If Kerry lied, would it matter?

It's okay Blatham. If I disappoint you sufficiently, maybe I'll no longer be a target.

Foxfire
Isent this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

I don't think so Rabel. I love going toe to toe with people in a spirited debate. But lately every discussion seems to be about what I feel and how I think and why I think it. I don't do that to other people and it gets very tiresome.

Fox,

You said:


I think that spirited debate is about how one feels, how they think, and why they feel/think the way they do. I think that's one of the critical elements in debate.

Perhaps it is because you're not questioning the people you get your info from, in the same manner you're being questioned, that you're being questioned so often.

Just a guess.



edited once to add commas...

"Perhaps it is because you're not questioning the people you get your info from in the same manner you're being questioned that you're being questioned so often."

Criminy, Jer! Put a comma in that sucker!

Boy did that sound anal, huh?
Sorry!
T'was a good point you made, though!

Suzy,

I jumped up and edited it immediately. I'm usually a comma slut (too many commas) but I guess that cause I just ate my punctuation was a little lazy...thanks for pointing it out

-Jer-

A comma slut? I love it!
I have the same problem, just love those commas!

Foxfyre
My comment was aimed at your conserative friends who think liberals are unthinking idiots because they are liberal. There are many things that I agree with on some conseratives. One such is balancing the budget. Giving tax breaks to people who have more money than they know what to do with is not. If you take all the taxes a middleclass worker pays you will find that they pay more than that 10% who got the taxbreak. Yes I know the 10% pay more in cash but the worker pays a larger % of thier income when you include all taxes, not just income taxes.

Maybe so Jer though I like to think I'm pretty demanding that the sources I trust will have done their homework. I have no problems whatsoever with anybody questioning the content I put out there or challenging my opnion. Sometimes somebody is able to show how my information is incomplete or incorrect and that's good. I do mind when characterizing me becomes the focal point of the debate. It's impossible to have a rational discussion when that happens.

Usually I can ignore it. And sometimes I just get tired of it and wish to return to discussing the topic in the thread.

Okay, that's my rant for the evening and I'm going to bed.

rabel my rant wasn't aimed at you. You rarely are guilty of irritating the burr under my saddle.

And I get just as frustrated with both right wingers and left wingers who debate by casting aspersions on the other debaters instead of giving facts or point of view to support their own view. Maybe we all have some selective blinders that we see the 'other side' as worse than our own.

Probably, if we did a really objective analysis it would be a wash. Nevertheless, I don't often agree with you and Jer and Suzy, but I appreciate all three of you.

Rabel,
"There are many things that I agree with on some conseratives. One such is balancing the budget."
That's more of a democrat thing, my friend! Conservatives don't balance budgets.

Suzy
When I first started voteing this was one of the republicans main planks. Of course that was almost 50 years ago. Many things have changes since than.

blatham's quote, "Bush, in interview, pauses in half of his sentences, trying to remember the appropriate 'story' for that question." I learned when very young that liars must have a good memory. Since I knew I didn't have a good memory..........there was only one option.

It's still a plank of the Republican party. It was a GOP controlled congress who balanced the budget in the last administration but Clinton signed it, it was on his watch, and I'm happy to give him credit for it. It was inevitable that 9/11 would force us into a deficit both due to the artifically induced recession in its wake and the cost of the war on terrorism, but I am dismayed that Congress is spending like drunken sailors on top of that.

I've sent some sternly worded letters to my Congresswoman and Senators and hope everybody else will do the same. It's ridiculous.

That quote I don't object to C.I. It is an opinion drawn from deductive reasoning however flawed the conclusion might be.

As Ive stated many times if Bush had used the surplus to pay down the debt we would be much better off. And 9/11 had nothing to do with the tax breakes. He had already started working on passing the tax bill.

I think though Rabel that the economic analysis will show that the tax cuts have helped the economy that is booming along at the most impressive pace in 10 years. They didn't really kick in until last year and we're starting to see the results now.

If I'm wrong, the economic gurus will let me know. Even Perot said you can't 'pay down the debt' but you have to plug the bleeding and grow your way out of it. I agree with that.

Foxfyre, It seems to me that decreasing taxes while ramping up a war is not a way to "plug the bleeding". It is more like opening the wound.

Actually foxfrye, the congress that was in session when Clinton pushed his budget request fought him tooth and nail and it barely passed and that was with a deciding vote made by Gore.

I personally believe (this is just my take on it) that when some conservatives say that they believe in balancing the budgets, what they really mean is that they want to do away with most social programs paid for by the federal budget and just keep enough to pay for wars and those sorts of things. When a democrat says that they want to balance the budget, it is to find a way to do the social programs and pay for wars and things by picking and choosing which programs will give them the most run for the buck. Of course I will agree that there are always those in our party that want to have pork belly projects, I will give you that but those aren't the ones that want to balance the budgets. It is a basic idealogical difference that is always going to put us at odds and we will naturally be partisan if we believe in those ideals are the right way to go. Where people on both sides cross the line is when they get so caught up in the fight that they loose too much objectivity so they can't see anything but their party line. I think both sides are equally guilty.

However, you did start this personal stuff by saying that what we felt about Bush was just blindness rather than anything substantial to go on.

I remember when those that were trying to prove Clinton had a conspiracy going on with trying to hide his affairs, they claimed that what Clinton did and the lengths he went to try to cover it up didn't happen in a vacume, that it was a separate series of actions that when taken as a whole they form a picture of someone who does that kind of thing as a way of life. (my words, obviously) I could see you all's point, I just thought that what Clinton was trying to cover up was not worth getting impeached over and certainly not worth all the money of the trial and everything and also didn't take away his ability as a leader.

The reason I bring it up is that the reason we say the things we say about Bush and the adminstration is that there have a series of things and words said that makes a complete picture of thier mindset and that is what we are against because that mindset is what leads them to policies that effect so many lives in our country and around the world. (a whole different kettle of fish than clinton and his affairs or lying about his affairs) You say we have no proof, but we brought proof, and either you say that you do not believe it because of the source or you say that it doesn't prove anything. We disagreed with your assessment and we set about to tell you so then you accused us of making things personal. I think now all that is happening between you and some posters is left over from all that.