Who are you voting for.......Bush-Gore-Nader ? [Archive]

BIG_DADDY

10-24-2000, 05:55 PM

Yea, well everyone in this California office, EVERYONE is voting for Bush. He has already won the election. It won't even be that close. Pam can vote as much as she would like and it STILL will not make any difference.

BIG DADDY
Loves watching all the frustrated Democrats-Socialists. Democrats, Socialists WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ANYMORE.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 06:31 PM

I'm really, really shocked to see that this BB is pro Bush. Stunned. Really, really surprised. Shocked, actually. Didn't we do this last week? Really surprised. Stunned.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 06:33 PM

Can we do this again next week? I just know it'll be different.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 06:34 PM

Shocked.

DanT

10-24-2000, 06:49 PM

Hey Big_Daddy,

I'd like to reward your confidence that Bush has already won California by offering the following bet concerning the 7November2000 U.S. Presidential election.

If Gore wins California, you pay me $200.
If Bush wins California, I'll pay you $20.

I realize that this bet is way in your favor since, as you've stated, "(Bush) has already won the election." Don't worry about that. I'm just weary of people that talk "out-their-a$$" and I think that folks who don't should be rewarded with favorable bets such as this. Think of it has a market-driven scheme to lessen the amount of bullsh!t in the political environment: I like to reward the non-polluters, you see.

Since you're a financial analyst who has already assessed the California race, I trust you'll be eager to jump on this offer. Let me know by Wednesday night. I'm going to be gone for a week starting early Thursday morning--taking a road trip from Chicago to Davis, California, of all places!

The payment can be in check, amazon.com gift certificate or some other instrument that we both find acceptable.

Eagerly awaiting your reply!

Stryker

10-24-2000, 06:54 PM

As on the "OTHER" board...

NONE OF THE ABOVE

Stryker
Loves his Richard Pryor movies http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Luzap

10-24-2000, 07:13 PM

Mark me down for Bush. I want less government in my life.

Luz
vote early and often...

Raiderhater

10-24-2000, 07:26 PM

This country was founded on freedom. The liberals/socialist/communist want to make government bigger and more intrusive. I am of the same frame of mind as Patrick Henry, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
I am so excited that my first presidential vote will be to end the Clinton Gore era!!!

BUSH

------------------
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET GOING!

Durtman

10-24-2000, 07:36 PM

you coulda knocked me over with a feather, I swear.

DanT

10-24-2000, 07:42 PM

I wonder who Luzap is going to vote for his 4th time through this thread... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Durtman

10-24-2000, 07:44 PM

Luz must be from Chicago. I haven't seen this kind of box stuffing since Daly resurrected the dead!

DanT

10-24-2000, 07:46 PM

Yeah, Chicago is the only place I've seen that has voting booths inside the graveyards. We're awfully considerate up here, you know. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Durtman

10-24-2000, 07:51 PM

DanT, are you a resident of the Windy City?

DanT

10-24-2000, 08:02 PM

Yep, but my heart is in Kansas City...And a lot of my paycheck's in Washington. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

DanT

10-24-2000, 08:05 PM

Durtman,

Are you in Chicago, also?

Durtman

10-24-2000, 08:10 PM

I lived in Chi town in 1970 for about 6 months. On Waveland, spitting distance from Wrigley. Interesting time.
Where is Davis in relation to L.A.? Are you in the area long?

Durtman

10-24-2000, 08:11 PM

I live in Glendale, and if you have a spare moment, perhaps I could buy a fellow communist a beer.

DanT

10-24-2000, 08:17 PM

Davis is about a hour from Sacramento, in between it and the Bay Area. I'm only going to be there a few days. My sweetheart is moving there for good (she's a native Californian) and she and I are going to drive her two samoyeds (Siberian sled dogs) across country while the movers do the rest. I'll be making a lot of trips out there for the forseeable future, even though it is Raider/49er country.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 08:22 PM

Long distance love. What a drag. I know it well. Rain check on the beer. Sounds like you'll be needing one. Good luck.
My Dalmatians say hi to your Sammys.

DanT

10-24-2000, 08:22 PM

I'll let you know if I ever make it down to LA. I'm a teetotalling liberal myself but, what the hell, the folks in Orange County would probably consider me an alcoholic commie so I might as well pretend.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 08:28 PM

I'm eschewing John Barleycorn myself these days. So let's snort some MDA, blast down to Anaheim in my Cobra and throw Gore/Leiberman literature at the hapless locals. McCarthyism is alive and well behind the Orange Curtain, unfortunately it's Charley McCarthy.

[This message has been edited by Durtman (edited 10-24-2000).]

DanT

10-24-2000, 08:36 PM

See, that's why I'm afraid of California. Not only is stucco way, way too popular a choice of building material--what, are they trying to taunt the earthquakes?--but the natives use all these acronyms I never heard of? What's MDA? I thought that was the punchline to the riddle "what has 5000 legs and can't walk?"

Durtman

10-24-2000, 08:47 PM

MDA was a recreational chemical that even I was afraid to mess with in my misspent youth. It was just the most shocking, Hunter Thompson-esque alternative to alcohol I could conjur up. I liked the image of two guys in a 400 horsepower sports car irresponsibly zonked on a hallucinogenic, terrifying Republican retirees. Typical liberal. But I like the 5000 legs gag. On the other topic - earthquake, shmerthquake. (This is known as whistling through the graveyard.)

DanT

10-24-2000, 09:03 PM

I should read more Hunter S. Thompson. His images are hysterical. I really like the ones involving the pummeling of some of the assholes in Washington that really deserve pummeling. Too bad Hunter was a fan of Al Davis and the Raiders. I've read stuff from John Madden, Hunter S. Thompson and Howard Cosell on Al Davis, yet not a single one of them has answered the essential question about him--are there sequins on his Depends?

Durtman

10-24-2000, 09:18 PM

The thought of Al Davis in a sequined Depends is an image I hope I can purge from my mind before I go to sleep. Thanks.
Thompson is a must read for us lefties, but he hits any ball if it's on the tee. Check out his demolishing of Hubert Humphrey, but his masterpiece is, of course, Nixon. The meanest, funniest rants committed to paper. By the way, I noticed your "native" Californian reference. My youth was misspent in good old K.C. - every bit as wild as L.A..

I wonder who's going to win this presidential poll?

BigOlChiefsfan

10-24-2000, 09:25 PM

Taunting earthquakes, sequined Depends, and Hunter S. Thompsonesque spree's thru California. Who said a KC political poll was dull?

Me, I'm voting for Harry Browne. Y'all call if the spree turns ugly, libertarians ALWAYS have bail money.

Durtman

10-24-2000, 09:28 PM

You da MAN!

Archie F. Swin

10-24-2000, 10:29 PM

For those of you feeling http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/frown.gif queezy http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/redface.gif from this boat (board) leaning to the right.

Here's a quick fix http://www.bartcop.com

------------------
C.R. Pants
(that damn liberal)

[This message has been edited by Chief Red Pants (edited 10-24-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Chief Red Pants (edited 10-24-2000).]

Luzap

10-25-2000, 06:47 AM

Since our locals of liberal persuasion seem to be dominating the posting (lately), I thought I should weigh in.

I vote for Bush.

Luztinkowski, Dan
vote early and often...

Idaho Chief

10-25-2000, 07:54 AM

Keyes, oops he didn't get the nomination. RATS!!! Put me down for Bush.

My wife, who is a big Chiefs fan too, but does not post on this board will also vote for Bush. If she counts, put it down! By the way, she chooses her vote based on issues, not mushy feelings!!

[This message has been edited by Idaho Chief (edited 10-25-2000).]

Chief Henry

10-25-2000, 07:57 AM

Hello folks, hope you had a restful night sleep. here are the results from this poll so far.......

Bush 18
Gore 4
Nader 2
Who cares 1
H. Browne 1

I only counted LUZAPS vote once (i think)!!!
I need to send a fly safe message to
Windy City Dan. He's going to get some
"squeeze" in California and look at all the
wonderful stucko!!!!!

This poll question was yanked over at the
Stars web site. No surprise right!!!!!!

I'll keep this post going for a while.
Thanks for participating http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Chiefs Rock

Chief Henry

10-25-2000, 08:00 AM

Idaho Chief got in their before my most
update:

Bush 20
Gore 4
Nader 2
H. Brown 1
who cares 1

Yes I did count Idaho chiefs wifes vote since I counted Pams husband vote.......

------------------
Chiefs Rock

bkkcoh

10-25-2000, 08:02 AM

My vote is for Bush and here is an updated count:

Bush 21
Gore 4
Nader 2
H. Brown 1
who cares 1

------------------
bk

DanT

10-25-2000, 08:31 AM

Thanks for the fly-safe message, Henry. The best thing about the flight back is that it'll go through KCI. I might grab some of that overpriced Gates BBQ they have at the airport.

alanm

10-25-2000, 08:37 AM

Bush and it doesn't suprise me that it's a runaway so far. But what isn't shown is the women's vote since so few post here and it's well known that they favor Gore.

Holladay

10-25-2000, 09:30 AM

Put me down for Bush.

BTW, Chief Red Pants, that Bartcop site illustrates why I'm glad I'm not a liberal. That site has nothing but hate and garbage. I don't necessarily agree with all conservatives and don't dis-agree with liberals, but if that site was to encourage folks to liberalism, it failed miserably.

And liberals say conservatives are full of HATE http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/confused.gif

47mack

10-25-2000, 09:34 AM

Chalk up another one for Bush

------------------
TWB

Chief Henry

10-25-2000, 10:10 AM

Update:

Busch 24
gore 4

morphius

10-25-2000, 10:27 AM

I didn't want to start a thread for this, but here is a link to a new fuel source for auto being displayed in France, they designer has already had death threats appearntly, if this could be done well it would kick butt!
http://www.news24.co.za/News24/Wheels24/News/0,2979,2-15-47_929116,00.html

Henry - add one for Bush.

BIG_DADDY

10-25-2000, 10:56 AM

Morphius,

Excellent article. I hope they produce a ton of them. It would be just like the oil industry to be threatening him as well.

ChiTown

10-25-2000, 11:10 AM

I'd like to cast my vote for Martin Sheen from the West Wing.

He's very presidential looking, loyal to his wife, has a great since of humor, doesn't have his chin strap on too tight, has a fatherly approach, get's things done, he's a democrat.........he's a democrat.......he's a democrat?????

ehem, make that one vote for W.

gonzo88

10-25-2000, 11:56 AM

I'm voting for the only real candidate, Harry Browne! He is the candidate for the Liberterian Party.

------------------
gonzo88

Iowanian

10-25-2000, 12:58 PM

I like mine with BUSHHHHHHHHH

Chief Henry

10-25-2000, 01:11 PM

Bush 27 (80%)
Gore 4 (12%)
Nader 2
H. Browne 2
who cares 1

------------------
Chiefs Rock

Archie F. Swin

10-25-2000, 01:29 PM

Holladay,

The site hyperlinked on post #58 is not for conservatives, and I think I made that clear on the post. Bartcop.com allows liberals a moment to laugh at Republicans. The site proves that you don't have to dig too deep to find the hypocracy and devious intent within George Bush's*** message. I would have more respect for the party if they hadn't nominated a superficial idiot. BTW It's hard to convert numbskulls into liberals.

Of course, its hard for me to spell so I'll stop here.

***disclaimer: If Richard "Party Animal" Cheney were in George's place I wouldn't be such a snotty liberal brat. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
C.R. Pants
(that damn liberal)

[This message has been edited by Chief Red Pants (edited 10-25-2000).]

Holladay

10-25-2000, 03:28 PM

Hippocrasy ROTFLMAO

I gotta catch my breath....

O.K. I'm better now

Everyone is going to be a little bit of a hypocrite, it's human nature. Politics makes for more than a lil bit. I'm sure the Bush has had his moments and is no Angel.

Are you insinuating that Big Al isn't??

Who is the bigger PROVEN hypocrite?

BTW I guess my idea of having fun is different than yours, based upon the content of that site.

Also, I guess you're in support of a canidate that funked out of college. Dumb people can actually sound smart and Smart people can sound dumb. I don't need a brain surgeon for president. And I know I don't need a blatant Liar (I drank too much lemonade and had to pee, so I didn't know it was a fundraiser).

Lastly, when someone uses the "spelling card", I know that they are out of ammo.

Cordially,

Brett

PS. I don't mean to be slamming but I'm not sure you understand the word civility. I don't know too many liberals, so I'm trying to figure it out. I try and live by the "Grandma Rule"...if I wouldn't mind saying it to my Grandma, then it must be okay. I would not want my Grandma to visit that
site http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Holladay (edited 10-25-2000).]

Hoover

10-25-2000, 03:41 PM

WWW.I'm (http://WWW.I'm) Voting for Bush .com

Hoover

Baby Lee

10-25-2000, 03:42 PM

In re: Bartcop

There are a valid criticisms to be cast upon Congressman Bob Barr. But to call him the "GREAT PART-NEGRO HAIRLIP" tells me about all I have to know about how enlightened and compassionate the purveyors of this site are. Thanxomuch.

BTW, put a check in the ole Bushbox for me.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 10-25-2000).]

morphius

10-25-2000, 03:47 PM

BigDaddy - #70 To bad they are so darn UGLY, it is a great idea, I can already imagine just having to but an air compressor to fill up my tires and my car. I just can't believe someone just recently thought up this brilliant idea.

Ugly Duck

10-25-2000, 04:25 PM

I'm voting against Bush. He's a forked but not slick tongued politician.

"I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. Its not the right thing to do."

Coupla days later he criticized legislation weakening the food embargo on Cuba.

Then he criticizes the Clinton Administration for misusing soldiers as social workers, and promises to get other countries to use their soldiers that way instead.

He criticizes Gore for wanting to "federalize" education. Then he promises as president to impose various requirements on schools.

He complains that federal school money comes with too many "strings." Then he calls for after-school funds to be used for "character building." And then endorses a federal law forbidding state lawsuits against teachers.

And he keeps saying that he has a "clear vision" about the Middle East. If its so dang clear, why doesn't he tell anybody what it is?

At least he offers a solution to his complaint that there is no "strategy" to our foreign policy. He'll ask his Secretary of Defense to come up with a real good one soon.

The_Grand_Illusion

10-25-2000, 04:28 PM

"Has Al Gore Already Lost the Election?"
http://www.etherzone.com/carb103000.html

Interesting article breaking down the possible vote. Being hispanic myself, I agree with this article that many hispanics are more in tune with George Bush and what he stands for. The national media would have you believe that most hispanics are more inclined to vote for Gore. Nothing irks me more than when I hear the national media tell me how I am suppose to vote.

Dan

Go Bush!

Bishop's_Girl

10-25-2000, 04:47 PM

Something I feel very strongly about...

BUSH

Bishop's_Girl

10-25-2000, 05:19 PM

Good Lord Ugly Duck! You are lucky that I am already worn out today from arguing this subject. I suggest a little more research on your part. I would like to have someone with some integrity in the White House.

Some reference URL's: www.newsmax.com (http://www.newsmax.com) www.rushlimbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com) www.drudgereport.com (http://www.drudgereport.com) www.georgebush.com (http://www.georgebush.com) www.algore.com (http://www.algore.com)

Bishop's_Girl

10-25-2000, 05:26 PM

...and Holladay is absolutly correct;While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was a "Brilliant Student". Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's. Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school but Al Gore dropped out of law school. Finally, Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school. But Oh wait, what is this???
Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

morphius

10-25-2000, 05:37 PM

Bishops_girl - Trust me, it is not worth it. We haved tried to explain these facts many times, most people here are pretty stuck in their way.

Ugly Duck

10-25-2000, 06:32 PM

Hey Girl - Did I say something that was incorrect? Let me know where I went wrong and I'll research it some more. Don't be Bush-like. "You're misinformed, but I'm too tired to tell you any specifics." Clarity and detail, thats what we need in a presidential race. Qualities that no one believes Bush has the capability to muster.

Luzap

10-25-2000, 08:29 PM

Duck,

"Qualities that no one believes Bush has the capability to muster."

In two weeks you will discover just how terribly wrong you are.

Luz
have a good day http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

WisChief

10-25-2000, 09:02 PM

After you mark me down for GEORGE W. BUSH
where does the count stand? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Wade

Luzap

10-25-2000, 09:08 PM

By the way, put me down for Bush http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Luz
vote early and often...

Luzap

10-25-2000, 09:11 PM

WisChief,

My unofficial count has:

Bush 1,079 (99%)
Gore 4 (.1%)
Nader 2
H. Browne 2
who cares 1

Luz
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif i hope that helps...

Archie F. Swin

10-25-2000, 09:22 PM

Holladay,

I cant argue with post #76 simply because I have no idea what point you we're trying to make (and I thought I lacked writing skills)

"Spelling card"? What?

I'm fighting a losing battle on this BB...but at least I'm fighting

I'll do my best to take on any argument why Dubyah should be the leader of the free world and Commander in Chief. I don't know every issue or every detail about the opposing platforms , but I know that I don't want Shrub Jr. as my President.

Luzap

10-25-2000, 09:27 PM

Chief Red Pants,

How about that fundimentally, the Republican platform is for more freedom and less government control, while the Democratic platform is for less personal freedom and more government control?

Luz
sounds like pretty good reasons to me...

JOhn

10-25-2000, 09:29 PM

BUSH

PostalChief

10-25-2000, 09:30 PM

My vote is for Bush. I just don't think I can trust Gore.

------------------
Not disgruntled....yet.

Archie F. Swin

10-25-2000, 09:48 PM

Luz,

I've found that the Republicans support personal freedom only in an economical sense. There's NO way you can tell me that Republican views on homosexuals, abortion & Public prayer support true personal freedoms.

As for the Government "intruding" I can only speak for myself. I don't make enough money to benefit from either tax plan. In other words, I'm not voting for President based on my economic interests. Otherwise it seems paranoid that the Federal Government is "cramping my style". The only government that caused me concern on the regular basis was The Great State of Oklahoma...that's a whole different story.
Pardon me while I unfurl The Flag but I think we should consider ourselves lucky to be as free as we are.

Holladay

10-25-2000, 09:54 PM

CR Pants:

Not meant as a slam: but how old are you?

I'm ex-military/Biology Degree and remember how I thought years ago with fuzzy thoughts of how I was going to save the world. Things/thoughts change...family,working for a living, taxes, reality...probably makes one more of a conserative. BTW my spelling has never been that great.

Have you ever heard of the "Race Card". It was used in the OJ defense. You eluded to my spelling as defense as to my dim wit. I'll agree that I'm like W. not the greatest mind in the world, but down home...a good person. I've found that bright people realize that that they're not rocket scientist, dumb people think they are.

I appreciate that you are fighting on this board, and will not try and convince you otherwise, sorry, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

I'm sure I'm not getting anywhere...as to "Commander in Chief", I don't want a soldier that said he was dodging bullets when he was just remf(rear ecthlon(sp) mo fo) guiding MY country.

Give good reasons why not vote for Bush, and don't give me the "dim bulb" reason.

[This message has been edited by Holladay (edited 10-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Holladay (edited 10-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Holladay (edited 10-25-2000).]

Monty

10-25-2000, 10:01 PM

I'll put my vote in for Bush. Personal freedom sounds pretty good. I just wish I could convince my manager of that....hehehe.

KCWolfman

10-25-2000, 10:27 PM

I am voting for Bush. I figure that Gore can invent a country and a presidency if he loses anyway.

KCWolfman

10-25-2000, 10:30 PM

Chief Red Pants - I am confused, how does public prayer infringe on your freedom unless someone forces you to pray? I have yet to be anywhere that I have participated in thanking God that I saw anyone with a gun to their head and forced into a supplicant position.
You are stretching truth on that viewpoint.

JOhn

10-25-2000, 10:35 PM

#100 Cool http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

KCWolfman

10-25-2000, 10:41 PM

Regarding Red Pants post on how public prayer infringes on his freedom... I am getting more and more riled by the comment.

Why is it if someone feels uncomfortable about religion, we are automatically assuming that their rights are being infringed upon if we act religiously in front of them - yet some moron can wear a shirt that says "I f^&ked your sister" and the same people will defend his right to wear it in a church?

When did God become more offensive than half of the crap I see on the streets today? The second fall of Rome may have already begun.

Lurker

10-25-2000, 10:42 PM

I say McCain. wha..? oh. well.. put me down for GW. That other guy lies even more than he does.

BTW, What's with MO being a battleground state? Bush seems to have a huge lead here in KC. Must be all of those Rams bandwagoneers! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

-----------------
in a posting mood

Ugly Duck

10-26-2000, 06:37 AM

Luz - Dude! I guess your reply #87 means that Bush will get elected. I agree, I came to that conclusion several weeks ago. But I don't believe that his support comes from his ability to speak with clarity or his command of the issues. The guy just hasn't managed to master the art some some reason. I certainly hope its not because he isn't bright enough.

As I've said before, his apparent lack of intelligence probably won't hurt the country much because the Repub powers will be making the decisions behind the scenes, and they're pretty cagy guys. It does bother me a bit why they picked their hollow spokesman to be guy that can't speak with clarity or handle details. Maybe they'll have to get a spokesman for their spokesman.

But Americans are smart enough to kinda figure out much of what he meant to say in spite of the fumbling and bumbling. Like when he said, "We will have gag orders" on doctors, we meant we won't have gag orders. And "100 percent of the people will get the death tax" really means nobody will have to pay it. Stuff like "insurance" is a "Washington term" is a little tougher to decipher.

Even though he can't speak clearly, he does manage to be as deceptive as the shadiest of politicians. See reply #80 for a few examples.

Luzap

10-26-2000, 07:02 AM

Duck,

Most people (including myself) seem to understand him very clearly. It's amazing the communication that can take place if someone really wants to listen and hear ~ even with everything he says being spun and mischaracterized.

This election is all about integrity in our political system. There's nothing difficult to understand about that, yet Al Gore and his supporters still don't get it.

Just yesterday, a Mr Kline who is an employee of the prestigious Rand think tank released a report stating that Texas has no better school test scores than any other State and therfor accusing the Bush campaign of lying about that. The Gore campaign is using this report front and center in their campaign and the press is, of course, without questioning it, reporting it as accurate.

The only problem is that it turns out that this wasn't an official report. As a matter of fact, it was the report of just one man and was issued without peer review. It was only fourteen pages long and was written without the author ever submitting a request to the State of Texas for official test scoring data. As recently as July The Rand Corporation did release their 245 page, peer reviewed report that stated catigoricaly that Texas showed the best improvement in the nation and that if you were a minority, Texas schools would give you the absolute best chance for a quality education.

So a flimsy, fraudulent report is once again being used by The Liar in Chief (version II) to dupe the American people. Only this time Duck, the American people aren't buying it ~ and you shouldn't either.

Luz
put me down for Bush...

Baby Lee

10-26-2000, 07:20 AM

Luz - if you're reading this, don't forget to give us your vote.

Luzap

10-26-2000, 07:24 AM

Thanks JC,

I guess I'll go with Bush.

Luz
almost forgot to vote!!!...

BIG_DADDY

10-26-2000, 10:07 AM

Luzap,

You are funny as hell. Your posts are one of very few thing actually put a smile on my face in the morning. I believe that the only candidate that will actually make our goverment significantly smaller is Harry Browne from the Libertarian party. Whore actually scares me to death with his socialist mentality, spending and wanting to disarm society. Bush will get my vote only because Brown doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected this time around. Luz, by the way, who are you voting for?.

[This message has been edited by BIG_DADDY (edited 10-26-2000).]

Chief Henry

10-26-2000, 10:36 AM

Hello all you happy people..........

If my counting is correct, I hope I'm closer than Luzaps, but I luv his enthusiasm!!!! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Here's my latest tally:

Bush 34
Gore 4
Nader 2
H. Brown 2
who cares 1

I don't know if Gores total includes
Chief Red Pants vote. I did not go back
a research all the post. If not, just add one for algore.

This poll definatley shows a pattern, wouldn't you agree? To me it shows that football fans love personal responsibilty
and freedom.

------------------
Chiefs Rock

Durtman

10-26-2000, 11:15 AM

After reading the hew and cry responses to the "other" bulletin board's decision to excize political posting, I must admit I had to chortle when one of the protagonists wrote that this BB "welcomes and encourages differing points of view." Upon reviewing the 100 plus replys to this "poll", which is , in essence, a self serving love-in, the differing opinions that have been "welcomed and encouraged" have been routinely gang tackled and summarily used as no more than batting practice. While I realize that the burden of absolute righteousness is indeed weighty, and that free thinking is apparently reserved only to those who agree with the majority, or who can "back it up", the encyclopedic posturing used to berate and embarrass, and the near evangelical need to put the final exclamation point at the end of every sentance represents nothing more than mean spirited target practice. It leads me to wonder which is more aggravating; banning political posting, or using it as a knife sharpener.

Chief Henry

10-26-2000, 12:14 PM

Swing, There's along fly ball, deep
"RIGHT" field, wayback-wayback, GONE
A grand salami folks.....Senate-Congress-
President & the Supreme Court !!!!!!!!!

How about that batting practise. Big mac would be proud.......!

------------------
Chiefs Rock

Durtman

10-26-2000, 12:22 PM

Practice.

Lightning Rod

10-26-2000, 12:40 PM

We have been through this exercise before. Of the two pieces of excrement that we have to chose from Bush is the slightly less offensive mound of fertilizer.

Just curious- Do any of you folks who so strongly support Bush or Gore for that matter truly like, trust and respect him or just hate the other guy?

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 12:52 PM

Well, the only reason I haven't written anything more on the subject is because I thought this was deemed as a football only BB. RCGChief, I am strongly for Bush. If you want to know my honest opinion I will give it to you but be forewarned that it will most likely offend many people. I have watched him in office as our governor and I am truly pleased with him as a leader. I believe him to be an honest and moral person.

Baby Lee

10-26-2000, 01:01 PM

Durtman - [regarding #109] I agree. And for whatever role I have played, I apologize. What I hope you can understand is that people who have consistently opposed Clinton/Clinton/Gore/Carville have developed a bit of a "bunker mentality." And its not so much about ideology. One a purely ideological scale, the past 8 years have been relatively conservative, welfare reform, "era of big government over," free trade, etc.

Believe it or not, there have been times in American history where debates have been spirited, even heated, but civil. Believe it or not, the vast majority of elected officials are honest people seeking to make decisions in the best interests of their constituents.

But with the last presidency, opposition is not debated, but shamed. Shamed through media campaigns, finger-pointing, and outrights lies. The best of conservative ideas have been co-opted, then claimed as original. The edges of ethicality and law-abiding conduct have been chipped and hacked to near unrecognizability.

I have not enjoyed being embarassed by my president. More important, I have not enjoyed the strong impression that my president views me, and over half of American citizens, as enemies, just because we disagree (or we agree and he wants credit for the idea).

So yes, we are a bit snippy. But the number one reason I support G-Dubya is I truly believe that he seeks to bring an end to this oppositional political culture. Lets get back to moving forward the american conversation and stop pretending that support for a tax cut equates to hoping old people starve to death, or that support for full enforcement of existing laws before making new ones equates to hoping kids shoot each other in the street.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 10-26-2000).]

Lightning Rod

10-26-2000, 01:02 PM

Glad to hear that you believe in one of them. Unfortunately, I think most of us are choosing the evil of two lessors.

Gotta go fight city hall
Check in tomorrow

------------------

"A steak a day keeps the cows dead."

Luzap

10-26-2000, 01:07 PM

Well said JC-Johnny.

Luz
trying to decide who to vote for...

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 01:14 PM

Well at least it seems like you have made an educated decision instead of just voting one way or another because you claim to be a republican or a democrat. That is all that I can ask for. In many cases I have had to take the lesser of the two evils approach, this just happens to be a candidate that I strongly believe in. I am tired of being ashamed of the person that represents my country.

Pitt Gorilla

10-26-2000, 01:25 PM

Although I haven't taken any swings, I don't understand the problem with being asked to defend your position. I mean, that's what a debate is all about. If you happen to be in the minority, I don't see how that's the majority's fault. Whether we like it or not, we do live in a democracy dominated by majority rule. The minority's point of view is always to be heard, just not always agreed with. You know, if you don't enjoy the thread, go on to another. It's really quite easy.

------------------
GO PITT!

Ugly Duck

10-26-2000, 01:43 PM

Excellent post, JC-Johnny. Interesting that I am voting against the Repubs because I don't want to reward them for their "oppositional political culture," and you seek to end it by electing Bush. I believe that the endless investigations over 6 years, the stonewalling, the foot-dragging, holding the budget hostage, etc. to be unacceptable ultra-partisan tactics that prevent government from operating optimally. Sure, having the White House, Congress, and Senate all led by the same party would put a stop to it. But three things (at least) prevent me from opting for that solution.

1. I believe that the best single thing we can to insure economic long-term health for all segments of society is to pay down the national debt. Huge national debt has adverse impact on interest rates, and low interest rates fuel our economy. I believe so strongly about this that I am even willing to pay taxes to pay it down before my children are grown. We ran up the bill, we shouldn't saddle our children with the payments. If we have a surplus, lets use it to pay down OUR debt. If the surplus goes to tax relief instead, and the debt baloons along with interest rates, our tax relief dollars will be eaten up by higher mortgage payments, car payments, etc. And our kids will be stuck with an even bigger problem. I lean towards the guy that proposes the biggest pay-down on our national debt.

2. I don't want Bush to keep his promise to the religious right and appoint SCJ's that will have big government dictate to women what they should do with they're own bodies.

3. The Repubs have pi$$ed me off.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 01:50 PM

Pitt, please clarify. I am a little unclear as to what and who you are referring to.

Pitt Gorilla

10-26-2000, 01:58 PM

I am referring to anyone who believes that they have become a "target." (not you)

------------------
GO PITT!

BIG_DADDY

10-26-2000, 01:58 PM

Mr. Duck,

What are you trying to say. That the democrats who are just happening to benefit from this baby boomer economic cycle have actually been fiscally responsible?. According to the Brookings Institution's book, The True Size of
Government, the federal government now employs (directly or indirectly)
16.9 million workers -- a number that rose steadily through the 1990s.
That includes 2.4 million grant-created jobs, 5.6 million contract-
created jobs, and 4.7 million mandate-created jobs. In fact, according to Brookings, 90,000 non-Defense Department,
non-Energy Department federal jobs were added during the Clinton/Gore
administration.
Gore wants to further increase the cost of the federal government.
According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Gore has proposed $2.7 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade.

Doesn't sound too fiscally resposible to me.

Pitt Gorilla

10-26-2000, 02:04 PM

Duck, although I tend to stand right in the middle, I am a registered Republican. Therefore, I am sorry for pi$$ing you off....Sooo...What exactly did I do? (Republican is an inclusive term, kind of like cheese, white people, or computers. i.e. Cheese pi$$es me off. Please be careful!)

------------------
GO PITT!

BIG_DADDY

10-26-2000, 02:10 PM

Mr. Duck,

Truth is that until we get away from this two party system and implement campaign finance reform were doomed to continue down this road. I am not a die hard Republican by any means and will switch to the Libertarian Party later this year. Out of the two candidates we have now though, Whore will definately spend much more money and restrict our freedoms ( guns, states rights, social security,voucher program ect. ) to a greater extent than will Bush. He will also increase the power of the Federal Goverment which is already WAY out of control.

------------------
BIG DADDY - Not to be confused with that loser Big Daddy on the other BB

mlyonsd

10-26-2000, 02:13 PM

UD,

I am a conservative that agrees 100% with you in thinking our #1 priority should be paying down the national debt. I am willing to grin and bare my current over taxation if it were to pay down the debt. My feeling is once it is paid down, tax relief should follow.

My problem is I see the liberal democrats just giving lip service to paying down the national debt. The republican congress you speak of offered to appropriate 90% of the tax revenue surplus of 2001 directly towards the debt. The dems balked, calling it a political stunt. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/16/gop.radio/index.html

Too bad people like you and me can't just march on Washington and make it happen.

Baby Lee

10-26-2000, 02:26 PM

UD - I will admit that frustration over a personality like Clinton's has brought out the worst in some of the opposition, but there are two large hedges on that admission.

First, for the most part our perceptions of the motives and tactics of those who have "hounded" the president have been formed by inundation and mantras from vociferous Clinton supporters. Every investigation has its origin in the INDEPENDANT counsel and draws its authority from Clinton's AG Reno. Every branch, every avenue, has been authorized as it appeared that laws had been broken. But because the prez had already began the culture of partisan bickering and the investigations were so personally embarassing, we accepted that "a vast right wing conspiracy" was behind the whole thing.

Second, it is very frustrating to see wrong that others don't or won't. I'm not sure how to express this clearly. But the best example I can think of is in the movie Election, where the teacher Mr. McAllister [Matthew Broderick] saw through "teacher's pet" act by Tracy Flick [Reese Witherspoon]. This knowledge [and the suspicion that no one else saw through her] formed a prism for how he saw everything, his role as a teacher, as a husband, etc., and led him to fixate on a high school class election and . . . well, ya gotta see the movie.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 02:29 PM

Hello?!?: Bush believes that roughly one-quarter of the surplus should be returned to the people who earned it through broad tax cuts – otherwise, Washington will spend it. His plan will promote economic growth and increase access to the middle class by cutting high marginal rates. It will also double the child credit, eliminate the death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and expand Education Savings Accounts and charitable deductions. The largest percentage cuts will go to the lowest income earners. As a result, 6 million families will no longer pay federal income tax. To vote against this would be to turn down free money.

BIG_DADDY

10-26-2000, 02:44 PM

Does anybody know who Luzap is voting for?.

------------------
BIG DADDY - Not to be confused with that loser Big Daddy on the other BB

mlyonsd

10-26-2000, 02:51 PM

B-girl, is #127 directed towards me?

My belief is the debt should be paid off before any tax cuts. Any surplus revenue should go towards the debt, not new spending.

Once the debt is paid off then do I condone tax cuts. I don't hear any politicians calling for what I want, the repubs are my closest choice.

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 02:58 PM

B's Girl - In reality, none of those things will matter if interest rates increase. Further, the alleged extra pocket cash that people are lauding will have no impact under higher interest rates due to the inflation that would result. Greenspan is really the man in charge of this one.

Bush is as Bush does, "Read my lips..." more free money!

right http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 10-26-2000).]

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 03:00 PM

Yeah, sorry. My posts tend to be a little late, I have a very busy job and I try to jump in whenever I get a chance. Yes, it would be a marvelous idea to pay off the debt, but Gore isn't planning on doing that. He has all kinds of things planned for that money that Bush will otherwize return to you and me.

Durtman

10-26-2000, 03:01 PM

JC Johnny -
I appreciate your acknowledgement of my post, but it's intent was not political. My take on these "political" posts isn't so much what, as why bother? I duck in on these threads to see if anything new or illuminating is being bandied about, and other than a fresh load of invective splattered on the hapless liberal participants, most of these proceedings remains a bunch of like minded folks (agreeing) each other off. Whoopee. I have not participated in the "voting", and find it a bit silly to regurgitate the same foregone conclusion on a weekly basis. But if seeing one presidential candidate represented on the BB by 80% gives the gang a collective woody, then you kids have fun. The politics of this BB have been duly noted ad nauseum, but let's not kid ourselves that opposing viewpoints are welcomed or encouraged here as stated on another thread, they are merely dared.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 03:07 PM

Intrest rates are going to increase over time reguardless of how much we pay in taxes.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 03:17 PM

Bush is proposing a Joint Budget Resolution, signed by the President, to promote early agreement on an overall budget reform. This would compel early agreement on the overall level of appropriations, mandatory spending, taxes, and debt reduction in a simple document.

The federal government is expected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion during the next decade. Bush has proposed a balanced economic program that will use the leftover to prepare for the future, dedicating half to saving Social Security by establishing personal retirement accounts and reducing the debt held by the public, 1/4th for pro-growth tax cuts and the rest to reform education, strengthen Medicare, and support other priorities. As President, Governor Bush will bring taxes down from their record high level and pay the debt down to a historically low level.

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 03:40 PM

Historically, interest rates decline after a presidential election. Also note, interest rates have been at an historical low with the current administration.

I was not old enough to be a contributor to the debt that Reagan and Bush ran up during the 80s. Now, I have to use MY tax dollars to pay off all of the extraneous spending (see $300 hammers) and bad loans that were granted in that time (see all forfeited loans to the Third World that were granted in order to stop the "Red Spread").

I'm sick enough as it is having to pay off the Boomers' debts, and I pray to God that my children still won't be paying it because the majority of voters (note distinction between majority of voters and majority of citizens) wanted a few extra bucks in their pockets. You Boomers ran up the debt, YOU PAY IT OFF!

Luckily for this country, the tech revolution has kept us out of a major recession that started when Reagan and Bush went into the White House. The only way the Repubs know how to spend money is on military contracts to their best "buddies" (read contributors). This is evidenced in Bush's overwhelming endorsement of building up the military and internationl military posturing.

The more I read from the repubs on this board and in the media, the more I think about changing my vote from Nader to Gore just to do my part to make sure that a man that executes mentally retarded people doesn't end up running this country into the ground.

Ahhhh....starting to feel a little better now...

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 03:45 PM

I also think that it is you Boomers' responsibility to get Social Security going again. You've borrowed against it too long, now there is a very real possiblity that NOTHING will be there when I become eligible. I'm not going to vote to give more pocket cash to people who are already taking money from my paycheck. No thanks. YOU SPENT IT, YOU PAY IT BACK!

Mosbonian

10-26-2000, 03:51 PM

Disco:

As an FYI, the $300 hammers and $2000 toilet seats found their way into government during the Carter administration.

As for blaming the Baby Boomers for the problems of the world, that's pretty shallow. You don't create the abyss that we are in now in that short of a time period. Be real and blame this on the last 20 years of fiscal irresponsibility of this nation.

mmaddog
*************

bishop_74

10-26-2000, 03:53 PM

Carefull Disco, that wasn't the boomers, that was the arms race that made the deficit so HUGE!!!!

Mosbonian

10-26-2000, 03:53 PM

Baby Lee

10-26-2000, 03:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> make sure that a man that executes mentally retarded people doesn't end up running this country <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the very type of CRAP I'm talking about. GWB is a governor, of a state with the death penalty on the books, and prosecutors who seek the death penalty, and people who commit heinous crimes. In death penalty cases, the buck stops with him, but only after, the voters, legislators, investigators, policemen, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, juries, trial judges, appellate attorneys, panels of appellate judges, the state and in some cases federal supreme court justices have examined the issue. So GWB decides to place his faith in an exhaustive process and uphold the outcome. You change that into a sentence that gives the impression that GHB pulls a poor little retarded boy off the playground and beans him with a hammer himself.

And what of AlGore? He has, fortunately for him, never had to make a single authoritative decision on the issue. Yet and still he STRONGLY SUPPORTS the death penalty. So, as stated by the sage John Stewart, "we are faced with a stark choice between Bush, who is in favor of it, and Gore, who strongly supports it." As they are on the same page on the issue, to bring it up in comparing the two is nothing more than snarking.

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 04:03 PM

I knew I'd get some heat for those posts, but alas, if we all said the same thing, what would the point of the BB be?

dog - I see what you're saying about Carter. However, one of the main differences in the platforms between the current candidates has to do with military spending. Bush = for more. Gore = for less. Me = don't want to go back to those days (whoever was in control).

I don't blame the Boomers for the problems of the world, just a lot of the problems domestically. Have fun buying your meds with my money. Enjoy!

JC - Thanks for helping my cause and reaffirming that both candidates favor capital punishment. I am against it. And regardless of how flawless you think the system you descrbe is, there are still innocent people being put to death and Texas puts more people to death than any other state. See Illinois for evidence - the republican gov. of that state actually has a spine and declared a moritorium on capital punishment.

Baby Lee

10-26-2000, 04:14 PM

Disco - then how is voting for Gore, rather than Nader, doing your part to keep an "executioner" out of office? You support a guy who supports the death penalty without having had to give it much thought over a guy who has been called upon by his state to give it thought in real cases, even over a guy [Nader] who opposes it?

bishop_74

10-26-2000, 04:16 PM

Disco,
Are you condoning what the criminals are doing??? Are you OK with the rapist and murderers that are content with living the rest of thier lives in jail off of your tax dollars?

Ugly Duck

10-26-2000, 04:16 PM

I apologize to you, Pitt. I didn't mean that YOU pi$$ me off, I meant the Repubs who used their majorities in Congress and the Senate in vain pursuit of something to pin on the White House. Ok, ok, they finally got Clinton to weasel the definitions of what type of sex he had with Monica. But that sure wasn't worth the effort and expense.

WE ran up the debt. WE tapped into Social Security. Lets pay back the monies that WE spent first, and then grant ourselves tax relief. Bush sez big tax relief, moderate debt pay-down. Gore sez moderate tax relief, big debt pay-down. The Gore plan is more fiscally responsible for the long term, Bush's plan wets our whistle for instant cash but jeopardizes our children's future. Lets take care of our responsibilities NOW. Pay down the debt, hands OFF social security, then go for the cash in the hand. Reject Bush.

bishop_74

10-26-2000, 04:18 PM

If you answered "no" to either of those questions, then maybe instead of attacking the *** end of the problem, you should attack the heart of it, the justice system.

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 04:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Be real and blame this on the last 20 years of fiscal irresponsibility of this nation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have I been of voting age for the last 20 years? No. Have the Boomers? Why yes. Have I had any say in the fact that Soc. Security was borrowed against? No. Do I have to help pay off the difference now? Yes. Am I likely to see any of that money when I retire? No - that's what 401Ks are for.

You made your bed, now lay in it.

bishop_74

10-26-2000, 04:20 PM

I'm outta here guys. Going to class. Talk to you tomorrow.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 04:23 PM

Buy Sweetie, see you tonight.

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 04:29 PM

JC - That is my dilemma. However, I do know that far more people have been executed under Bush in Texas than in any other state. So I kind of have a heirarchy - worst to best - Bush->Gore->Nader. Now which one(s) realistically have a chance of running things. Personally, I feel that Gore would have an easier time changing positions (Bush would have to defend actions as gov.) if federal studies are conclusive in stating the unfairness/ineffectiveness of CP.

bishop - I'm not okay with the crimes. I'm not okay with CP as an alternative. Also, it costs more in tax dollars to execute these people than it does to lock them up for life (cost of appeal process for CP cases and everything that it entails, and nobody can put a price on an innocent being murdered). I agree with you that the justice system needs to be evaluated. But, do we really need to keep killing people while we do that?

It has been fun folks. Have a good evening!

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 10-26-2000).]

BubbaZ

10-26-2000, 04:35 PM

Disco, I don't know where you got the idea that Bush will spend more on the military, if you watched the debates Gore made a point to say he will spend significantly more on defense as Bush plans to skip a generation of weapons.

While all of you are touting "paying off the debt" your congressmen (republicans and democrats) are spending money faster than we can send it. Anyone who thinks there will continue to be any significant surpluses is very, very naive. Congress will spend and the President will sign all the money sent to Washington, that is how they get reelected. Anyone who thinks a Liberal (see Al Gore) will sign any laws reducing the role of government or taxes has not been paying attention since the time FDR created the Social Security Ponzi scheme we are stuck with now.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Take your tax break and be happy with it. Don't let the boys in DC decide how to spend your money, keep it yourself.

BubbaZ

10-26-2000, 04:38 PM

DiscoJones

10-26-2000, 04:40 PM

Bubba - Now you go and make things difficult for me. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif Maybe I should stick with Nader regardless. I just REALLY don't want Bush in the WH.

I also agree with your second paragraph. Ultimately, I don't think that either candidate would be able to give all people a tax break. To me, it's a buzz word. A focus group hot button. Both parties have made the promises in the past, and both have broken them.

BubbaZ

10-26-2000, 04:45 PM

If Bush is elected he will give ALL people who pay income taxes a break. This is a promise he can keep as he will have the support of congress to do so (even if the democrats take back the house). If Gore wins he will not get his "if you do what I tell you I'll throw you a bone" tax cut plan in place as the senate will not support it. Bush's plan is fair and simple and will give the money back to those who PAID it. This is the notion that is lost on Gore when he starts talking about the top 1%.

BubbaZ

10-26-2000, 04:47 PM

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 04:57 PM

Ok, I have just clocked out and can leave one final post before I leave for the evening.

Dearest Duck, this is a little late, but for you. Everything you are crying for Bush is promising. Bush is offering something for the present and the future. Read what I wrote about his Budget reforms, and I haven’t even touched on his plans to save Social Security (he is pressing hands off and an investment plan to turn more profit on the SS money). Bush’s plan doesn’t only take care of my future children, but me, my parents and my Grandparents. You can’t ignore the existing public for people that don’t exist yet. Yes, you have to plan for the future, but right now I am the future. How am I supposed to raise strong healthy educated people if I can’t even take care of myself and build myself up to a point where I can have children? I want the American dream too. I don’t want for my children to be raised in an apartment going to some second rate, low-income public school. I want to have a house in a nice neighborhood that I will feel safe in letting my children walk to the corner. How can I accomplish that for them when I am paying more in taxes then I do in living expenses, AND being expected to take care of my elderly family too.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 04:57 PM

As far as his stand on crime, Bush believes that the best way to protect the innocent is to fully enforce the law and to ensure swift and sure punishment for criminals. As a result of his tough policies, violent crime in Texas is down 20 percent and violent juvenile crime is down 44 percent. Governor Bush also advocated and signed legislation providing comprehensive juvenile justice reform, tougher sex offender laws, longer sentences for violent repeat offenders, and zero tolerance for drunk driving.

Bishop's_Girl

10-26-2000, 05:08 PM

Good Night Guys

Luzap

10-26-2000, 05:31 PM

Bishop,

You've got one heck of a girl.

Luz
btw, put me down for bush...

Mosbonian

10-26-2000, 07:16 PM

Disco:

"I don't blame the Boomers for the problems of the world, just a lot of the problems domestically. Have fun buying your meds with my money. Enjoy!"

I don't need your money thank you!!!! I have worked hard all my life, saved and scrimped(I am only 44) to ensure several things:

1)I don't have to borrow from "YOUR" money to send my 2 kids to college..

2)I don't have to depend on "YOUR" money to help me through an "out of work" situation

3)I don't have to depend on "YOUR" money to "buy my meds' when I retire...

4)I don't have to depend on "YOUR" money to help me through my "golden years".

I don't know you well enough to make any comments about you on a personal basis, but you are coming through as a person who is very bitter toward people older than you. Pleas don't make the generalization that all Baby Boomers are going to have to depend on you and "YOUR" money to get by.

mmaddog
************

------------------
Knock, Knock..Who's there? Dewey..Dewey Who?
Dewey Remember These...Yes We Do...

Archie F. Swin

10-26-2000, 08:08 PM

Luz,

I don't recall seeing your response to my comments on the questioned you asked me. Maybe it's old news.

Anyway, are they gonna build the world's tallest building in your back yard?

------------------
C.R. Pants
(that damn liberal)

Luzap

10-26-2000, 10:29 PM

Chief Red Pants,

You'll have to forgive me and this tired brain of mine. i don't remember the question or your response, and I couldn't find it in my feeble attempt to scroll back.

If you'll refresh my memory I'll be happy to try and oblige.

As to the pilots evasive maneuvers test, I hope they build it (no decision from the FAA yet). It would only be about ten minutes from me and I think the biggest building in the world out to be in the BIG State of Texas.

Luz
everythings big in texas...

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 06:41 AM

Part one of two:
Ok, time to weigh in here. This whole argument against the tax cuts because they will take away from spending down the debt is a bunch of crap. Time for a history lesson. Lets go back a few years, like to the sixties when the libs shinning president was in the White House. Yes, we are talking about….Oh gasp! Kennedy!. What was one of the very first things that he did when elected? He cut taxes and he cut them drastically. What was the result? At first a dip in federal income as can be expected, but then, according to liberals, the impossible happened. Federal revenue grew, caught up with where it had been, then blew past that point until the monies coming into the Feds were much higher than they had been before the tax cuts. Oh, by the way, it happened when regan made tax cuts also in the terrible 80’s.

------------------
GO CHIEFS!!!!

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 06:42 AM

part 2 of 2.
Now you say, HOW CAN THAT BE???? You cannot take a pay cut and make more money!!!! No, but the government can. So, here we go—we are going to step from a history lesson to one in economics. Put your thinking cap on. As people and companies now had more money back in their pockets to spend, guess what they did. They invested it. That’s right. Companies used the extra cash to fund growth and regular people did 2 things. First, they invested money into companies who now had even more money to fund growth, and the people also bought the products and services of said companies. This fueled the economy. And believe it or not, that means more money is being made and so more money is taxed, and so big government gets more money to spend and in the case of Bush, to spend paying down the debt! This is a variation on the Walmart principle. Sell more at a lower price and the profit margin increases. Buy the way, if you want to look at history, you will see that this tax principle works every time! Check it out for yourself.

Ugly Duck

10-27-2000, 09:33 AM

Whoa, Idaho! Thanx for the economy lesson, its much clearer now. Boy, have I been wrong. So the less tax money that the feds get, the more tax money they get! So if they only ask for a tiny bit of tax money, they'll get huge amounts of tax money. Hey- I got it! If they ask for no tax money, they'll end up with gigantic gobs of tax money. Then we can pay off the debt and fund huge government programs. I'm voting for the guy that wants to eliminate all taxes, its the only way to get huge taxes to pay for everything the feds want to do!

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 10:10 AM

UD,
Thanks for the knee jerk reaction. Typical liberal response. I give facts and all you can do is retorte with a stupid twist of what I said. I gave you facts. Historical facts. Instead of giving the liberal mantra (I've heard that response many times) why don't you check out the facts.

Maybe that would mean that your little liberal fantasy world would come crumbling down.

Hey I even used your liberal Saviour Kennedy!! The funny thing is, if he was running today you libs would hate him for his conservative policies.

[This message has been edited by Idaho Chief (edited 10-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Idaho Chief (edited 10-27-2000).]

Luzap

10-27-2000, 10:11 AM

Duck,

I can't believe what I just read from you. Do you really believe that what Idaho said was incorrect?

In 1980, reagan cut taxes accross the board. By 1987 government revenues had doubled ~ not just increased, but doubled. Even allowing for inflation (which came dramatically down during those years), the increase in revenues was huge.

Is there a point of diminishing returns? Of course their is ~ but we are no where close to it.

Duck, I know that you support much of the liberal dogma, but don't tell me that you've actually fallen for the liberal propaganda about 'Trickle Down' or 'Reaganomics'.

The numbers are real and are there for anyone to see.

I might add that it is dificult for me to understand how anyone cannot understand this. I realize that we all have different life experiences, but to me this is just common sense.

Luz
maybe it should be called uncommon sense...

KCWolfman

10-27-2000, 10:31 AM

Luz - Hope this helps others to understand yours and Idaho's point:

"Learn from history. Static scoring routinely overestimates how much revenue will be generated by tax increases. The 1990 luxury tax, the income tax rate increases of 1990 and 1993, and the 1986 capital gains tax rate increase are all examples in which revenues fell far short of static predictions. By contrast, the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, the 1978 capital gains tax reduction, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, and the 1986 Tax Reform Act all demonstrate how pro-growth tax changes will generate revenue feedback.4"

From a paper by reknowned economist William Geotzmann

When that luxury tax was initiated in 1990, it was a stab at the wealthy for purchases over $10,000. Instead of the desired effect of increasing revenue, the rich merely stopped buying luxury items; therefore, the middle class that worked on making yachts, jewelry, and other high dollar items were layed off. The upper class suffered no loss and the middle class absorbed it... Yet another genius move by the dems to continue their strangle hold.

Luzap

10-27-2000, 10:36 AM

Thank you Russ,

That is also a perfect explanation of what I mean when I state the following:

High taxes don't hurt the wealthy. They keep me (us) from becoming wealthy!

Luz
wealth is not a zero sum game...

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 10:43 AM

Luz and Russ,
Kudos for putting even more teeth into my post. Isn't it amazing how the media simply ignors these facts when they report on tax cuts? No wonder people think we need to keep our taxes high. But, then, most people don't spend time checking for themselves. So much easier to be a sponge than a shark!

Bishop's_Girl

10-27-2000, 10:49 AM

I get the feeling that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. The proposition is not "no taxes" as you are implying, but less taxes on the income of the people. In case you weren't aware of it, the government taxes just about everything. If Americans have more money to spend, they are going to spend it...on things that the government taxes, i.e. sales tax etc.

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 11:11 AM

BG,
The fact of the matter is, that if you add up all the taxes that you pay both on the money that you earn, and the products that you buy, most of which were taxed before you purchased them it adds up to a huge amount. Approximately 80% of what you earn. Simply astounding. Our forefathers were not nearly as forgiving as us. They started a revolution over just a few percentage points!! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/eek.gif

By the way, it's great to listen to another conservative woman speak her mind!!!

------------------
GO CHIEFS!!!!

[This message has been edited by Idaho Chief (edited 10-27-2000).]

Bishop's_Girl

10-27-2000, 11:52 AM

Thank You, I have learned quite a bit from this discussion. I am myself fairly young and this is only my second presidential election that I get to participate in. I believe the best way to help ourselves is to be educated.

Luzap

10-27-2000, 12:07 PM

Bishop's_Girl,

Kudos.

Your attitude is far beyond your years. Education is absolutely the key.

An educated populous won't fall for as much propaganda.

Everyone needs to understand that education STARTS with graduation.

Luz
put me down for Bush...

Ugly Duck

10-27-2000, 12:44 PM

I should apologize to Idaho for jerking my knee so hard I hurt myself. It just seems to me that if it really were such a simple common-sense problem that the solution would immediately be crystal-clear to all thinking people. But to accept that, I would have to assume that most legislators are stupid. Or evil enough to intentionally cause the country harm by taxing only for the sake of ruining us all.

I always smile when I get called a "Lib." I didn't even know I was one til Luz told me I am. I am so conservative in my household and business finances - people that know me will laugh when they find out I'm a lib. I have zero credit card debt, only invest in my business monies that I have in hand, drive a '93 Volvo that I paid cash for. I will admit to some volatile NASDAQ stocks, but thats as liberal as I get around home. And it seems to me that the Gore plan is fiscally conservative compared to Bush's. Check this out: (next post)

Ugly Duck

10-27-2000, 12:45 PM

(cont. from last post)

Budget Proposals Relative to Center on Budget and Policy priorities Surplus Projection (Fiscal years 2001-2010, in billions of dollars)

CBO non-Social Security surplus 2,173

Effect on the surplus of proposals:
Bush.....Gore
-1,317...-279 Taxes
na.......-200 Retirement savings
198......-353 Medicare (including prescription drugs)
100.......-98 Other health care (including tax credits)
-8.........70 Other (including offsets)
-169.....-367 Discretionary spending increases
196........30 Discretionary savings from government reform
-1,595....-1,197 Subtotal, policy changes
-313......-213 Increased interest costs
-1,908....-1,410 Total reduction in the surplus
265........763 Non Social Security surplus

And this analysis doesn't even take into account the fact that the Bush expalanation of his huge savings from "government reform" is to too fuzzy to tack down. Or that his level of "discretionary spending" has been deemed totally unrealistic by everyone but the Bush campaign and the Repub members of the Budget Commitee. Gore will spend WAY more to pay down the debt, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on the interest we pay. To be conservative, ya gotta vote with the libs.

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 02:57 PM

UD,
it is common sense, beyond that it is fact, you can look up the numbers yourself. However, the reason that the demos disregard it is for two reasons. I want to clarify that am speaking about demos that hold political positions, not the demo on the street. Street demos usually just don’t know the truth.

Reason one: They have spent so many years (over 40) trying to convince everyone that repub tax cuts are harmful and only for the rich that they dare not admit that they are wrong. Would you like another example of this? Welfare was supposed to end poverty. Remember Linden Johnson's war on poverty? Well just look at the stats--more people are in poverty now--Poverty won and our budget was the victim. But do the dems admit that it is a failed plan? NEVER they just throw more money at it. Which leads to reason two.

Reason two: It is a matter of political philosophy. Dems believe that the answer to every problem is a government program. And I will admit that some repubs have this problem also. In fact I absolutely hate Bush’s plan to pay for Medicare prescriptions, but that is another matter. Therefore, dems seek more money to pay for their programs. And because of reason one they always seek higher taxes.

Idaho Chief

10-27-2000, 02:58 PM

Let me clarify something for you. I don’t dislike Gore for no reason. Nor other dems. It is a difference of philosophy. I believe that I am the solution to my problems not government. If I don’t make enough money or dislike my job I go and find a job that fits my need. If I don’t have the education needed I go back to school and pay for it out of my own pocket. I don’t need a government program and neither did the people who started this wonderful country. They were rugged individualists. So am I, and so it sounds like you are Duck. So why do you think it necessary that government rows everyone else’s boat? Or do you? If not, then maybe you better take a closer look at those evil repubs.

Have a great weekend—I will—I’m off to see my wonderful, Chief fan, Conservative, Repub wife!!!! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Ugly Duck

10-27-2000, 05:47 PM

Rest assured that I am looking into the evil Repubs. Problem is, the deeper I look, the more shams and scams I find. While Bush is hopping about squealing, "Trust me! Fuzzy math!", He's spewing forth the fuzziest dang stuff thats hit the public in a long time.

The Repubs want to gloss over the fact that Bush's plan costs $1.9 trillion over ten years, whereas Gore's plan only costs $1.4 trillion. So what to do? Well, the Repub members of the Budget Committee break off and call themselves the "Senate Budget Committee Majority Staff" and do an independent analysis of Gore's proposal. They break all the rules common to budget analysis, and come up with $4.3 trillion for the cost of the Gore program. But they include stuff like all the normal costs of doing governmet business, which is not included in the costs of either campaign's proposal. Meanwhile, Bush runs about shouting "$4.3 trillion!" and wrongly attributes that figure to the Budget Committee. But there's a problem - what if they applied the same false parameters to Bush's bigger-cost plan? Oh, no! It would look even worse than Gore's! So what do they do? They just neglect to do an anlysis of Bush's plan so the don't HAVE to apply the same fuzz! Very slick, but it didn't fool me.

AZChief

10-27-2000, 05:51 PM

I always avoid these posts but I'm starting to wish they'd be deleted! Anybody wanna talk football?

Only kinda kidding...
AZ

Archie F. Swin

10-27-2000, 08:03 PM

3-4 months ago I was considering voting for George W. Bush . . . simply because he is the Governor of the State in which I reside. I will state, for the record, that living in Texas is easier on the wallet than living in Oklahoma. I wasn't really into politics. I didn't think that the President had a direct effect on me as an American. Now...I feel I'm a little more in tune with my political beliefs and I know where I stand on the issues. I would like to share with you a website that will help confirm your choice. It will allow you further insight on the candidates without consuming much of your time.
http://www.speakout.com
click on votematch Presidential selector

Isn't it great to be an American?!

morphius

10-27-2000, 08:12 PM

CR Pants - Cheney for President, man amm I conservitive or what? This is according to your quiz link.

Ugly Duck

10-27-2000, 10:39 PM

Thanks for the link, RedPants. Luz was right, the test scored me as a libertarian-leaning liberal. I'm a Lib! I'm a Lib! Halleluja, I belong to something!

Luzap

10-28-2000, 08:32 AM

Duck,

I think (and hope) it goes without saying that I enjoy our sparring and I hold no personal animosity for you ~ quite the opposite actually, but I do need to point out a couple of silly things you're saying http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

First of all, I don't ever remember calling you a liberal (I may have, but I don't remember it, and that would not be SOP for me). I have said, and do believe, that you support liberal causes. I also believe that this is a temporary state for you. It is hard for any of us to separate ourselves from the attitudes of our parents (and others) that we were saturated in during our youth. However, things change and sometimes good people are just wrong.

I think you're an intelligent person with good analytical and communicational abilities. I also believe you to be rather perceptive as to the vagaries of human nature. I believe that you support liberal philosophy because you've been mis-informed.
(cont.)

Luzap

10-28-2000, 08:33 AM

(cont.)
In an earlier post you stated:
"But to accept that, I would have to assume that most legislators are stupid. Or evil enough to intentionally cause the country harm by taxing only for the sake of ruining us all."

While oversimplified, the above IS true to some great extent. Their motive is not to 'ruin us all', but rather falls into many diversified categories of reasoning. There are a number of non-statesmen like politicians involved in our system now. You just need to figure out who is who.

A good place to start is to stop changing the subject and examine the cornerstone of liberal propaganda for the last decade ~ the Reagan record. He reduced taxes and doubled revenues, he submitted relatively small budgets that the Dem controlled Congress blew up into massive proportions that consumed all of the increased revenue and much, much more ~ thereby increasing the National Debt dramatically.

Luz
the facts are out there if you dare to see...

Chief Henry

10-28-2000, 10:18 AM

Has any one counted these votes lately?
It looks like the thread has evolved into
more discussions than votes. I thought that would happen.

As of today it looks like the Clinton
News Networks {CNN} own polling shows
Gore down by 13% points to George W. Bush.

The USA Today has an excellent map of the electorial college votes. Bush is up in it and also the CNN Electorial vote.
I'm surprised that Bush is up in Illinoise.
Combine that with Bush being up in St. LOUIS
and KC, WOW.

Stay on the offense and score, score, SCORE.
Just like the CHIEFS over the RAMS last Sunday!!!!!!!!!

------------------
Chiefs Rock

Ugly Duck

10-28-2000, 10:55 AM

From CNN, more polls:

"ABC News and The Washington Post both have daily tracking polls today putting the race at 48 percent for Bush and 45 percent for Gore. The latest Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby tracking poll has the contest at 45 percent for Gore and 43 percent for Bush."

Hey Luz - I didn't mean to accuse you of calling me a lib. Many moons ago I asked you if you thought I was a lib because I was surprised that others we labeling me so. You said that I am, and I guess you were right because the test called me a libertarian-leaning liberal. No offense intended.

Luzap

10-28-2000, 01:32 PM

Duck,

Never any offense taken.

As I said, I enjoy our verbal jousts http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/cool.gif

Luz
especialy since i'm always right http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif...

kcchiefszoo

10-28-2000, 11:08 PM

Bush/Cheney

Bud Wiser

10-29-2000, 01:58 AM

I'm voting for the Bush/Tongue ticket.

The King of Beers
Still wanting to be Bob Dole's running mate.

Bob Dole

10-30-2000, 01:35 PM

http://www.tigger.tamut.edu/MIS430001/slent/BeavisBushCheny.jpg

[This message has been edited by Robert_Dole (edited 10-30-2000).]

Baby Lee

10-30-2000, 03:04 PM

The speakout.com thing was interesting. But I think it misses a big portion of the political decision-making process of recent. That is CREDIBILITY. It is an issue for both major candidates, albeit in different ways.
What a candidate say, the words coming out of his mouth, is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the equation. Whether he has the fortitide, guile, aptitude and presence to enforce his message, whether he even INTENDS to enforce it, how long and how consistently he has preached it, all of this goes into the equation.
It makes me so sad when I hear the "arousal-gapper" who says, "I heard Gore talking about how he's gonna fight for ME, so I'm gonna vote for him."
1. Does he know you?
2. HOW is he gonna fight for you?
3. Who's he gonna fight?
4. What if the person he's gonna fight on your behalf thought he was gonna fight for them?

Even sadder is when I hear someone say "I didn't hear either candidate talk about xxx [usually a very specific issue area, usually not well lent to federal policy, such as, day care or the legalization of marijuana or universal dental care], so I still don't know how to vote. Are we so lazy as a populace that talking points are all we need to nourish us through the election season [rhetorical, I know]?

Archie F. Swin

10-30-2000, 03:31 PM

JCJohnny,

...nice name BTW...

You bring up a good point in KNOWING the candidates. I think integrity, credibility and work ethic are important and that these qualities should be seen in the candidates.

In a perfect world . . . that is all we would need to pick our man.

here's the problem: as much as I would like to think differently . . . Al Gore, George Bush and "The Ralph-a-nader" are the puppets of their parties and the special interest groups. Thier speeches, and the issues they choose to tackle are the work of someone else . . . its the professionals backstage that are responsible for what you know and don't know about the candidates. That's why http://www.speakout.com PRESIDENTIAL SELECTOR is a valid means to gain some insight into the coming election. When you vote for President, you vote for the views of that candidates political party. Therefore issues must come BEFORE the candidates personal qualities; because your not just voting for a person, you're voting for a stance on the issues.

Luzap

10-30-2000, 06:45 PM

Chiefs Red Pants,

I agree with you 100% on what you just said. The political philosophy of a platform/party is important, if not crucial, knowledge to have.

If everybody understood what the premis of the Democratic/liberal party was, they would never win another election.

Luz
the real fights for policy traditionally have occured inside the party...

Archie F. Swin

10-30-2000, 09:15 PM

OUCH! that hurt Luz!

(((licking wounds)))

------------------
C.R. Pants
(that damn liberal)

Ugly Duck

10-30-2000, 11:58 PM

Hey, fellow Bush-bashers - maybe all is not lost. Apparently, there is a possibility that Gore can win the election even if Bush wins the popular vote. I'm getting happy again! Long live the electoral college! From the SF Chronicle:

Mark DiCamillo, the director of the San Francisco-based Field Poll, looked at data from each state and concluded that if the election were held right now, Gore would probably win a total of 221 electoral votes as compared to 214 for Bush, with the remaining 103 up for grabs. It takes 270 electoral votes to win.

"If you took the average of the daily tracking polls, Bush is slightly ahead," DiCamillo said. "If you look at the electoral map, Gore is slightly ahead."

Theoretically, Bush too could win an electoral victory while losing the popular vote. But that scenario seems far less likely than Gore pulling off an electoral sleight-of-hand.

Luzap

10-31-2000, 07:57 AM

Duck,

This is why I am confident of a Bush win. The pro Gore media now is starting to look at longshot hopes for their man to still be elected. It smells of desperation to me.

This will probably be the 'sickest' week of politics. The more desperate Gore gets, the more incredible the 'out of left field' accusations and attacks on Bush will be. Most of the attacks will not directly originate with Gore HQ, and many of his faithful (including the media) will hold on to that to claim that the accusations are valid. We will hear more of the famous Tip O'Neal lines, 'the seriousness of the allegations require an independent investigation to discover the evidence that we don't currently have.'

Luz
bush in a landslide...

Gaz

10-31-2000, 08:04 AM

I took that quiz.

Guess what?

I'm a Libertarian.

xoxo~
gaz
never woulda thunk it.

Baby Lee

10-31-2000, 08:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> When you vote for President, you vote for the views of that candidates political party. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So a vote for Clinton in '92. Was that a vote for a tax increase and gays in the military or a vote for welfare reform and NAFTA?

Ugly Duck

10-31-2000, 08:52 AM

Hey Gaz - I took the quiz and was surprised to find out that I'm almost-Libertarian. Now I have to go look up what "Libertarian" means....

mlyonsd

10-31-2000, 08:54 AM

190 is hysterical.

Archie F. Swin

10-31-2000, 09:58 AM

JC Johnny,

I don't know if you were directing those questions at me, but I will offer this . . .

Anyone should know that if a Democrat is elected into office . . . taxes stand a chance at going up. As far as gays in the military . . . Demoliberals tend to favor the same rights for homosexuals as heterosexuals. And if you think for one minute that the Clinton era opened up the Armed Forces homosexual "flood gates" you are sadly mistaken. As far as welfare reform and NAFTA . . . I remember those as being bipartisan interests.

Baby Lee

10-31-2000, 10:18 AM

My point wasn't about the merits of each particualr issue. It was that Clinton got a lot of swing support, based on each swing voter's projection of what he would do in office.
Once in office, he raised taxes and pushed gays in the military to the immediate forefront. Swing voters who saw his "new-democrat" vestments and heard his middle class tax cut pledge projected a more moderate or conservative bent on him than these two issues revealed.
Conversely, Clinton also pushed NAFTA through over the strong objections of organized labor and pushed welfare reform, ultimately signing what the republican revolution gave him in that vein. Swing voters expecting a "core" democrat were just as surprised and frsutrated by these moves as were those mentioned above, but for different reasons.
Point being, platform is a big indicator. But if enough intangibles give the platform an odor [be it on the issue of credibility OR plain old ability], that odor has to taken into account.

Kckrazy

10-31-2000, 10:30 AM

I voted about a week ago is anyone still keeping track? If so I want to vote for Bush one more time.

Vote early and vote often!

------------------

Ugly Duck

10-31-2000, 01:18 PM

Good news, Americans! Bush is WAY behind in California with virtually no chance at its 54 electoral votes. Here in the Bay Area and in LA, he only has 19% support. 53% of California women say thumbs down to Bush, as do 66% of Hispanic and 90% of black voters. More good news - he's coming here to waste time and money on the lost cause. Welcome, Bush! We hope you spend the rest of your pre-election time here. I was so certain that Bush would win, now I'm seeing a little encouragement.

Ugly Duck

10-31-2000, 01:19 PM