kerry's stances on the ISSUES.

It's because I believe Bush is the correct choice for America and I feel that working from within for change is the only way things will get progress here in the US. There is much to be done and re-electing Bush-Cheney and helping elect more Republican Senators and Representatives will help to speed reform and according to Grassely our fiscal policy and funding will change with enough seats and with Bush in the Whitehouse.

So, you see, I'm FOR the candidate and their cause and ISSUES- not just doing this because I'm "against" the other guy.

Seems that since no one has spoken up saying that they will work FOR kerry except for the reasons you posted says alot - which I was expecting.

CkG

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I have volunteered to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign.(Ankeny Precinct 3 coordinator- not much but you have to start somewhere) Not because I think kerry would be bad for the US. Not because I don't like democrats or their tactics. Not because I don't like kerry's stances on the ISSUES. It's because I believe Bush is the correct choice for America and I feel that working from within for change is the only way things will get progress here in the US. There is much to be done and re-electing Bush-Cheney and helping elect more Republican Senators and Representatives will help to speed reform and according to Grassely our fiscal policy and funding will change with enough seats and with Bush in the Whitehouse. So, you see, I'm FOR the candidate and their cause and ISSUES- not just doing this because I'm "against" the other guy. Seems that since no one has spoken up saying that they will work FOR kerry except for the reasons you posted says alot - which I was expecting. CkG

Well, principled citizen participation is, or should be, the cornerstone of American democracy.

I am a tad confused, though, CAD. After 4 years of Bush and Republican majorities in both houses, just why do you feel that even more of the same will "speed reform" and promote a situation where "our fiscal policy and funding will change". How, exactly, will enforcing the status quo change things?

 

[SuperTool]

Hahaha, CAD believes that the only way to get progress in the US is to work from within the GOP. I now believe in Santa Claus

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I have volunteered to work for the Bush-Cheney campaign.(Ankeny Precinct 3 coordinator- not much but you have to start somewhere) Not because I think kerry would be bad for the US. Not because I don't like democrats or their tactics. Not because I don't like kerry's stances on the ISSUES. It's because I believe Bush is the correct choice for America and I feel that working from within for change is the only way things will get progress here in the US. There is much to be done and re-electing Bush-Cheney and helping elect more Republican Senators and Representatives will help to speed reform and according to Grassely our fiscal policy and funding will change with enough seats and with Bush in the Whitehouse. So, you see, I'm FOR the candidate and their cause and ISSUES- not just doing this because I'm "against" the other guy. Seems that since no one has spoken up saying that they will work FOR kerry except for the reasons you posted says alot - which I was expecting. CkG

Well, principled citizen participation is, or should be, the cornerstone of American democracy.

I am a tad confused, though, <STRONG>CAD. </STRONG>After 4 years of Bush and Republican majorities in both houses, just why do you feel that even more of the same will "speed reform" and promote a situation where "our fiscal policy and funding will change". How, exactly, will enforcing the status quo change things?

As I have stated before - the guy who is the head of the finance commitee (Chuck Grassely) has told me to my face that IF we can deliver Bush and more Congress seats you will "be amazed"(his words) at the fiscal changes. And no - that doesn't mean spending more - it was in response to my questioning him on the continual gov't over spending.(see any budget thread here- you'll see my position on spending) Now I've also said that if Bush and the seats are delivered and we don't see change - I will be their harshest critic - bar none. It's one thing to be politiced to during campaigns but it's quite another to be personally taken for granted and given lip service to. If they don't get thier s#!t together I'm done. I'll join and independent movement or the libertarians and try to work for change that way but currently those options don't look workable due to other "issues" I have with them but will work to change if I join them. You see - I have a set of principles and ideals - I don't change them just because of party affiliation - so any group I join has to hold many of the same ones as I - and if not I work to change them.

So yes - this looks to be the stage for one last chance for the establishment from me and I'm going to hold up my end of the bargain.

CkG

BTW - the (R)s have a slim majority and have to cater to a wide range of things to get things done. With more seats less catering to the heart string sob stories and bloat will have to be done. It's time to get things done in Washington and no one said it was going to be easy but I'd rather take pain now then 15-20 years down the road.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Hahaha, CAD believes that the only way to get progress in the US is to work from within the GOP. I now believe in Santa Claus

for my ideals and fiscal reform - yes. Now get back to work little elf.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

GOP already has majorities in both houses, presidency, and one can argue the supreme court. Noone left to blame.

 

[Shuxclams]

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson February 15, 1791

And a Constitutional amemndment guarding a religous concept fits in those bounds?

Moral identification from a federal postition fits within those bounds?

The inability to purchase and view materials "deemed" pornographic from a federal guidline fits those bounds?

The right to own a semi-automatic rifle as defined by a federal statute fits within those bounds?


This is why you have no credibilty with me. You quote Jefferson yet stand in opposition to one, most or all of those things. To understand true republicanism one must first and foremost separate what the federal goverment should be in care of. Infrastructure, Trade, the Armed Forces. The rest should be in the hands of State and Local goverments. State and local goverments can and should make laws that replfect their own local morals... i.e. San Fransisco and Gay Marriage --- oh your "Republikan" canidate called for a "Constitutional Amemndment" to fix that situation where I believe he said it was wrong for a "few mayors and local judges to decide" these types of things.... Keep beleiving CAD... but it holds no water when looked at closely.








SHUX

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson February 15, 1791

And a Constitutional amemndment guarding a religous concept fits in those bounds?

Moral identification from a federal postition fits within those bounds?

The inability to purchase and view materials "deemed" pornographic from a federal guidline fits those bounds?

The right to own a semi-automatic rifle as defined by a federal statute fits within those bounds?


This is why you have no credibilty with me. You quote Jefferson yet stand in opposition to one, most or all of those things. To understand true republicanism one must first and foremost separate what the federal goverment should be in care of. Infrastructure, Trade, the Armed Forces. The rest should be in the hands of State and Local goverments. State and local goverments can and should make laws that replfect their own local morals... i.e. San Fransisco and Gay Marriage --- oh your "Republikan" canidate called for a "Constitutional Amemndment" to fix that situation where I believe he said it was wrong for a "few mayors and local judges to decide" these types of things.... Keep beleiving CAD... but it holds no water when looked at closely.








SHUX

Umm, I dont think the fed was supposed to have control of the military, that came later.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson February 15, 1791

And a Constitutional amemndment guarding a religous concept fits in those bounds?

Moral identification from a federal postition fits within those bounds?

The inability to purchase and view materials "deemed" pornographic from a federal guidline fits those bounds?

The right to own a semi-automatic rifle as defined by a federal statute fits within those bounds?


This is why you have no credibilty with me. You quote Jefferson yet stand in opposition to one, most or all of those things. To understand true republicanism one must first and foremost separate what the federal goverment should be in care of. Infrastructure, Trade, the Armed Forces. The rest should be in the hands of State and Local goverments. State and local goverments can and should make laws that replfect their own local morals... i.e. San Fransisco and Gay Marriage --- oh your "Republikan" canidate called for a "Constitutional Amemndment" to fix that situation where I believe he said it was wrong for a "few mayors and local judges to decide" these types of things.... Keep beleiving CAD... but it holds no water when looked at closely.
SHUX

Seems you haven't a clue as to my ideals and principles SHUX and your argument is way off base. One doesn't have to adopt all of a party's positions to identify themselves as such. Like I said - change from within.

Keep thinking that Republicans are "evil" though

Oh, and on the political front - you have ZERO credibility with me either because you don't seem to be able to seperate issues on an individual basis. Talk about black/white

Now back to the poll.

CkG

 

[Perknose]

As I have stated before - the guy who is the head of the finance commitee (Chuck Grassely) has told me to my face that IF we can deliver Bush and more Congress seats you will "be amazed"(his words) at the fiscal changes. And no - that doesn't mean spending more - it was in response to my questioning him on the continual gov't over spending.(see any budget thread here- you'll see my position on spending) Now I've also said that if Bush and the seats are delivered and we don't see change - I will be their harshest critic - bar none. It's one thing to be politiced to during campaigns but it's quite another to be personally taken for granted and given lip service to. If they don't get thier s#!t together I'm done. I'll join and independent movement or the libertarians and try to work for change that way but currently those options don't look workable due to other "issues" I have with them but will work to change if I join them. You see - I have a set of principles and ideals - I don't change them just because of party affiliation - so any group I join has to hold many of the same ones as I - and if not I work to change them.

So yes - this looks to be the stage for one last chance for the establishment from me and I'm going to hold up my end of the bargain.

Four years without a glint or a hint of any fiscal restraint whatsoever. Then Chuck Grassely say you'll "be amazed", gives no details, and on this basis he gets your active support.

I know you're not naive, CAD, by any country mile. Care to flesh this scenario out any?

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
Actually I just want a fun party...... I think Bush is the right man......












SHUX

hahahahahaha!!!!! ROFL!!