Go off, Bill!

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

You don't have to look into it if it comes from The Smudge Report; it'll obviously be bogus.

AAAHHHH!! What did I say about assuming!!!!!!

Rob

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Rob67

AAAHHHH!! What did I say about assuming!!!!!!

Rob

Well, Smudge makes an ass out of himself, but not me. After all, you posted the fake story from him...

Oh, whatever happened with his big story about Kerry having an affair?

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Rob, how can you say that. Fox news anchors openly smirk when saying either Clinton's name. Morevoer, there own anchors and reporters have openly conspired to give Republican legislation more air time. I mean that to me is a bias in the actual reporting of the news not found on CNN or even at the NY Times.

I'm not claiming to know the "behind the scenes" workings. I just call it as I see it. I am not an idiot. I can tell when there is slant, be it left or right. Yes, I understand Fox caters to conservatives. So What? The networks are blatantly liberal. As far as air time. I was reading about all the visits and air time given to the the Air America talent recently. I believe they were counting the number of interviews and appearances on the networks talk shows and news programs vs. the conservative personalities like Hannity. It was like 20 to 1 or some outrageous number. And don't tell me Katie Couric is unbiased...wow.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As for O'Reilly and that ilk (from both camps) - to say they are not the news is a little misleading. Clearly, people turn to them for the news and believe everything they say. AND there are FAR more of the raging conservative ones than there are raging liberal ones. I mean count them.

You know what? If someone is two dumb to tell the difference then that's their fault. O'Reilly even says on his show almost every time I've seen it (which isn't often) that he is not a reporter. He's just giving his take on current events. I believe he addresses this in his mailbag segment. But, I won't deny that Conservative analysts tend to be more popular and abundant. The liberal ones that I can think of have failed (Donahue).

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Finally, Kerry IS more old school conservative than W and his posse. I mean at least Kerry is for state's rights as opposed to W (FL election, federal def. of marriage, etc.) So, Kerry gets my vote - I men even though I know it will cost me more money in taxes in the end, it is time to pay the piper for W's economic malfeasance.

I need to here more of what Kerry's policies are going to be. I want to hear his long term views on the war on terror. If he's banking solely on the UN, then he hasn't got my vote. ALso, regarding spending....taking one spend crazy pres out and putting another spend crazy in isn't good enough for me. I might be more inclined to vote against Bush if Lieberman was still in it. He seems like a good, honest guy to me. I would even settle for a Libertarian or independant that had fresh ideas and wasn't weighted down by party agendas.

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

Well, Smudge makes an ass out of himself, but not me. After all, you posted the fake story from him...

Oh, whatever happened with his big story about Kerry having an affair?

This I don't know much about. I don't read Drudge. As in any campaign year they always try to make issues out of stuff that shouldn't be issues. Left and Right. Ridiculous... Now, if he's gettting head in the Oval Office from an intern while on the phone with foriegn nationals and members of Congress....well that's another story.

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Rob, how can you say that. Fox news anchors openly smirk when saying either Clinton's name. Morevoer, there own anchors and reporters have openly conspired to give Republican legislation more air time. I mean that to me is a bias in the actual reporting of the news not found on CNN or even at the NY Times.

As for O'Reilly and that ilk (from both camps) - to say they are not the news is a little misleading. Clearly, people turn to them for the news and believe everything they say. AND there are FAR more of the raging conservative ones than there are raging liberal ones. I mean count them.

Finally, Kerry IS more old school conservative than W and his posse. I mean at least Kerry is for state's rights as opposed to W (FL election, federal def. of marriage, etc.) So, Kerry gets my vote - I men even though I know it will cost me more money in taxes in the end, it is time to pay the piper for W's economic malfeasance.

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

No hiding the ball

I was talking about Federal Income Tax!!!!!

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

My property taxes and homeowner's insurance went up substantially this year. Either way, we pay. I'd prefer not to have these hughe deficits which are most certainly pushing this country to the brink of economic ruin. Nor am I comfortable with the amount of our debt that is owned by China and Saudi Arabia.

Tax hikes do not = reduced deficit. Controlled spending does. Why raise taxes and give more money to those who mis-spend it in the first place? I think the more money that is in the consumer and business owners hands, then the more jobs are created, the more money is spent by consumers and the economy fixes itself.

Yes, Bush is spend happy, but I would be afraid that Kerry would be the same way.

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rob67

. . .

Yes, Bush is spend happy, but I would be afraid that Kerry would be the same way.

Rob

But, Kerry would have the sense to get the money to spend through taxes. Economic theory suggests both ways cannot exist!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No hiding the ball

I was talking about Federal Income Tax!!!!!

I'm not hiding the ball. I'm saying if the fed taxes go down, we're going to pay another way. The gas prices are higher, property taxes are higher, etc., etc. We end up paying either way.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Rob67

Kind of sucks that you have to go through life with so much hate...

Well, it would suck it that were the case. However, I'm not going through life "filled with hate". I have conviction against my oppressors. There is a difference.

What I find sad is all these conservatives out there who claim to support the "fiscal" side of the equation, yet run a blind eye to the fact that they are also supporting repressive social policies. What's even more infuriating are those who support Dubya thinking he's a fiscal conservative, when nothing could be further from the truth. And so their vote is completely wasted AND they are still supporting homophobia and racism. Better to not vote at all than to support scum like Dubya.

Originally Posted by Rob67

Oh..if you mean by "discrimination" the fact that I am still paying for my 4 years of college where others got grants or free rides based on race, then yes I was discriminated against. And, no, I am not complaining.

I don't think anyone should have to pay for college. The US is one of the few remaining industrialized nations that does not cover higher education costs- which I think sucks. The richest nation in the world should be able to provide all of its citizens with higher education. Democrats would probably try to arrange it so that you DIDN'T have to take out student loans. However, I think your point is more along the lines of the idea that everyone should have to pay if you have to pay. While I don't think affirmative action is the best solution, it's better than the past. Again, I think all higher education should be free- and Republicans will never agree to that idea. They'd rather bomb Iraq.

Originally Posted by Rob67

Now, if he's gettting head in the Oval Office from an intern while on the phone with foriegn nationals and members of Congress....well that's another story.

I'd rather have a president get head and lie about it, than a president convince the country to bomb another country and lie about it any day of the week!

Originally Posted by Rob67

I need to here more of what Kerry's policies are going to be. I want to hear his long term views on the war on terror. If he's banking solely on the UN, then he hasn't got my vote.

But Bush has your vote even though he doesn't have a long term plan for the war on terror??


And now, for the vicious stuff I'm so well noted for:

Originally Posted by Rob67

I am not an idiot.

Originally Posted by Rob67

You know what? If someone is two dumb to tell the difference then that's their fault.

I love typos. I know everyone makes them, including myself. But sometimes the irony is just too, too, fun.

XOXO

[strandinthewind]

In fairness, the Democrats never voted anything in that would have paid for all higher education, despite any game they may have talked. So, to lay that on the R's alone is unfair

Back to the warring . . . .

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

In fairness, the Democrats never voted anything in that would have paid for all higher education, despite any game they may have talked. So, to lay that on the R's alone is unfair

Back to the warring . . . .

I think if given the time and the opportunity, the Dems would eventually get to full higher education coverage. Since, Republicans are pulling in the opposite direction, I think it's a fair assessment.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I think if given the time and the opportunity, the Dems would eventually get to full higher education coverage. Since, Republicans are pulling in the opposite direction, I think it's a fair assessment.

Eight years under Clinton was not enough - and mind you I like Clinton I mean he never even suggested it in any significant manner and sure never put Legislation in play to ensure it So, I have to cry foul and lay this blame on both of our pathetic two parties as history demonstrates they seem to be pulling in the same direction on this one

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Eight years under Clinton was not enough - and mind you I like Clinton I mean he never even suggested it in any significant manner and sure never put Legislation in play to ensure it So, I have to cry foul and lay this blame on both of our pathetic two parties as history demonstrates they seem to be pulling in the same direction on this one

I agree with you. Definitely. Not nearly enough has been done by ALL of the past U.S. administrations.

I think my point is more along the lines of this: Any Democrat who would espouse legislation for the gov't to provide universal higher education coverage would be SLAUGHTERED by any Republican out there today as a "big government, spend-o-liberal". Look what happened to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. So, I don't think it's feasible in the current climate for any Democrat to suggest the idea- even though I know most of them are probably for it. Politics sucks, what can you say?

Also- I think things like universal health care and universal higher education are so much more worth the tax dollars than defense, subsidizing corporations, giving money to Saddam and Saudi Arabia and Manuel Noriega- et. al., etc., etc., etc.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I love typos. I know everyone makes them, including myself. But sometimes the irony is just too, too, fun.

XOXO

You rock.