The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Brandon777 wrote:I saw on the news that the Kerry and Edwards ticket is the most left-wing liberal ticket in U.S. history. According to voting records in the senate, Kerry is ranked the #1 liberal. Edwards is #4. On paper, they are MORE liberal than a Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton ticket. That's SCARY. I've always been in the middle on my political views. I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I vote on the canidate I feel is the best, regardless of their party. I hate radical extremist. I saw it on T.V. but here's another source.
http://www.dailynewsbrief.com/news/archives/000278.php

Those figures are BS, by the way.

Between Bush and Kerry, the term "fiscal conservative" can only apply to one of them, and it "ain't" Bush.

Typical Republican tactics. If you can't support your own policies on their merits, then try to tear down your opposition with personal smear campaigns. The other method is to obfuscate your real intentions by diverting attention to hot-button issues that stir up the electorate, and cause fear of a phantom "boogey-man". See how Brandon, when he couldn't form a cogent argument against what I had written, resorted to name calling and baseless statements?

Brandon777 wrote:Jesus was the ultimate liberal? He HATED TAXES with a passion. Liberals love TO TAX. That's as far as I'll go in discussing the topic of "who would Jesus vote for. We all know that the Son of God would vote republican

Why y'all gotta drag my brother into this left vs. right debate? Everyone knows he was the first communist.

JSPB22 wrote:Republicans are mortgaging our children's future with their deficit spending. How do you propose to pay for the government without taxes? It must be nice to live in La La Land where services can just be written off to future generations, but in the real world, things cost money. Someone has to pay, but in your world that certainly won't be those who can most afford it.

Y'all heard the man. Stop all this "war time spending". Security???!!! Who needs THAT? Let's get rid of all the overpriced, uneeded, overhyped Republican toys out there that just run up the bill so we can all have more money. That'll make everyone happy. If we plan it just right, we can all have enough Benjamins to cover our wounds the next time a major building in a US city gets bombed. Hip Hip Hooray!!!!

Puffy agrees:

(Yes, this thread has strayed far from the original topic)

JSPB22 wrote:Typical Republican tactics. If you can't support your own policies on their merits, then try to tear down your opposition with personal smear campaigns. The other method is to obfuscate your real intentions by diverting attention to hot-button issues that stir up the electorate, and cause fear of a phantom "boogey-man". See how Brandon, when he couldn't form a cogent argument against what I had written, resorted to name calling and baseless statements?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Republicans are mortgaging our children's future with their deficit spending. How do you propose to pay for the government without taxes? It must be nice to live in La La Land where services can just be written off to future generations, but in the real world, things cost money. Someone has to pay, but in your world that certainly won't be those who can most afford it.

Y'all heard the man. Stop all this "war time spending". Security???!!! Who needs THAT? Let's get rid of all the overpriced, uneeded, overhyped Republican toys out there that just run up the bill so we can all have more money. That'll make everyone happy. If we plan it just right, we can all have enough Benjamins to cover our wounds the next time a major building in a US city gets bombed. Hip Hip Hooray!!!!

Puffy agrees:

(Yes, this thread has strayed far from the original topic)

The point isn't the spending. It's the spending coupled with the tax cuts. There's a word for that: "irresponsible." It's like agreeing to a large pay cut at work, then turning around and getting loans to buy a couple houses and a few cars. It WILL catch up with you.

Redskins Rule wrote:You wanna talk about liberal media????

There is a commercial out there that Senator John McKain himself said was "horrible form of politics"

It was discrediting Senator Kerry's Vietnam War Service. President Bush has since denied involvement in making that commercial.

Which we all know is bullcrud!!!!!!!!!

I have a great deal of respect for John McCain. His only flaw is his support of the Bush administration. His politics are truly conservative, a position that I can respect, even if I disagree. But he has to play the political games and support a man that he personally detests, so that he can keep his viability as future Republican presidential nominee.

JSPB22 wrote:I have a great deal of respect for John McCain. His only flaw is his support of the Bush administration. His politics are truly conservative, a position that I can respect, even if I disagree. But he has to play the political games and support a man that he personally detests, so that he can keep his viability as future Republican presidential nominee.

I couldn't agree with you more about that. I respect Senator McCain myself. If he had beaten out President Bush and had become the Republican President Elect then I would have seriously thought about voting for him.

There is always going to be a deficit during war. You liberals probably don't care about raising taxes because you don't pay them. Your parents do, along with your college tuition. I like John McCain. That ad slaming Kerry's war record was done by those vets alone. Bush had nothing to do with it. What's the matter, does one ad disturb you? Hell, that ad isn't anything compared to what Moore's fat a** has done.

Brandon777 wrote:There is always going to be a deficit during war. You liberals probably don't care about raising taxes because you don't pay them. Your parents do, along with your college tuition. I like John McCain. That ad slaming Kerry's war record was done by those vets alone. Bush had nothing to do with it. What's the matter, does one ad disturb you? Hell, that ad isn't anything compared to what Moore's fat a** has done.

Ahhh Brandon, your words speak volumes. I don't know how old you think I am, but I can assure you, that I am old enough to be your father, and yes, I do pay taxes. I am in the highest tax bracket as a matter of fact. The fact that the only vet in this entire administration of Chicken Hawks is Colin Powell is totally lost on you. For the Bush campaign to impugn the record of any vet, much less one that served with distinction, is so reprehensible it is physically sickening to me. And by the way, your other pals, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Rielly and the rest also shirked their duty to their country, but that didn't stop them from speaking out against a war time president (Clinton during Kosovo) on a daily basis. How unpatriotic.

JSPB22 wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:There is always going to be a deficit during war. You liberals probably don't care about raising taxes because you don't pay them. Your parents do, along with your college tuition. I like John McCain. That ad slaming Kerry's war record was done by those vets alone. Bush had nothing to do with it. What's the matter, does one ad disturb you? Hell, that ad isn't anything compared to what Moore's fat a** has done.

Ahhh Brandon, your words speak volumes. I don't know how old you think I am, but I can assure you, that I am old enough to be your father, and yes, I do pay taxes. I am in the highest tax bracket as a matter of fact. The fact that the only vet in this entire administration of Chicken Hawks is Colin Powell is totally lost on you. For the Bush campaign to impugn the record of any vet, much less one that served with distinction, is so reprehensible it is physically sickening to me. And by the way, your other pals, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Rielly and the rest also shirked their duty to their country, but that didn't stop them from speaking out against a war time president (Clinton during Kosovo) on a daily basis. How unpatriotic.

Your in the highest tax bracket? Well good for you. Just because you make a lot of money and don't mind giving it away to special interest groups doesn't mean others want to. If you don't like the extra money that you received from Bush's much needed tax cuts, then donate that extra cash to your favorite charity or special interest group. I personally don't care about Kerry's four month tour of duty in Vietnam. I'm worried about his voting record from his 19 years in the senate, votes that were against funding intelligence, defense, and our soldiers.

Who tried to cut combat pay for our soldiers? Bush.
Who tried to cut veterans' benefits? Bush.
Who tried to cut payments to families of veterans killed in action? Bush.
Kerry voted for an amendment to the Iraqi appropriations bill that would have paid for the $87 billion by taking it out of the tax cut for the extremely rich. That amendment lost, 57-42, because Bush insisted that the $87 billion be added to the deficit.
Everything you just said comes straight out of the propaganda mill of the radical right. And who are these "Special Interests" that you think my tax money goes to? No one is more in bed with special interests than Republicans. This is just further projection of the right's foibles onto the left.

JSPB22 wrote:Who tried to cut combat pay for our soldiers? Bush.
Who tried to cut veterans' benefits? Bush.
Who tried to cut payments to families of veterans killed in action? Bush.
Kerry voted for an amendment to the Iraqi appropriations bill that would have paid for the $87 billion by taking it out of the tax cut for the extremely rich. That amendment lost, 57-42, because Bush insisted that the $87 billion be added to the deficit.
Everything you just said comes straight out of the propaganda mill of the radical right. And who are these "Special Interests" that you think my tax money goes to? No one is more in bed with special interests than Republicans. This is just further projection of the right's foibles onto the left.

Amen!

This is Kerry's voting record. It is from a non-biased source. This is what he's been trying to cover up with his four month tour of duty security blanket. I can see why he tried to stay away from his voting record during his speech at the convention. My first thought when scrolling through it was "does he ever show up to vote?" Michael Moore talks about Bush being on vacation 42% of the time, but he fails to mention that weekends were included and that meetings between foriegn leaders were taking place during that time. I wonder what Kerry was up to.

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/c ... ullvotes=1

On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 1854

Motion To Table Daschle Amdt. NO. 1854; To achieve the most effective means of reconstructing Iraq and to reduce the future costs to the American taxpayer of such reconstruction by ensuring broad-based international cooperation for this effort. Kerry voted NO.

Now this has me confused, because doesn't Kerry always talk about getting other countries involved and is critical of Bush for not doing enough to get international support?

This is all I have to say:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_dem ... onfilm.htm

Brandon777 wrote: Just because you make a lot of money and don't mind giving it away to special interest groups doesn't mean others want to.

which special interest groups do you mean? haliburton? oil companies? or perhaps the companies involved in the top secret meetings to determine the country's energy policies? or maybe the large corporations who are sending american jobs overseas, and enjoying huge tax breaks?

Who tried to cut combat pay for our soldiers? Bush.
Who tried to cut veterans' benefits? Bush.
Who tried to cut payments to families of veterans killed in action? Bush.

Source? And, kindly include context. This is complete BS, and, if you are truly the man of means you claim, you know it. How about we also include Kerry's voting record on defense since his arrival in the Congress/Senate? Would you prefer to simply stipulate to that? It's all in the Congressional Record. Bottom line... Kerry clains to be a "defense" candidate... his (considerable and lengthly) record says otherwise.

BTW, Boortz is a Libertarian, and not a Republican partisan. He is simply calling it as he sees it.

John O'Neil ("Unfit to Command") is a long time arch foe of Kerry (Dick Cavett debates... had to take on BOTH Kerry and Cavett)... and a registered independent, who says that he'd be voting for Edwards if he were leading the ticket (and, assuming that Kerry wasn't on it). He is, BTW, the man who took over after Kerry left his crew.

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

cvillehog wrote:This is all I have to say:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_dem ... onfilm.htm

Typical liberal spin in this article. Some of the accusations against Bush in that article you posted deals with issues that are not that important anyway. Some were important, such as border security, but Bush will do much better with homeland security than Kerry. Most of the issues in that article are not important enough to base a vote on. The difference between your article and mine is that the one I posted is solid fact. Mine wasn't an article. It was the actual voting record of John Kerry. It didn't contain any political spin, just cold, hard facts. You can check the voting record of any member of congress from any state in the site I posted.

anyone who knows anything about how congress works knows that a voting record is worthless in determining a congressman's position or worth. unless, of course, you're trying to use that voting record as a means of duping voters into thinking what you want them to think.

for example, one could say 'kerry did not support emergency funding for the troops in iraq because the proposed money would come directly from the deficit; instead, kerry proposed alternative means of funding the troops that do not have an affect on the deficit'.

some people understand that kerry's 'no' vote does not mean that he is against continuing funding of the troops in iraq, but that he is interested in finding better ways of providing those funds (better as in from the richest 1% of the population and not from my children and grandchildren). but others hear only the first part of the senetence, the part that states that kerry voted 'no'. and that's all they hear.

so posting voting records provides an equally incomplete picture of the voter as a web site with a 'liberal spin'.

Joebag...

anyone who knows anything about how congress works knows that a voting record is worthless in determining a congressman's position or worth. unless, of course, you're trying to use that voting record as a means of duping voters into thinking what you want them to think.

for example, one could say 'kerry did not support emergency funding for the troops in iraq because the proposed money would come directly from the deficit; instead, kerry proposed alternative means of funding the troops that do not have an affect on the deficit'.

Gotta call a BS on that. You COULD argue the first paragraph in the case of most in Congress... except: Kerry's record is consistent. There is no history of Kerry supporting spending on virtually any weapons system, defense authorization or intelligence authorization. It's clear. Kerrys record is anti-military, anti-defense, and anti-intelligence. Spin it any way you'd like, you'll simply not be able to identify any pattern of voting behavior on Kerry's part which can be twisted into support of these issues.

Same with the second paragraph... we BOTH know that Kerry was not motivated by any desire to seek a revenue neutral defense funding mechanism. You will find no evidence for such an argument, because it does not exist, and even he has made no such argument.

More links regarding Bush's lies:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.bushlies.com/
http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

Comparison of Clinton's v. Bush's lies:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/ ... ex_np.html

Debate site regarding Bush and Homeland Security:
http://www.opinionduel.com/

Debate on whether Bush has made the U.S. "less democratic":
http://www.opinionduel.com/07202004.asp

Article on the growing income gap:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... ul21.html/

Countertrey wrote:
Gotta call a BS on that. You COULD argue the first paragraph in the case of most in Congress... except: Kerry's record is consistent. There is no history of Kerry supporting spending on virtually any weapons system, defense authorization or intelligence authorization. It's clear. Kerrys record is anti-military, anti-defense, and anti-intelligence. Spin it any way you'd like, you'll simply not be able to identify any pattern of voting behavior on Kerry's part which can be twisted into support of these issues.

gosh, you're so right. after decades of serving his country, kerry must hate it enough to want to leave it defenseless. how could i have been so blind not to see how rational that sounds.

Countertrey wrote:
Same with the second paragraph... we BOTH know that Kerry was not motivated by any desire to seek a revenue neutral defense funding mechanism. You will find no evidence for such an argument, because it does not exist, and even he has made no such argument.

S.AMDT.1796
Amends: S.1689
Sponsor: Sen Biden Jr., Joseph R. [DE] (submitted 10/1/2003) (proposed 10/1/2003)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S12301

STATUS:

10/1/2003:
Amendment SA 1796 proposed by Senator Biden. (consideration: CR S12260-12269; text: CR S12260)
10/2/2003:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12311, S12316-12337; text as modified: CR S12316)
10/2/2003:
Motion to table amendment SA 1796 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 - 42. Record Vote Number: 373.
COSPONSORS(7):

Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 10/1/2003
Sen Chafee, Lincoln D. [RI] - 10/1/2003
Sen Corzine, Jon [NJ] - 10/1/2003
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 10/1/2003
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 10/1/2003
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 10/2/2003
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 10/2/2003

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP1796:

A cynical and purely political statement with no place at the table in a discussion of FUNDING TROOPS IN THE FIELD.
Further demonstration of the liberal Dems commitment to making gains through the use of class devisive tactics. Those making over $200,000 continue to be taxed at a markedly higher rate than those making less, and continue to pay over 50% of all taxes paid (even after the tax cuts), though making up less than 3% of the population.

Additionally, he did not vote for the funding of troops in the field even after the resounding defeat of his purely political amendment above. He continued to vote to NOT SUPPORT troops in the field. You cannot spin that, no matter how you try.

gosh, you're so right. after decades of serving his country, kerry must hate it enough to want to leave it defenseless. how could i have been so blind not to see how rational that sounds.

Whatever...Kerry has voted AGAINST:



1. B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber



2. Apache helicopter



3. Patriot missile system



4. F-15, F-14A, F-14D jets



5. AV-8B Harrier jet



6. Trident missile system



7. M1 Abrams tank



8. Bradley Fighting Vehicle



9. Tomahawk cruise missile



10. F-16 jet.





Note that ALL of these implements have been used

to successfully win wars in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq





Kerry has voted in favor of:



1. Near elimination of the CIA in the 1970’s



2. Draconian cuts to the CIA budget in 1993 even

AFTER the first Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center



2. Freeze ALL Defense Spending

for 7 years beginning in 1996 and

transfer Funds to Social Programs



3. Placing all US forces under U.N. command

and to be used only at U.N discretion



4. Introduced Senate Bill #1580 on 2/29/96

that would have slashed Defense Dept. budget by 6.5 Billion dollars

How do you spin the lies and deciet and corporate cronyism of the Bush administration?

The only way to spin it is to ignore it and try to deflect attention by attacking John Kerry.

George W. Bush is the worst President this country has ever had and has set back international relations in a way that we may never recover from.

AND, this country is no more safe against a nuclear attack than it was before Iraq, because, as has been shown, Iraq isn't where the nukes are! They are in North Korea and Pakistan!

Also, what kind of President goes out an starts a second war when we aren't done fighting the first war yet? During the Civil War, some in the country wanted to go to war against England as well, but Lincoln recognized that this would make keeping the country together much harder and that, above all, the country needed to stay whole. What would Bush have done in the same situation? I guess we know the answer to that, don't we?

How do you spin the lies and deciet and corporate cronyism of the Bush administration?
The only way to spin it is to ignore it and try to deflect attention by attacking John Kerry.

Funny... I thought the title of this thread was "The Kerry and Edwards Ticket"

But, you feel free to spread any innuendo you wish...