Do you believe that a small portion of SS should be privatized?

Democrats don't lie about being conservative.

And if you remember, i have reptively stated I loathe parties. Just because I don;t like the republicans hardly means I like the democrats, it;s even worse when many of their ideas differ on very little.
 
If you can prove that I will cut you a check for $50.

not bloody likely



Daewoo never said Bush was more liberal then kerry. That is either the fallacy of strawman or a outright lie, both of which you have a long history of using. Only that Bush was very liberal himself. It's still amusing you are using a term that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of. Replace liberal with ghdiwamnthert and your argument means the same thing, simply on the basis that your key term has no meaning.
 
Notice how VOR changes the direction away from how Bush has a serious liberal streak and attacks Kerry for the same thing.

Can we say hypocrite?

After me class: HYP-O-CR-ITE
 
Okay then, I don't trust ANY of those rats on Wall street. I don't see how anyone could. I put my money in real estate, it has payed off with far fewer worries than investing in the market. The stock market is not much better than a **** game for most people. I say, invest in yourself.
 
That is because 99 percent of them are not, In fact about the only 2 that I know that are is John Breax and Zell Miller and the Democratic Party deserted both of them................You won't here most democrats admitting they are liberals either, but like you they are........
 
Real estate requires a large sum of initial capital. Not alot of people have that sum of money just lying around, certainly not the people who would benefit most from private accounts.

Wall Street has incentive to make as much profit as possible. As long as you realize that and take steps to minimize such damage in case of fallout, you shouldn't have serious problems with the rats. Besides, Sptizer's honesty crusade has set a example of what a company should not do it if wishes to stay in the good graces of the SEC and public opinion.
 
Kerry came out strongly in opposition of gay marriage, is a decorated vietnam vet (shich makes it hard for me to believe he is anti military), and did NOT vote against funding the troops, he voted against handing the president a blank check. When Bush put in the request for funRAB, over 85% of the money he was asking for was "unknown contingincies". ANY conservative should have voted against it, and most liberals. Essentially the proposal said "give me 80 billion to play with". NO congressman should have been so flippant with the taxpayers dollars as to do that.


Also, if you look at bushs budget and kerrys proposed budget, kerry had a LARGER increase for military expenditures. His increase was at the troop level, though (body armour, personal equipment, pay raises) as opposed to the Bush increase, which is an increase in defense spending at the armed services level, which means more fatcat defense contractors.
 
My party did not nominate kerry. We nominated a conservative. We are the libertarians, you know, true conservatives?

If you really saw a difference between Kerry and Bushs campaign, please point it out. They ran on identical platforms, The only difference is that bushs plan called for 3.2 trillion in social spending over the next 4 years, and kerrys was a paltry 2 trillion.

I now get responses to that question like "do you think kerry would have gone into Iraq". I certainly hope not, I wish bush hadn't. True conservatives do not support running all over the world spending hundreRAB of billions fighting meaningless wars for no return. Sure, we might support invading panama to ensure that Us corporations can continue to use little pananmanian kiRAB as slave labor, but conservatives do NOT run around fighting "humanitarian" wars.

Conservatives CERTAINLY do not fight wars to put democratically elected anti US governments in power.

If you look at the platforms those two were running on, the more conservative of the two was CERTIANLY kerry. Just his fiscal policies put him so far ahead of bush it was laughable. If you include the fact that he made remarks about the patriot act being an unacceptable violation of American rights, and that he would work to repeal it in office, his credentials as the conservative canidate become almost unquestionable.
 
# Pro-life. - Republican, not conservative
# Promote and fund sexual abstinence programs. - Republican, not conservative
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. Republican, not conservative
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
Republican, not conservative
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. - Republican, not conservative
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. - DEFINITELY Republican, not conservative
# Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. - Republican, not conservative
# Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. Republican, not conservative
# Vetoes 104 line items, $37M, of
 
I did say that the platform that kerry was running on was more conservative than the platform that bush was running on. I suppose that, if there are only 2 options, liberal and conservative, it could be construed that I said Kerry was more liberal than Bush, or at least his platform was.

If you consider their entire histories, Kerry certainly comes out more liberal than bush. I would say that kerry is slightly to the left of ted kennedy. They overlap, but he is slightly to the left of old teddy. Bush, on the other hand, is probably only AS liberal as ted kennedy, or maybe just a smidge to the right of him.
 
But we still have the problem: we haven't defined what Liberal is. VOR is still using a term he does not understand. That invalidates most, if not all of his argument.



But there aren't only two options, as we both realize.



DepenRAB. Fisically I'd say Kerry is more conservative from the ground up. Bush has run every business into the ground and was bailed out by a 3rd party who took major economic hits. Not to mention Texas wasn't the greatest fisically run state. And we all can see what he's done in the whitehouse. Kerry never had such problems, and remember both are filthy rich New Englanders.
Socially, perhaps Bush is more conservative.



LOL. You crack me up. We're screwed aren't we?
 
i voted yes.
a portion should be privatize as this can provide better growth and you get to direct how the money is spend and what industry to support/invest in.
at least half though should remain government funded as a security blanket.
 
Wha? Who? Ah... I've never known a Democrat to deny that he is liberal. I've never known a Democrat who thinks being liberal is a bad thing. And I've worked on several Democratic political campaigns, as well as gay rights campaigns. And I am personally a Democrat who claims to be liberal.
 
That is true....even if you put your money in a CD which is insured by FSLIC you can make 3 or 4 percent which is better then the 1 percent you get now.....
 
Back
Top