Kerad!

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
I am going to help a brother out. All this fixation with the war, intelligence, Scooter Libby, and all that jive ain't doing your cause any good. Why don't you hit the stuff us true Repubs actually disagree with sections of our party on. I can give you at least twenty things I dislike about Bush, but you all keep playing the same old tune and don't learn a thing. So, here is your first lesson...

Republican Spending...

If you need the cliff notes version:

Grrr! Big spending, big government are bad! Grrrrr!









Don't say I never threw you a bone.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Lesson number two.

Now, despite a good number of Repubs not liking gay marriage and not wanting it in their locality, that is not the issue. True conservatives, IMHO, believe marriage is a right of the state issue and not a right of the federal government issue. The state can set its own marriage doctrine.

A bunch of rump rangers want to kumbayah in Vermont? I could care less, but I don't have to live in Vermont. Guess what... most same sex couples could probably care less if they live in Alabama either. :shrug:
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Lesson Number Three....

Wasn't this an issue? WTH happened to it? Oh, you let the democrats bend you over a barrel on the most obvious driver of future deficits. They put you in the corner and told you no and you listened, Mr. President. Shame on you.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
That should get you started for now. However, I should point out the bad news. This is a reason you see worse approval numbers for the President. Issues like these and others that conservatives have problems with make us not so happy with our number one man. Therefore, we answer polls and such in a disagreeable manner. Makes sense don't it? Yet, how many of those people who are that conservative are going to turn around and vote for a Democrat to show those Repubs? Almost none because the Democrat will definitely have the ideology they disagreed with in the first place. Your best hope is they stay home and don't vote because they are disgusted with the process. :shrug:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I never understood that. There are a dozen issues to take Bush to the woodshed over, yet the Democrats harp on Iraq, HLS and other issues that make them look like a bunch of Leftist freaks.

Oh...wait.... :jet:

Anyway, that sign at the Mexican rally that said "Bush I know you hate us..." was completely illustrative of people who have no idea what the hell is going on, they only know that Bush is Satan.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
FromTexas said:
Lesson number two.

Now, despite a good number of Repubs not liking gay marriage and not wanting it in their locality, that is not the issue. True conservatives, IMHO, believe marriage is a right of the state issue and not a right of the federal government issue. The state can set its own marriage doctrine.

A bunch of rump rangers want to kumbayah in Vermont? I could care less, but I don't have to live in Vermont. Guess what... most same sex couples could probably care less if they live in Alabama either. :shrug:
I think you should care. Why? Because the Gays are trying to make their case that there's some inherent right to marriage, which is not the case. What happens if they win using that argument? Who can't get married if this is an equal protection issue? Does a 50-year old man have a right to marry a nine-year old boy? Do brothers and sisters have a right to marry? I think the Gays would see more support if they pushed that consenting, non-related, adults should be allowed to form unions that are equal to marriage.

Instead we hear a lot of BS about hospitals not allowing partners to visit (yeah... right, show me one these days), partners not being able to collect on insurance policies (there's no requirement on any insurance policy I've ever seen stating that you must leave the money to a spouse), etc. But of greater importance to everyone is that if "marriage" becomes a constitutional right, then Gays will be able to sue churches to perform marriages, and that'll be the biggest constitutional crisis in decades.
 

Kerad

New Member
vraiblonde said:
I never understood that. There are a dozen issues to take Bush to the woodshed over, yet the Democrats harp on Iraq, HLS and other issues that make them look like a bunch of Leftist freaks.

Oh...wait.... :jet:

Anyway, that sign at the Mexican rally that said "Bush I know you hate us..." was completely illustrative of people who have no idea what the hell is going on, they only know that Bush is Satan.

Yeah.

That minor little issue of Iraq.


Anyways...I am honored to FINALLY be rewarded my very own thread! I KNEW you all love me! :diva:

I will look into the challenge offered. Not tonight...and maybe not by the end of tomorrow. But I will respond...even if I don't respond to ALL of the challenges. I am but one man fighting the Neocon Zombie menace. And my real life takes precedence.

Tomorrow at the earliest...for anything. Tonight is dedicated to hockey and beers.

:cheers:

P.S.: Cheney and Rove are the Devils. Bush is just the unwitting minion. :yay:


:lmao:
 

Kerad

New Member
FromTexas said:
What challenge? Is educating you challenging? :confused:
Was this... "Why don't you hit the stuff us true Repubs actually disagree with sections of our party on."..not a challenge? I took it as such.

Oh..and while I'm here...I think that I have done an excellent job representing certain Liberal stances against the many failed Conservative talking points. Just because I am outnumbered, does not mean I am wrong.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Kerad said:
Was this... "Why don't you hit the stuff us true Repubs actually disagree with sections of our party on."..not a challenge? I took it as such.

Oh..and while I'm here...I think that I have done an excellent job representing certain Liberal stances against the many failed Conservative talking points. Just because I am outnumbered, does not mean I am wrong.
What? I am helping you here. I am giving you more ammunition.

You take that as a challenge... What possible response could there be to make that a challenge?

Kerad, "Um... yeah... you Repubs always covering... uhmmm... well.. you apologists... errr... I mean... ha! Bush lied, 1000 died!"

While we are in the educate Kerad process, have you read the Iraq War Resolution? or would you rather I stick to the Repub bashing Bush thing?

Thanks for coming when I called though. :yay:
 

Kerad

New Member
FromTexas said:
What? I am helping you here. I am giving you more ammunition.

You take that as a challenge... What possible response could there be to make that a challenge?

Kerad, "Um... yeah... you Repubs always covering... uhmmm... well.. you apologists... errr... I mean... ha! Bush lied, 1000 died!"

While we are in the educate Kerad process, have you read the Iraq War Resolution? or would you rather I stick to the Repub bashing Bush thing?

Thanks for coming when I called though. :yay:
You seem to be "misunderestimating" my response.

When I say I saw your original posts as a challenge..I did not mean it to be a "negative" challenge. You asked me address certain issues..and I will look into it. If I see anything worth addressing, I will post it. That is all. A "friendly" challenge accepted, if you will.

The Repubs in power give me plenty of ammo to assail the right with. I don't have to go searching. But I am going to read the sources you've provided.

I'm off for the night. See ya. :howdy:

(Pssst. Bush DID lie...by the way. You really should pay more attention.)
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Bruzilla said:
I think you should care. Why? Because the Gays are trying to make their case that there's some inherent right to marriage, which is not the case. What happens if they win using that argument? Who can't get married if this is an equal protection issue? Does a 50-year old man have a right to marry a nine-year old boy? Do brothers and sisters have a right to marry? I think the Gays would see more support if they pushed that consenting, non-related, adults should be allowed to form unions that are equal to marriage.

Instead we hear a lot of BS about hospitals not allowing partners to visit (yeah... right, show me one these days), partners not being able to collect on insurance policies (there's no requirement on any insurance policy I've ever seen stating that you must leave the money to a spouse), etc. But of greater importance to everyone is that if "marriage" becomes a constitutional right, then Gays will be able to sue churches to perform marriages, and that'll be the biggest constitutional crisis in decades.
Thank you for the lecture on how I should care about gay marriage. However, I am able to seperate my personal beliefs from my beliefs on federalism which would place this issue upon the state and not the federal government. States license marriage, not the federal government. States make the requirements for marriage in their state, not the federal government. The federal government does not dictate who can or can't get married. Therefore, no matter how much value I place on the moral value I can not discount the way our government was setup.

But... since you head down that path. If it did become a Constitutional right, it does not mean churches could be sued to perform marriages. Getting married in a church is not a requirement in any state. Just as churches and the Boy Scouts are not required to hire gays now, churches would not be required to perform ceremonies against their doctrine. They have freedom of religion and that means practicing it as they see fit. It would be one of those other pesky Constitutional rights. :shrug:
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Kerad said:
I'm off for the night. See ya. :howdy:
So you said earlier...

Kerad said:
Not tonight...and maybe not by the end of tomorrow. But I will respond...even if I don't respond to ALL of the challenges. I am but one man fighting the Neocon Zombie menace. And my real life takes precedence.

Tomorrow at the earliest...for anything. Tonight is dedicated to hockey and beers.
But I understand that you aren't quite sure what to say when a Repub admits problems with his President. It might mean they aren't so dogmatic as those leftist twits. That may skew your entire world view. :howdy:
 

Kerad

New Member
FromTexas said:
I am going to help a brother out. All this fixation with the war, intelligence, Scooter Libby, and all that jive ain't doing your cause any good. Why don't you hit the stuff us true Repubs actually disagree with sections of our party on. I can give you at least twenty things I dislike about Bush, but you all keep playing the same old tune and don't learn a thing. So, here is your first lesson...

Republican Spending...

If you need the cliff notes version:

Grrr! Big spending, big government are bad! Grrrrr!









Don't say I never threw you a bone.

Goverment spending has everyone pissed off.

The Republicans love to throw around the term "tax and spend" when it comes to Democrats. But what we have now is worse. The current administration pushed through it's tax cuts (primarily for the wealthy), while increasing spending to record levels. So let's see...less income, more spending....yeah, that works. It works as long as no one notices the deficit.

McCain just summed it up: "Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor,"

Meanwhile, Clinton's terms ended with the first surplus since 1969, thanks in large part to his Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. The Republicans were besides themselves over having a mandate that required spending cuts, and the budget to be balanced within a certain time frame. Cried how it would kill the economy, etc. The economy seemed to do just fine...and the deficit was eliminated. I know other factors contributed...but it took the President to lead the way and mandate a balanced budget.

If the Rebublicans are serious about reigning in sending, they'll have to shove it past the greedy few who want to keep the status quo. It's like anything else...once it's decided that action must be taken, no more excuses...things can get done.
 

Kerad

New Member
FromTexas said:
Lesson number two.

Now, despite a good number of Repubs not liking gay marriage and not wanting it in their locality, that is not the issue. True conservatives, IMHO, believe marriage is a right of the state issue and not a right of the federal government issue. The state can set its own marriage doctrine.

A bunch of rump rangers want to kumbayah in Vermont? I could care less, but I don't have to live in Vermont. Guess what... most same sex couples could probably care less if they live in Alabama either. :shrug:
Gay marriages are going to happen eventually, despite conservative objections. The whole situation reminds me of the racial thing. Not long ago, an interracial couple was looked at with contempt. "Not natural", etc... Now you see interracial couples all the time and no one gives it a second thought. (Well, maybe in certain red states there's still a problem...but not with society in general.)

The Rupublicans say that what Americans want is less "Big government" in ther lives....yet that only works until the Religious Right gets all worked up. Remember the Schiavo debacle? Hell...the President even cut his vacation short for that fiasco!

If indeed marriage is a state issue, then that's the way it should remain. The federal government has much more important things to concentrate on. Whether two guys living together have a piece of paper saying they're married isn't one of them. To create legislation that discriminates against two adults who love each other is absurd.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
FromTexas said:
... Just as churches and the Boy Scouts are not required to hire gays now, churches would not be required to perform ceremonies against their doctrine. They have freedom of religion and that means practicing it as they see fit. It would be one of those other pesky Constitutional rights. :shrug:
But the proverbial they are trying to get anything said against homosexual behavior including reading the passages from the Bible classified as hate speech. Canada has already done this.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Kerad said:
Goverment spending has everyone pissed off.

The Republicans love to throw around the term "tax and spend" when it comes to Democrats. But what we have now is worse. The current administration pushed through it's tax cuts (primarily for the wealthy), while increasing spending to record levels. So let's see...less income, more spending....yeah, that works. It works as long as no one notices the deficit.

McCain just summed it up: "Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor,"

Meanwhile, Clinton's terms ended with the first surplus since 1969, thanks in large part to his Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. The Republicans were besides themselves over having a mandate that required spending cuts, and the budget to be balanced within a certain time frame. Cried how it would kill the economy, etc. The economy seemed to do just fine...and the deficit was eliminated. I know other factors contributed...but it took the President to lead the way and mandate a balanced budget.

If the Rebublicans are serious about reigning in sending, they'll have to shove it past the greedy few who want to keep the status quo. It's like anything else...once it's decided that action must be taken, no more excuses...things can get done.
See. You are learning now. Attack something that pisses off others besides your leftist nutties. Of course, you probably should tone down the 1990's surplus rhetoric. Clinton already had Monica give him his due, he doesn't need you playing Oval Office intern, too.

Now, lets see if you are able to really learn anything from why all that stuff is up above you. Why would I say those items in this tread are among the real issues you should be talking about and not the Iraq war, Scooter, and other Bush assaults? Come on... this is an easy one. Think big picture...
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
2ndAmendment said:
But the proverbial they are trying to get anything said against homosexual behavior including reading the passages from the Bible classified as hate speech. Canada has already done this.
The KKK can say all their stuff and not get arrested for hating blacks here. I don't think we are anywhere close to limiting Free Speech in such a way. But, if you want to talk the specific issue we need a seperate tread. This is the slow process of educating Kerad tread. He was so nice to come out when I asked him to play and I don't want to distract him from the main purpose.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
FromTexas said:
The KKK can say all their stuff and not get arrested for hating blacks here. I don't think we are anywhere close to limiting Free Speech in such a way. But, if you want to talk the specific issue we need a seperate tread. This is the slow process of educating Kerad tread. He was so nice to come out when I asked him to play and I don't want to distract him from the main purpose.
:yay:

I'll just watch. :popcorn:
 

Kerad

New Member
FromTexas said:
See. You are learning now. Attack something that pisses off others besides your leftist nutties. Of course, you probably should tone down the 1990's surplus rhetoric. Clinton already had Monica give him his due, he doesn't need you playing Oval Office intern, too.

Now, lets see if you are able to really learn anything from why all that stuff is up above you. Why would I say those items in this tread are among the real issues you should be talking about and not the Iraq war, Scooter, and other Bush assaults? Come on... this is an easy one. Think big picture...

I do appreciate that you are trying to "educate" me. I will be pleasantly surprised if you are able teach me something I do not already know, as far as politics are concerned. However, if there is a point you are trying to get to, it might be best to just put it out there. I have the attention span of a hummingbird on expresso, at times.

I'm guessing that in your roundabout way you're trying to point out that, for the coming elections, Democrats would do much better concentrating on the items that divide the Repblican party. Not spend so much time hammering the issues that obviously polarize the Dems and Repubs. That way, they might be able to pick up some moderate GOPer's votes.


Did I guess correctly?
 
Top