<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> try posting on the other forum and help people. Or at the very least, just chat about stuff.<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> Huh? Search "polymerase" "newer than 1 week" I have fifteen warm and fuzzy posts in the lounge. Are you going to tell me I am a commie for liking FoxFire? <br><br><br>
You are not the first person I've heard speak about Kerrys 19 years as a Senator or his stand on the war. <br>My thought is that after 19 years in office the only thing he can show for it, is something he did before he was in office. The man is a seat warmer. He's done nothing. Zip, zero, nada. 19 years and how many bills has he introduced. How many times has he not shown up, (lots), how many bad bills has he voted on? <br>Even a postal worker couldn't hold a job with a record like Kerrys. <br><br>Well, I suppose all this is moot because he's been stuffed back into a hole where he can do little damage. As a side note, is it true that his wife is leaving him for losing the election?<br><br>
I know this will sound sexist, so I'm putting on the flame suit, but you argue like a girl. By the way, Bill Cosby said this and didn't catch flack so nobody bust my chops. <br><br>A guy will argue about the topic at hand, while a woman will argue until she begins to lose then will throw in something from left field, "and you never take out the trash" Huh? I thought we were arguing about spending too much on car tires.<br><br>Stick to the subject. And why would I care what browser someone else is using? If they want me to care about their browser, then they had better give me a direct connection to their computer so I can control it from my home.<br><br>
That's pretty funny, I argue like a girl. I wish everyone argued like a girl and they were the only ones who could vote. Kerry would be president then.<br><br>I won't bust your chops on that one. I get your point although you are doing the same thing by not figuring out what I meant by mentioning Foxfire. You made the statement that I should go post in the lounge sometime and contribute. I do. Get it? Don't get tripped up by the details.<br><br>But you argue like someone with his mind made entirely up. You treat all of your opinions as fact. You say "let's get back to the debate" but we have never debated. You post "facts" with no ability to listen. That's like calling the Presidential debates actual debates. They aren't.<br><br>If you are going to argue at least pretend that you don't have everything all worked out and that Bush is God. It would be annoying if it wasn't so funny. In order to debate or take part in an argument you have to know the difference between a fact and an opinion. You clearly don't if you think "Kerry is a racist" is a fact. It is not. It is an opinion based on a collection of facts. (Likely found on www.satankerry.com) There is a difference and it is not just splitting hairs.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Well sure, my mind is made up. So was Kerrys and Bushs when they had the three election debates. I'm open to hearing what others say. I consider other points of view. You don't see me moving my perception much because nobody has said anything new. It's all the same blah blah blah. <br>"The Iraq war is bad" Tell me why. I can tell you why it's not bad. I've done so many times. <br>"Kerry can do it better" Tell me what he's done as a Senator to prove that. I can tell you why he can't and yes, I've done so in the past. <br><br>It's nearly impossible to debate a Kerry supporter because they run out of slogans and when faced with facts they go away. I challanged someone on their post and presented facts to back up my stand. That was then end of that thread. He started a new thread with the same blah blah blah and never replied to me. He couldn't, because slogans are just empty words. <br><br>Now that you point out you're reference to FireFox I understand now. My bad for being too serious.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Zip, zero, nada. 19 years and how many bills has he introduced. How many times has he not shown up, (lots), how many bad bills has he voted on? <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>Let's get this clear, and I'm not even talking about Kerry here, I'm talking about all Congressmen: Proliferating new bills is not a good thing. The Constitution was near perfect over 100 years ago and we don't need to be making constant changes to it. Remember that Capitol Hill used to be part-time job for most Senators. Sure, once and a while, a new bill might be necessary, but even in a 19 year career, I would expect very few if any to have been generated by a good Congressman. Same goes for voting records. Most Congressmen should be voting "No" on most bills that cross their desks. More bills just complicates the law because most new laws are in conflict with some older law or in conflict with Constitutional law. Plus as we all know, most bills are not clean bills; most have "poison pills" or other political trickeries tacked on and these are most certainly the sort of bloated fluff that any lawmaker should vote no or at least abstain on. Plus, more bills is more government. More government is not a good thing.<br><br>
Loc: Alexandria, VA
The role of Congress is not just to craft legislation, but to function as an investigatory and oversight body. Kerry to say the least has had a significant impact in these areas, investigating and exposing both the Iran-Contra and BCCI scandals. Not to mention his teaming with McCain to normalize relationships with Vietnam, helping to determine the fate of and recover US POWs and MIAs ... and these are just three things off the top of my head. This in addition to the legislation he *has* dealt with ...<br><br>Now, Skul may or may not think these are worthy events, but they did in fact take place -- to say that Kerry has done "zip, zero, nada" during his tenure in the Senate is simply not factual.<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
This would be great. The DNC either has to become more christian and homophobic and get to the right of the Republicans becoming Republican II or it goes back to the left and real liberalism where it belongs. Howard Dean could do that. He has a back bone and sticks to his guns. He knew the Iraq war was a huge mistake and he is being proven right. Over the next four years this will only become clearer, He could put the fire back into the Democrats. Or the Dems could continue trying to be Republican Light and get their butts kicked again.<br><br>At the 2006 midterms Dean could chant the mantra "Iraq was Stupid". By then it will be obvious to even the rabid warmongers and the Dems will start winning seats back.
I was looking at post 2004 election posts and ran into me describing the future. When you're right, you're right. The rest of this thread is just a bunch of people with reading disabilities who cannot follow my subtle nuances.
Goodness, by 2006 even to warmongers Iraq seemed stupid. That it took the idiots a trillion dollars and a lot of dead soldiers to figure that one out. Ouch
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.