Liberals Fuck You If You Don't Vote Conservative

[j2k4]

Then it is as usual.

Generalized accusations with no specificity are accepted without reservation by the majority here, and it falls upon the dissenter to disprove them?

"George Bush is a bad guy."

"John Kerry is a good guy".

Prove or disprove either statement.

Anybody?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 19:16
Then it is as usual.

Generalized accusations with no specificity are accepted without reservation by the majority here, and it falls upon the dissenter to disprove them?

Oh get off your horse...what are you complaining about?

You're the guy who just posted the Lowry article and prefaced it by saying -

This is an accurate summation of how the Anti-Bushies think:

and you want to bitch about me making "generalized accusations"?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39

Bush is busy morphing into the "Peace President" and with two months left to his reign has suddenly decided to turn his attention to domestic matters.
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).

Okay, Clocker-

Suppose you expand on Sprocket's post yourself?

Provide the evidence, background and other court-worthy material you demand whenever a conservative uses similar tactics?

As you would say:

Prove it.

And, since I'm not feeling awfully generous, don't forget the 99% part, huh?

If you come up with a response, be prepared for that to be spun and mis-characterized and dropped right back in your lap.

It's a nice smooth road to travel, requiring no real effort or thought at all; I'll travel that road with you, but I may be going in a different direction.

I seem to be firmly fixed to this bloody horse, you see?

[clocker]

Environmental record:
http://www.environment2004.org/br_home.php
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environm...ntalRecord.html
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...6,71809,00.html

Pharmaceutical connections:
http://www.newstarget.com/001345.html
http://flara.org/bushandpharm20sep00.htm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
http://dossiers.genfoods.net/bcorp.html

Civil liberties:
http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt...tory_id=1622138



Figured I'd save some bandwidth.

[j2k4]

From the FOXNEWS link:

Democrats awarded Jeffords with the chairmanship of the environment committee after he left the Republican Party in June 2001 to become an independent, a move that gave Democrats control of the Senate. He will lose that position in January when Republicans again become the majority party following gains in the midterm election.

Jim Jeffords was an embarrassment to the Republican party, much as Lowell Weicker was, and Arlen Specter is.

None of them are exactly principled individuals.

Jeffords sold himself to the Dems, it's as simple as that.

From the http://flara.org/bushandpharm20sep00.htm link:

BUSH CLOSE TO DRUG INDUSTRY

Bush Has Taken $385, 315 From Pharmaceutical Companies. The Wall Street Journal reported, "According to election records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave almost as much, $385,315, in hopes that Mr. Bush will help them fend off government efforts to control drug prices." [Wall Street Journal, 7/31/00]

Implying the WSJ agrees that this money was somehow spent nefariously, in an effort to stave off price controls?

Hell, nobody liked it when Nixon did it; why should the drug companies want it?

From the same site:

Pharmaceutical Companies Ran Scare Ads. The pharmaceutical industry-backed Citizens for Better Medicare ran print, radio, and television ads warning that Congressional regulation of drug prices will result in "Canadian-style government price controls and government-run health care." The ads imply that unhappiness with their health care system has driven Canadians into the United States for medicine. [Associated Press, 4/18/00]

This is legitimate as long as Canadians are coming south for any medical procedure; to call them "Scare Ads" is a typical liberal tactic, that is to say, if the Libs say it's a good thing, and the drug companies object, any expression thereof is a "Scare Ad".

Seems a bit one-sided, doesn't it?

From http://dossiers.genfoods.net/bcorp.html:

Tom Dorr, undersecretary of agriculture
This is a somewhat complex case. In August of 2002, Bush appointed Tom Dorr as undersecretary of agriculture. He did so when congress was out of town because Dorr had already failed to get through the agriculture commmittee (with 9 of 10 Republicans too embarrassed to vote). Why? Because as a businessman, Dorr admitted he pushed the laws to the limit to boost farm subsidies. Slate picks up the story:


"Then, in February of this year, somebody leaked to the Des Moines Register an audiotape of a phone conversation between Dorr and another person, evidently his brother. The fact that Dorr hasn't questioned the tape's authenticity or its origin suggests that it may have been made by government investigators. On it, Dorr said he had arranged two family trusts 'to quite frankly avoid minimum payment limitations.' Under the law, no person or corporation could receive more than $50,000 a year in federal farm subsidies. Dorr was trying to evade that cap. Was his method of doing so proper? 'I have no idea if it's legal. Nobody's ever called me on it,' he said on the tape. 'I suspect if they'd audit, and if somebody decided to come in and take a look at this thing, they could probably, if they really wanted to, raise hell with us.' Bush's hypocrisy about high ethical standards is only half the story. The other half is his administration's hypocrisy about farm subsidies. In a letter three years ago, Dorr posed as a critic of corporate welfare for farmers, accusing Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and other lawmakers of "maintaining a constituency dependent on government revenue." Dorr told senators that through "taxation and subsidy games, you collectively are responsible for turning Iowa into a state of peasants totally dependent on your largesse." But at his hearing last March, Dorr defended his handout hogging by telling senators that he and other farmers tried to avoid caps on payments just as taxpayers try to limit their tax liability. He seemed oblivious to the distinction between paying less money to the government in taxes and getting more money from it in subsidies. Slate, Aug 30, 02

Farm subsidies suck.

End of story.

SUV Promotion


Detroit -- The Bush administration's economic plan would increase by 50 percent or more the deductions small-business owners can take right away on the biggest sport utility vehicles and pickups.

The plan would mean small businesses could deduct immediately the entire price of SUVs, such as the Hummer H2, the Lincoln Navigator and the Toyota Land Cruiser, even if the vehicles were loaded with every available option. Or a business owner, taking full advantage, could buy a BMW X5 sport utility vehicle for a few hundred dollars more than a Pontiac Bonneville sedan after the immediate tax deductions were factored in.

Tax experts and environmentalists say the plan would provide enormous incentives for businesses to choose the biggest gas-guzzling trucks because it takes several years to depreciate the cost of passenger cars and smaller sport utility vehicles. SF Chronicle, Jan 21, 03

I agree, but talk to me about it when John Kerry admits it is he who owns the SUVs, not "the family".

Enron Connections

"President Bush had business ties with Enron and its predecessor companies, and first met Kenneth Lay, its chairman, sometime in the late 1980s, according to public records and interviews. Previously, the president had not mentioned his business dealings with Enron and had said that he got to know Lay after he was elected governor of Texas in 1994. On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the Tribune that Bush's relationship with Lay probably started when Bush was in Washington in 1987 and 1988, working on his father's presidential campaign. It could have started earlier, he said. "He does not recall specifics" of the first time he met Lay, Bartlett said. 'He met him through his father and through his father's political activity.'" --Chicago Tribune, March 6, '02.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it says he "met" and "knew" Kenneth Lay, and if the term "business dealings" were any less amorphous, maybe they would have recounted the exact nature of these "business dealings"; if there was any fire to go with the "smoke", It only makes sense they would say, don't you think?

I don't even care to look, but I'm betting Lay knew lots of liberals, too; do you want to paint them with your broad brush?

I could keep on, here, but this is all nonsense and you know it.

You or I could come up with the same stuff about anybody under the sun, and it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

This is a supreme waste of time; I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Take away the google search, and 90% of the people here are totally lost.

[longboneslinger]

First-Sorry about the 'rascist rant'. Whoever edited me (Rat ?) was correct for doing so. I was wrong, since I've met and worked with Muslims I should have known better. I appologize.

Second- j2k4, u can give up. Liberals in general are not interested in such trivialities as Truth or Facts. They just muddy the water. Lets go with what 'feels good'. It's called 'Moral Relitivism' and 'Socialism'. Both, IMO, can be grouped under the heading of Shared Idiocy.

Third- Will we ever hear the end of "They stole the election from Gore....." Where's the proof of the 'dienfranchised' voters?
There was a Dem in Florida caught the day of the election with a voting machine in his trunk. Interesting, huh? He won his election by 1% of the vote against a Rep. More interesting. It barely made Florida news. I had to hear about it on talk radio and go to the Florida papers website to read it. Even more interesting. If he'd been a Rep, it'd been plastered on the front pages and all over the Big 3.

Face it, folks, the reporters in the US are 90%+ registered Dems. That they favor the Dems is as plain as day if you switch between CBS, NBC,CNN, etc and check out some like Fox.

As a further note for the record: I am independent. NOT Dem or Rep. I think both are corrupt and sold the US out long ago. In the Reps favor, at lest they don't hide that they are big business. The Dems do. Badly, but they pretend to be for the little folk. The Dems are just better salespeople. Period.

Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor. He could sell sand in the desert and ice to Eskimo's. What good did he do in specific? Err...no idea. None.

Ok, flame retardant suit, gloves, helmet, and riot gear with body shield in place.
Rebuttals ready and loaded.
Middle finger extended.
Commence attack.

Later taters,
BoNe

[Alex H]

Originally posted by longboneslinger+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (longboneslinger)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Liberals in general are not interested in such trivialities as Truth or Facts. They just muddy the water. Lets go with what &#39;feels good&#39;.[/b]

Like bombing the shit out of Iraq, oh, wait that was...

<!--QuoteBegin-longboneslinger
I am independent. NOT Dem or Rep. I think both are corrupt and sold the US out long ago. In the Reps favor, at lest they don&#39;t hide that they are big business.[/quote]

Thats like a paedophile saying "I am comfortable with my sexuality". Who cares? You can still fuck off and die. Being open about your bad side doesn&#39;t make you less bad, it just means you can add a little bit of honesty to your virtues. "Hey, we dump toxic chemicals next to a school - but at leat we&#39;re honest about it&#33;"

Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor.

1. I think you meant LIAR - If we accept that all politicians are liars, you&#39;re going to have to be more specific. If it&#39;s about Monica, see 2.
2. How the f*ck is that any of your business? Why do you care? How would you feel if Clinton came around to your place and demanded you tell him about your sexual preferences and a list of people you&#39;d slept with so he could check up on them too?
3. Ah, the last word for those who can&#39;t think of abetter insult. Again could you be a bit more specifc? Do you have some evidence that Clinton sold nuclear weapons to Al Quada that has not come to light yet, or was that lump of mud just to good to leave unslung?

What good did he do in specific?

Perhaps you were too busy fantasizing about his cigars to pay attention to his policies.

[clocker]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@1 August 2004 - 13:04


Face it, folks, the reporters in the US are 90%+ registered Dems. That they favor the Dems is as plain as day if you switch between CBS, NBC,CNN, etc and check out some like Fox.

What an interesting piece of bushwa.

Face it folks....you&#39;re just making stuff up.

[spinningfreemanny]

There was this site called "amiregisteredtovoteornot.com" that displayed party affiliation among NYC voters. It ended up that whatever name you typed in it would show what party it was registered to. I guess that now the site was taken down, but the thread associated with it is pretty informing; if true.

Thread


Edit: another interesting read with some numbers in it&#39;s site

Media Bias

[clocker]

Manny,

If the media is so overwhelmingly biased then how come the American populace at large isn&#39;t overwhelmingly Liberal?

Conservatives love to whine about the "liberal media" while they seem to be in majority somehow.
Where are the poor, beset conservatives getting their information...underground newsletters?