The
Loveline
Companion

		crumple1 + Friday, September 17, 2004 at 5:20 PM was listening to an old show in my PDA (guest was the band Ozmatli, whose music BTW sucked) and the band was bashing Bush. seemed to me Adam, in his backhanded and retarded way of doing so, stood up for Bush by saying he really had no big problem with Bush, and that he hates the people who say "we gotta get Bush out or we're leaving the country". he toned it down by saying all politicians are idiots, etc, but seemed to be saying Kerry is not a step up from the current president anyway. What say you? —crumple1
		CauseTheEffects + Friday, September 17, 2004 at 5:24 PM no, i doubt they will vote for bush. they did say that they think Kerry is a step up from bush. if that's true, why would they vote for a step down? —CauseTheEffects
		crumple1 + Friday, September 17, 2004 at 5:33 PM i said "not a step up" ... put down the bong man ... :-) —crumple1
		Mr. Mason Jar + Friday, September 17, 2004 at 5:45 PM Adam and Drew make over 7 figures a year. I predict that a) they don't vote because they have more important things to do, or b) they vote Bush because Kerry wants to kill their tax refunds. —Mr. Mason Jar
		Farty Face + Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 12:37 AM No way adam votes. He is way way too lazy and he hates all polititions. on the other hand i no for sure that drew votes because hes a nerd and thinks its his "civic duty". Drew sounds like an economic conservative but hes obviously kinda socially liberal. So since shwarzenegger isnt in the race, I think he might vote bush. —Farty Face
		anona + Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 2:13 AM I think adam just hates mindless bashing of politicians especially when it seems like the popular thing to do, also he seems to have a bad impression of liberals since he has mentioned his mom and her weird hypocritical liberal beliefs many times in the past. I think I have heard them mention this since then and I think that they are both leaning towards kerry this time because bush seems to be driven by his crazy religion which I know both of them think is ridiculous. But I think it would be interesting if somebody called in and asked them who they are voting for... —anona
		Dark Laith + Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 7:47 AM This has been brought up before, but Adam and Drew should be running in this election, not voting in it. —Dark Laith
		Farty Face + Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 12:48 PM yes someone needs to call up and ask who they are voting for. That would be awsome. Hopefully it will get adam fired up for a nice long rant about politics. Someone should aslo tell them they can vote for Bodnarik of the libertarian party. Adam and Drew are hardcore libertarians (weather they know it or not). —Farty Face
		liloa + Saturday, September 18, 2004 at 1:20 PM I remember Adam stating several months back that he would probably vote for Bush. But then, in a more recent show with those local LA comedians as guests, they were discussing a Kerry benefit the comedians were doing and Adam sounded like he was leaning towards Kerry. Whenever these political discussions come up, Drew never seems to voice his personal opinion on the candidates. My guess is that he doesn't want to be vocal about his political views because it might jeopardize his growing career as a medical commentator on all the 24-hour news channels ... seems like he's doing more and more of this kind of work. I agree that both Adam and Drew dislike Bush because he makes decisions based on his religion, but in the end people vote with their pocket books. Adam and Drew are both in the highest income bracket and benefitted from the upper class tax breaks Bush implemented and Kerry wants to reverse. While they may not admit it, I wouldn't be surprised if Adam and Drew both vote Bush because of this reason. S'ok ... we don't need their vote in California anyways ... —liloa
		MajandraFan + Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 11:41 PM Ozomatli's music sucks. Bush Kerry whatever. Bizarrely stupid. —MajandraFan
		thesanmn + Monday, September 20, 2004 at 12:45 AM They sounded pretty pro-Bush tonight when they were talking about Bush going to Vietnam. While not exactly throwing their vote for the Republicans, it certainly sounds as if their leaning that way. I don't agree 100% with the right-wing folks, especially when it comes to the religion issues...And I am certainly not a wealthy person. However, I do aspire to be wealthy someday, which I will certainly never be if I were to leave it up to the Democrats! —thesanmn
		piesore + Monday, September 20, 2004 at 6:42 AM Ozomatli really embrace that whole angry liberal thing that I can't fucking stand. I am a liberal, there's no doubt about that in my mind, but I really hate that blindly anti-American/reactionary element, all it does is to further polarize people, when every effort should be made to try and bring understanding. But fuck, I sound like a wussburger hippie now, they suck too. Anyways, Adam said he doesn't like either. I think he's more on top of politics than many of you think, just from some of his comments, even concerning the last election. I thought last election he was encouraging people to vote for an independent candidate they actually supported. I don't know if his stance is different for this election. But what he said about Kerry is that 90 percent of his supporters were voting for him b/c they didn't Bush, and that it would be nice to have a guy to actually be into. So, I don't know about Adam. I don't know about Drew either, but could see him voting for Bush, b/c I thought it was mentioned on this board he was a republican. —piesore
		Masteel + Monday, September 20, 2004 at 9:19 AM Edited Monday, September 20, 2004 at 9:21 AM Drew will vote for Bush. Adam doesn't like those crazy bastards in the middle east, and he hates taxes. If he could take time away from red wine and napping, he would vote for Bush too. —Masteel
		crumple1 + Monday, September 20, 2004 at 12:47 PM can't judge..can't judge... towelheads with their crazy religion wants to oppress women and kill whitey... can't judge...can't judge... —crumple1
		GDG + Monday, September 20, 2004 at 8:10 PM Edited Monday, September 20, 2004 at 8:14 PM I think Adam and Drew have the problem of living in LA that they're surrounded by the majority of non-thinking liberals. Believe me, if they lived in a place where non-thinking conservatives dominated, like Texas, they'd be voicing their displeasure with the stupid things they really like to do. (banning books, trying to prohibit the teaching of evolution, wanting the ability to carry firearms wherever they want, wanting tax dollars going to churches and maintaining tax breaks for them, looking the other way when powerful corps pollute, etc, etc, etc) Wherever you go when one party of a certain mindset predominates there's going to be a lot of f***ups. Suffice to say, a lot of people are sheep and they'll just simply line up behind the majority because life is a bunch easier. I also think it's too easy now to bitch and whine about Bush and Kerry both being flawed. If you are, where were you during the primaries? Either that or are you getting behind one of the others parties like Libertarians or Green. I'm begining to hate all the pussies now that just like to bitch about how both guys are lousy because it's just an excuse to be lazy about what goes on. —GDG
		Dark Laith + Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 6:31 AM But lazy is Adam's very essence. How can you bash lazy? —Dark Laith
		ZT + Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 5:35 PM IF YOU LIKE THE IDEA OF ADAM AND DREW VOTING FOR BUSH SO MUCH, WHY DON'T YOU MASTURBATE TO IT?!?! I haven't been paying super close attention in 2004, but I know in 2000 Drew and Adam said some very kind things about Joe Liberman. —ZT
		Farty Face + Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 8:22 PM thats funny because if liberman was in charge loveline would be taken off the air. What exactly did they say they liked about him? Was it his fundamentalist religious views or his commitment to censorship to "protect the children"? —Farty Face
		ZT + Thursday, September 23, 2004 at 9:14 PM Adam liked that he was a Jew. Drew liked him because he was advocating for the same kind of cultural change that he thought was important. —ZT
		Full Meat + Sunday, September 26, 2004 at 8:30 PM I'm not weighing in with my own views, but Adam is openly jingoistic (belligerently nationalistic) and Adam said recently that "Drew approves of how we're handling things in the Middle East" to which Drew murmured an affermative. True, they both disagree strongly with the religious right, but given their views on foreign policy and taxes, I'd put my money on two votes for Bush (if Adam voted). Whatever though, this is a boring topic! —Full Meat
		ZT + Monday, September 27, 2004 at 1:05 AM Edited Monday, September 27, 2004 at 1:08 AM Apparently, even Colin Powell doesn't support what we're doing in the Middle East. Bush has nothing to do American nationalism. Bush is a theif and a liar who will glady trade America's security to horde money for his legacy. The Bush administration has weakened our international relations. The Bush administration has weakened our economy. The Bush administration has weakened our defense. The Bush administration has even systematically weakened our support for science and research. The same religious fundamentalist thinking that Bush uses to justify his attack on reproductive rights, is exactly what drives his administration's economic policy. Their quasi-religious market fundamentalism is never subject any kind of questioning, as doing so would be like questioning if a group of cells is a human life. Market fundamentalisms paints the world only in black and white. Taxes, are always bad, and tax cuts are always good. Similarly, the private sector can always spend money better than the government, and always operate more efficently -- even if they're asked to interrogate prisonsers. None of these ideas need to be tested or even should be tested, according to the Bush administration. Even if after three rounds of tax cuts the economy is sluggish, you just need to keep the faith. Just like God created the Earth in seven days, and Noah built an ark large enough to hold two of each animal on the planet -- no matter how implausible the story sounds, its heresy to question it. The fairy tale of market fundamentalism rests on the notion that anything anyone does in pursuit of their own self-interest automatically serves the common good. Ask Adam if a father walking out on his wife and daugther serves the common good sometime. If you're want a president with a strong foregin policy, and a strong moral economic vision, then you (and Adam) need to vote for John Kerry. —ZT
		Farty Face + Monday, September 27, 2004 at 1:58 PM Jesus fuck ZT. what went wrong in your life to turn you into a fucking hyisterical extreamist reactionary. No wonder you are so pissed off. THere is NO FUCKING WAY you are a democrat, your way WAY too radical for that party. Somehow you THINK you are a democrat when in reality you are more left wing then most people in the Green Party. Democrats would be embaressed to hang out with you. Why the FUCK are you voting Kerry? It makes no sense. You should check out the peace and freedom party. Are you a member of the E.L.F / P.E.T.A? Those guys might be more to your taste then the Democrat Party. Its funny when people like you talk about your political beliefs. Normal clear thinking americans look at you and get sick. They then get embarresed and try to disasociate themselves with you at all costs. You are actually HELPING bush win the election when you say shit like that. Exactly how Michael Moore singlehandedly caused Clark to lose the primary, just by publicly supporting him. —Farty Face
		ZT + Monday, September 27, 2004 at 3:30 PM :) I just gave a clear description of Bush's senseless economic policies. The Bush administration is weakening America's economy. Make no mistake about it the Bush administration is stealing from each and everyone of us, and if re-elected will continue to steal from us for another four years. Bush is the commander and cheif of the war on prosperity. Clear thinking American's know this, and know that they deserve better. American's have had enough of corporate conservative's lieing too them and taking advantage of them. It's time to put an end to market fundamentalism, and reform the depraved policies of the Bush administration. If supporting prosperity and safety makes someone "reactionary" or "hysterical," then I don't know what you would call the kind of "judgement" the Bush administration used when they decided to invaded Iraq. Insane? Demented? Psychotic? You think people are embarssed to be associated with someone supporting economic prosperity, and would rather be associated with someone who wants to steal their money and invent reasons to send their family to war? You must keep some pretty insane, demented, and psychotic company. —ZT
		Farty Face + Monday, September 27, 2004 at 3:52 PM Ahhhhh you were joking. haha good one. I fell for it you silly prankster —Farty Face
		C! + Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 4:16 PM You know, if anything, I think Adam and Drew are doing a great job of hiding their opinion. It seems like Adam is leaning towards Bush on some days and Kerry on others. I would think, based on his rants, he would vote Bush, but I could be wrong. Drew just nods or grunts in agreement or punches the mic, so he can go either way it seems. They don't have a strong position on politicians it seems... Well, they are anti-Schwazanegger (sp?!), but still, as far as presidents go, we can't. It would be an interesting call to ask for their opinion. —C!
		ZT + Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 11:16 PM Yeah, on somedays Adam seems very Pro-Bush, on other's very Pro-Kerry. Flip-floping on opinions seems to be the hallmark of great thinkers. —ZT
		laughing time is over + Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 9:01 AM Way to go ZT - I'm with you all the way. —laughing time is over
		Dark Laith + Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 10:12 AM I never understood why flip-flopping has been so criticized. If you get new information, or if you do some thinking on a subject, you may change your mind sometimes. Why's everyone so worked up about it? —Dark Laith
		Full Meat + Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 11:50 AM I think that we all want leaders who can integrate new information and use it to make the best choices. But when a leader changes in their position significantly on something, they can look fallible, uncertain, comprimising, perhaps even adrift. Certainly their credibility takes a huge hit. In general, I'd say that we prefer leaders with consistency of character and strong convictions over one that is less so. I admit that, given the above, Republicans traditionally have the edge, at least in their PR. The other side of the argument is best put by the Bertrand Russell quote: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." —Full Meat
		Magnificent Bastard + Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 3:55 PM All political candidates are the same. Can't judge. —Magnificent Bastard
		ZT + Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 7:45 PM Senator kerry clearly won tonight's debate. Bush's arguments were so weak, that all he could do was repeat his same old attacks on Senator Kerry's character. Kerry was strong, clear, and consistent throughout the entire debate. Bush couldn't justify rushing to war in Iraq. Bush continued to embarrass us infront of the rest of the world. Voting for Bush is voting for more of the same. More American's dieing in Iraq, and more money wastefully spended doing favors for Bush's corporate conservative friends winning no-bid contracts. More unemployment. More weak market fundamentalist economic policies. We can't possibly attack, imprison or kill everyone who's against us. Senator Kerry is our best chance to build strong, working, and true coalitions to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world and the trust of Iraqis. Bush doesn't, and will never, have the patience for diplomacy. —ZT
		Faygo + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 8:35 AM Kerry won the debate. For Bush supporters--> I get that Michael Moore is a douche, the phrase "Lying there were Weapons of Mass Destruction" pisses me off, Saddam getting out of power is a good thing. But the fallen soldiers and American civilians beheaded in Iraq Bush sacrificed could have been a lot less if he would have stayed in Afghanistan, have killed Osama or even better, tortured like they did in the Iraqi prison. Osama actually killed innocent Americans, Saddam killed innocent Iraquis. Which one would you go after first? Then Bush with the religious crap making it hard to study stem cell research and banning gay marriage because that makes "god cry." Tax cuts for richies, who's a richie in this board seriously? Explain all this republicans and make me understand your point of view! PLEASE! —Faygo
		Dark Laith + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 10:29 AM Edited Friday, October 1, 2004 at 10:30 AM Tax cuts for richies, who's a richie in this board seriously? Now that is a very good point. EDIT: No, I'm not a republican replying to that, I'm just saying. —Dark Laith
		crumple1 + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 12:54 PM as i understand it, if you break it down by the numbers (get a hand in...) the rich have the smallest "percentage" tax cut. these are not exact numbers.... POOR (non-tax paying people) = NO TAX CUT (only fair, you dont put anything in, can't get anything out) MIDDLE CLASS (most of us)= let's just say 13% TAX CUT (again,not exact numbers) FILTHY RICH (top 1% of population) = say 7% TAX CUT percentage-wise, the middle-class gets the highest tax cut. the filthy rich (which i heard pays for like 60% of the total taxes in this country) is actually less, but is more in terms of raw currency. i may not like it but it seems fair. we live in a capitalistic society, right? the rich, hate them as much as you like, do keep our economy going. —crumple1
		Dark Laith + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 2:31 PM Edited Friday, October 1, 2004 at 2:31 PM True, but some people believe they should be contributing even more. Then again, it does start to sound greedy when one puts it that way. EDIT: Hey, look at me! I'm flip-flopping! —Dark Laith
		Colin + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 7:27 PM Okay crumple. You've got your 13% tax cut. Now, the average price of gasoline has gone up almost 30%, college tuition has gone up about 10-15%, state and local taxes are up to help pay for a number of things all over the country, health care costs have risen to the tune of 10%+, food, housing and utilities have gone up 5%+, the average wage in this country has gone DOWN 3% since 2000, what are you left with? I'll answer this one for ya; we're in worse shape because of 43's tax cuts and now the country has the highest national debt EVER!!!!! The middle class has seen an increase in monthly spending under this president. Any arguments against those little items? I didn't think so. —Colin
		Colin + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 7:48 PM Edited Friday, October 1, 2004 at 7:50 PM So the filthy rich constitute 3,000,000 people in our country. Shrub keeps saying that it's small business that keeps our nation moving forward. In fact this summer he was shouting that "Recently 600,000 new small businesses had opened across the nation." I don't know about your knowledge on the subject, but I know the vast majority of small businesses don't turn a profit for at least a couple of years. What good is it for a family to be struggling while starting this new venture and paying some goof less than a living wage? A living wage to just get by in this country is over $20.00 per hour. $20 per hour at full time is $38,400 per year so you don't have take off your socks and use your toes to count. My point is, these great new businesses are not offering living wages for people. As much as 43 tries to make it seem like they're great, either the worker is getting screwed by a shitty wage (basically anything under $20 an hour) or the family of the owner is getting screwed bevcause the owner pays the employees too much. Let's look at a family of 4. Housing = $1200 (got to have the biggest house in the subdivision) Food = $600 (easily more; how much is that coffee drink mom and dad both buy everyday?) Utilities = $150 Transportation (includes insurance) = $1000 (fuel, 2 car payments; again, got to keep up with the neighbors) Entertainment = $100 Credit card payments (minimums of course) = $200 Child care for two rug rats full time = $1500 That's $4750 a month in expenses and I know I'm leaving out other stuff. Utilities should include the 2 cell phones mom and dad have. Anyway, add in the salaries of mom and dad each working a $20 per hour job and they bring home $4800 after taxes. Huge buffer there for things like savings for ever increasing college tuition and emergencies. Again, dispute what I've posted. EDIT = "after taxes" —Colin
		ZT + Friday, October 1, 2004 at 10:30 PM Edited Friday, October 1, 2004 at 10:44 PM The Bush administration advocates tax cuts for the corporate conservative elite. Corporations already get enormous benefits paid for by other taxpayers, but they've stopped paying their way. Corporate income tax used to make up about 38 percent of all U.S. taxes, now it's less than 10 percent. You, and me, and the rest of working-class America are shouldering the burden left by the corporate conservative elite. We're making the investments in America's infastructure, and corporate conservatives are stealing it from us for their own benefit -- that's just not fair. We, the working people, pay for the utilities corporations use everyday. Nine-tenths of the courts are specifically there for corporate law. We pay for the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the SEC, the Commerce Department, the FCC, and the courts. Corporate conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank, we pay for their infastructure, and they cut our salaries and ship our jobs over seas. Taxes are investments in the common good. Corporate conservatives aren't interested in the common good, all they're interested in is money, and they will lie, cheat, steal, and weaken our economy to get it. You want to give them tax cuts? Would you give a rapist a tax cut? You don't reward rapists, you don't reward theives, you don't reward murders, and you definately don't reward the corporate conservative elite who would steal from the working people and give to the elite while ruining our economy. —ZT
		crumple1 + Sunday, October 3, 2004 at 7:12 PM Of course the rich get rewarded...that's what motivates us to work hard, stay in school, right? lets flip-flop it...let's say we reward people for being losers... —crumple1
		ZT + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 2:55 AM Wealth and work are different things. Our economy should reward work, it shouldn't reward theives who are rich enough to steal from the people who do work, and get away with it. —ZT
		crumple1 + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 4:27 AM loser... —crumple1
		Faygo + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:02 AM For blindly Bush Supporters, Explain Bush's plan for Stem Cell Research. I rest my case. —Faygo
		crumple1 + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 10:15 AM i don't support bush. in fact, his stand on stem-cell is ridiculous. lets wait and see if his daughter get Lou-Gherigs disease, well see if he still opposes it... i am just against people whining about how the rich have it good and how that's not fair. put down the bong, hit the books or get good at what you do and go get rich. you can do that in this country. —crumple1
		Faygo + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 11:16 AM Absolutely, I completely agree with that. That's the only thing that makes sense for the Bush people. The rest is just idiocy. —Faygo
		Proc + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 1:06 PM So what are you saying, crumple... If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts for the richest 2% all of a sudden Bill Gates won't be able to make his car payments? The rich will still be the rich, and the only thing that will change is that rich people will go from making 10x as much as working class to 9.99x as much. It might hurt their pride, but with record deficits they'll have to deal with it. There's no more efficient way to generate tax money than by taxing the rich. —Proc
		clodhopper + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 3:48 PM Nope, there isn't a more effective way, and it's completely unfair. Unless you buy into the bullshit argument that rich people somehow owe society, which is really just the way people exploit them to pay for whatever they want. I think the only thing more nauseating than this self-destructive mentality is the utterings of ZT who actually believe businessmen should be equated with murderers and rapists. It's simply insane. —clodhopper
		ZT + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 10:27 PM Edited Monday, October 4, 2004 at 10:28 PM Hey Clodhopper, go ahead and go through this entire forum, and see if you can find once instance when I said businessmen were like rapists. When you can't find it, then please shut the fuck up and stop putting words in to my mouth. What I've said, which is completely true, is that Bush's economic policies enables the corporate conservative elite to steal from people who work for a living. I favor what Senator Kerry favors, which are economic policies that reward people who work for their money, not people who steal for it. I don't know why you want to twist around what I'm saying as if you're trying to side with the theives in the Bush administration who are weakening our economy and destroying our country. —ZT
		GDG + Monday, October 4, 2004 at 10:49 PM Tax cuts at the same time we've increased spending a bunch. Hmmmmmm. Some people think that the master plan is to get the US federal gov't so far in debt that only the most essential gov't programs get funded. It'll eventually happen at the rate we're going becauase the bond markets put the squeeze on the federal gov't from borrowing when our debt gets too high. (by the way, China and Japan hold a ton of our gov't bonds which reduces our economic security) Corporations will fill that vacuum of power where the gov't cannot. How come Bush hasn't said anything about cutting gov't spending? Isn't that what real conservatives are all about? Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate. —GDG
		Dark Laith + Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 10:01 AM Edited Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 10:01 AM Bush isn't a 'real' conservative, he's a neo-con. 'Real' conservatives are, for example, against the Patriot act, because it means government interference in private affairs. —Dark Laith
		crumple1 + Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 12:01 PM give us an example where the Patriot Act has violated someone's rights or interfered with their privacy in a bad way. i haven't heard of one, except for some Muslims who feel they are profiled (of course you will be idiots). until i see in the news that a persons civil liberties have been violated by the Act. i'm going to give the gov't the benefit of the doubt. —crumple1
		Dark Laith + Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 1:18 PM There were a number of Muslims whose houses were searched without warrants, and a few who were fired for 'connections to terrorist organizations' (most of these connections were later found to be false). Then again, I heard about these from my father, who is Arab and one of the crazier Muslims out there, in my opinion, so maybe he's full of crap. His religion is certainly full of crap... —Dark Laith
		clodhopper + Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 2:23 PM Edited Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 2:25 PM "Corporate conservatives aren't interested in the common good, all they're interested in is money, and they will lie, cheat, steal, and weaken our economy to get it. You want to give them tax cuts? Would you give a rapist a tax cut? You don't reward rapists, you don't reward theives, you don't reward murders, and you definately don't reward the corporate conservative elite who would steal from the working people and give to the elite while ruining our economy." You spoke of these "corporate conservatives" (businessmen) in the very same breath as rapists, theives, and murderers. Now, call me crazy, but you're grouping them all together as one big bunch of rather henious criminals. I don't believe businessmen who believe in the "common good" are better either. (I could spend forever outlining how the "public good" is perhaps the most monstrously misguided notion ever created, but there's no need to here.) I would take me more time than I have an am willing to spend to point out all the flaws in the things you've said in this thread alone. (Namely that you blame these "corporate conservatives" for actions spearheaded by the government and that's it's been things such as antitrust and regulation that have been the cause of problems in business, not the solution.) Bush's economic policies are the typical intervention-driven idea that's been used by both major parties for the past hundred years or so. The massive dips and booms in the ecomony did not exist before the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard were abolished. The very reason our economy is as volitile as it is is because of the policies of the Republican and the Democrats who poision the well, rave about hthing to cook the bookow the water was somehow tainted all along, and then insist the only antidote is more poison. I don't think you understand this idea and are just favoring one form of destructive meddling over another because you don't understand what the real necessities for a strong economy are. I certainly have no love for Bush, but I also don't pretend that Kerry will have some policies "that reward people who work for their money, not people who steal for it." That sort of vague fluff is utterly meaningless. The only way the economy will improve is if government intervention is stopped, not expanded. (In reality, it's the government that steals money and generally the workers AND businessmen who produce it.) In the meantime, clean up your language and pay attention to your own words. —clodhopper
		ZT + Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 10:33 AM You spoke of these "corporate conservatives" (businessmen) in the very same breath as rapists, theives, and murderers. Corporate conservatives aren't businessmen. In fact, most of the corporate conservative elite don't work -- not even to steal from people who do. They just be rich all day. BTW - Michael Moore has REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!! http://koti.mbnet.fi/wheany/rup/ —ZT
		clodhopper + Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 11:32 AM Edited Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 11:33 AM Right. I shouldn't have expected decent discussion on this topic here. We're all fucked come November, so I'm gonna go listen to Loveline now. —clodhopper
		ZT + Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 6:32 PM Michael Moore can make documentaries about anyone he wants! Michael Moore cuts to another scene ALL the time and doesn't even think twice about it. This guy is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that Michael Moore was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon Michael Moore found connections between the whole town and the board of directors at Halliburton. My friend Roger said that he saw Michael Moore totally write a book about some kid just because the kid opened a window. And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —ZT
		Faygo + Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 6:32 PM Edited Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 6:33 PM Stem Cell Research, it's good science forget about your religious beliefs. Against abortion, women's right to choose. Having two half ass wars. Making it illegal for gays getting married, even the vice president disagrees with the president. Many American soldiers dead in Iraq. Over 1000 Beheadings going on. Not having a god damn post war plan! Not wanting to talk to the UN and making more enemies through different countries. No weapons of mass destruction! Raise taxes to middle class people, Rich people get lowered taxes. Osama Bin Laden is still alive and out there. Iran building weapons of mass destruction. Korea having weapons of mass destruction, we didn't do anything to them and we are positive that they have some. Got a DUI, snort coke and weed. Left the air force because there's drug tests going on. Was favored because he was a Bush. He wouldn't be where he is if his last name wasn't Bush. BUSH IS ONE OF THE WORST PRESIDENTS EVER, PROBABLY WORSE THAN CLINTON. and for those who think he's smart because he went to Yale read this. Be educated, then vote. Bush and Yale —Faygo
		Magnificent Bastard + Wednesday, October 6, 2004 at 8:00 PM I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because they sometimes take a rest. Alexandre Dumas —Magnificent Bastard
		clodhopper + Thursday, October 7, 2004 at 1:40 PM I don't mean to interrupt Faygo anti-Bush jackfest, but last I recalled taxes were lowed across the board, even for the lowest bracket (the Bush tax cut actually created a bracket for the lowest class of 10%, which is considerably less than previous low 15%). The rest I have no real problem with. Whoops, left out the part where Bush has made gay marriage illegal. It hasn't happened on the federal level, he's only said he'd support an amendment, if I recall correctly. —clodhopper
		ZT + Friday, October 15, 2004 at 9:39 AM Edited Friday, October 15, 2004 at 9:40 AM Winona LaDuke, Ralph Nader's running mate in 2000, is endorsing John Kerry in 2004! "Split decision advances recognition appeals", Indian Country Today Posted: October 13, 2004 I am voting for John Kerry this November. I love this land, and I know that we need to make drastic changes in Washington if we are going to protect our land and our communities. I am committed to transforming the American democracy so that it is reflective of the diversity of this country. I believe in a multi-party system and a multi-racial democracy. I believe there are many opinions, not simply two, that merit a hearing on any issue. I believe we should be working harder to increase the numbers of people of color, women, and Native people elected to office because we are this country and we are what America looks like. I'm voting my conscience on Nov. 2; I'm voting for John Kerry. This does not mean that John Kerry will be a perfect leader. Nor does it mean that any of us should give Kerry a pass simply because he is a rational alternative to the most destructive administration in recent memory. But he has earned my support, even if the leaders of his party aren't quite with the program. I regret that the Democratic Party is investing positive, grassroots energy in a campaign to deny ballot access to Ralph Nader - grassroots energy that is needed in these urgent times. I support wholeheartedly Ralph Nader's right to run and be on the ballot in all states. In a true democracy, the right to be on the ballot in all states and the right to participate in the presidential debates would be guaranteed. That's what democracy is. We must continue to work to make this ideal of democracy the reality in America. For the past two elections, I've run for the office of vice president. Sometimes you run for vice president and sometimes you work on putting up wind towers. In either case, you are working to bring about a better future for your children. In 2004, I decided the direct action I could take to help put up wind towers in my community would be more effective at curbing global climate change than another run for office. On White Earth, Pine Ridge and on reservations throughout the Midwest and Great Plains, we are working to develop the wind resource on Native lands. And the electricity generation potential of the wind in Native communities represents about half of present U.S. installed electrical consumption. I believe we can combust ourselves to oblivion, or we can move to alternative energy. In the largest energy market in the world, your power supplier - particularly if you're a junkie like America - impacts your democracy. I was proud of John Kerry when he called the $87 billion s pent in Iraq a ''Halliburton Slush Fund.'' It is, and we need to recognize that. Now if we could only get Kerry to pledge to 25 percent development of the wind potential of Native communities during his first term in office we could really get excited. John Kerry provides promise for Native America and for America. His policy proposals involve vision - like alternative energy, more accessible health care, and finding all those children who have been ''left behind'' by the Bush administration. Heck, Kerry can even say ''sovereignty,'' which is a far cry from Bush's inability to pronounce the word. It is true that Kerry has not yet paid close enough attention to his base. But once in office, I know he will find himself and remember who we are. I've spoken with his staff and received some encouraging answers. He is more interested in solving than litigating the Indian Trust case. He wants to move federal policies to support Native communities, whether Native farmers, businesspeople or tribal governments. We are on his radar; this is a beginning. Kerry offers other reasons for hope. He opposes converting Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump. He noted in the first debate that America cannot demand that other countries dispose of their nukes while we are busy engineering new ones. He should find the courage to say that a right to life extends to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and children affected by our weapons. Kerry needs to make the rich pay their share, and end corporate welfare - I have heard some inklings of that. And while Kerry may be a diamond in the rough on issues like genetic modification, tribal budgets and building a more inclusive democracy, he has potential. And this is far more than what we can say for his opponent. By Nov. 2, 2004, John Kerry will have earned my vote. Winona LaDuke, Ojibwe from the White Earth reservation, is program director of Honor the Earth, a national Native American environmental justice program. She served as the Green Party vice presidential candidate in the 1996 and 2000 elections. She can be reached at wlhonorearth@earthlink.net. —ZT
		clodhopper + Friday, October 15, 2004 at 10:26 AM One more reason not to vote for John Kerry--or anyone for that matter. —clodhopper
		Farty Face + Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 8:38 AM Hooray the green party!!! ive heard better arguments fromt he ku klux klan This election is a fucking joke and adamn is right about not voting. ALL of you should not vote. none of you are "informed" on anything. Thats a good question. what does "informed" mean. well it literrally takes HOURS of reading everyday to make yourself informed on politics. This is impossible for 99% of the population. The debates just make this problem worse. Example: In the debates they asked them both about if its a good idea to import drugs from canada. the pro argument litterally takes you 3 seconds to explain: "im in favor of lower price drugs". the con argument takes at least 5 to 10 minutes to explain. same with the asault weapons ban. the pro argument: "MURDER IS BAD". what does the con argument take? at least 10 minutes of explanation. so what is the result? millions of ignorent voters think drugs from canda and "cosmetic features ban" is a good idea. this leads to the bull shit of BOTH canidates economic plans. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp look at that. over 300 economists, including 9 nobel prize winners, say kerrys economic plan would be DISASTEROUS (they also say Bushes plan sucks too). But does anyone care? hell no. why? because 99% of the population is retarded. please dont vote unless you are an econ/governemnt major —Farty Face
		clodhopper + Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 9:44 AM Actually, you can reject many of the plans proposed by either candidate or party out of hand without a ton of research a good number of them logically don't make sense. I do agree, most people have zero idea of what the policies these candidates propose actually entail. It's not merely a matter of wanting drug prices lower or more jobs to be created; one can't just go out and do either. People either don't know or don't care that all of these programs come at a cost--a cost that's simply picked up the unwilling taxpayer. And I say people shouldn't vote not on the basis of being informed or not, becuase in voting they legitimize a system that strips every individual of liberty in one way or another. Voting is almost always a gamble which people lose. Yet you're a fool--or that you can't complain--if you don't vote, even though the non-voter is the only person who sees the system for what it is: a lose-lose proposition. They're the only ones who cAN complain. —clodhopper
		ZT + Sunday, October 17, 2004 at 10:14 PM Let me tell you what I know about politics... We'll, actually, it would sound a lot like what Bill Clinton said at the 2004 DNC. To build that kind of world we must make the right choices; and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must. We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to. They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror. Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Vote, and vote for the party that wants the best for you -- Vote Democrat. Don't vote for the republican party thats just trying take advantage of you and lie to you so that they can get richer while you get poorer. You don't need a Ph. D. in political science to vote, you just need to listen to your conscious and your sense of integrity. I'm confident that when you'll do, you'll vote for the party of strength, safety, and compassion -- the Democrats. —ZT
		Colin + Sunday, October 17, 2004 at 10:17 PM It's documented that Karl Rove told republican members of congress to use 9/11 as a tool to help get them elected for the midterm elections in 2002. I'll look for it. —Colin
		Colin + Sunday, October 17, 2004 at 10:28 PM Less than 19 weeks after the 9/11 attacks, top White House adviser Karl Rove gave a speech on 1/19/02 urging fellow conservatives to "go to the country" on issues surrounding the War on Terror, an invitation to politicize national security in an election year, as he claimed Americans trust conservatives to do a better job of "protecting America." The NYT noted that the White House had effectively "rolled out of a strategy branding anyone who questions the administration as 'giving aid and comfort to our enemies,'" as Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) said. It's available here, but I think it's a join up to look kind of thing. —Colin
		Magnificent Bastard + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 7:59 AM You don't need a Ph. D. in political science to vote, you just need to listen to your conscious and your sense of integrity. I'm confident that when you'll do, you'll vote for the party of strength, safety, and compassion -- the Democrats. —ZT BWAHAHAHA! I think I'll vote my conscience and make the educated, reasonable and rational decision and vote for George W. Bush. Remember kiddies, just Flush the Johns in '04! —Magnificent Bastard
		Dark Laith + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 9:46 AM You don't need a Ph. D. in political science to vote, you just need to listen to your conscious and your sense of integrity. I'm confident that when you'll do, you'll vote for the party of strength, safety, and compassion -- the Democrats. You have more confidence in the integrity of the human scum than I do. —Dark Laith
		Farty Face + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 2:36 PM colin you are a fucking ignorant shitface. Why did you not balance out your reply by mentioning some of the bullshit the democrats lie about? Because youre a fucking partisan hack and you intentionally ignore all the democrat bull shit. You are a liar plain and simple. Why didnt you mention any of the retarded scare tactics the dems tried to use like: The phony threat of the draft Enron and haliburton influence on foreign policy John Edwards claim that "If you vote for Kerry, paralyzed people will get up out of their wheelchairs and walk again" NO WAR 4 OIL "tax cuts for the rich" Racism Racism Racism And ZT... your gimmick is starting to get old. Your first few posts in this thread were funny as hell. It was a good joke, but now its getting lame. Please switch to another gimmick. I love how the Democrats get so pissed when ignorant people are encouraged not to vote. Says a lot about them dont you think? Just take a look at the letter shawn Pean wrote to the south park guys. LOL You guys want to know what Democrats really think of their supporters? In California we had a big move to try and make Election day a state holiday so that it would be easier for people to vote. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WAS AGAINST IT. Why? Because they were concerned that it would help republican's more because all the democratic voters would "go to the beach" instead of voting. In California we also had a move to try and cut down on the number of poll stations and instead try and make most people vote by absentee ballot. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WAS AGAINST IT. why? Because they were concerned that it would hurt them because their voters were not as likely as the republican voters to be competent enough to follow all the directions on the ballot. Oh and for all you arm chair economists. Read this. Its so simple even a high school student like Collin can understand it. "How Taxes Work . . . This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!! Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!" —Farty Face
		Dark Laith + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 2:41 PM Edited Monday, October 18, 2004 at 2:42 PM The phony threat of the draft Hasn't been decisively proven phony... yet. We'll have to wait on that one. —Dark Laith
		clodhopper + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 3:06 PM Edited Monday, October 18, 2004 at 3:11 PM "Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world." This is nonsense. The Republicans and Democrats both support a large welfare-warfare state which heavily taxes business and individuals, desires to foolishly regulate the economy, and both promote the idea that "we're all in this together" and responsibile for each other. There is VERY little ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats. Both advocate the same heavily statist policies, just for marginally different means. It's all a matter of who gets screwed and who does the screwing--neither will actually advocate that no one be screwed over. "You don't need a Ph. D. in political science to vote, you just need to listen to your conscious and your sense of integrity. I'm confident that when you'll do, you'll vote for the party of strength, safety, and compassion -- the Democrats." I'm not sure what's worse, that you actually said that or that you actually believe it. (God I hope no one really does.) If I actually felt I could make a difference with voting, I'd vote Libertarian, and I'm not even crazy about that party since they're so diluted ideologically. Vote Democrat and you're essentially fooling yourself into getting something besides the status quo. You won't really be better off, but they'll use nifty rhetoric like that to convince you that they will do something for you--the real cost be damned. —clodhopper
		Colin + Monday, October 18, 2004 at 3:19 PM colin you are a fucking ignorant shitface. First of all, this is really indicative of neo-cons methods of debate. A position is put forth by a progressive and then BAM!, the neo-cons come out with personal attacks. Just so we all know what they're up to> Why did you not balance out your reply by mentioning some of the bullshit the democrats lie about? Because youre a fucking partisan hack and you intentionally ignore all the democrat bull shit. You are a liar plain and simple. How is it my place to point out their deficiencies? That's your job. Obviously, it isn't possible without personal attacks, but again, we know where you come from now. Why didnt you mention any of the retarded scare tactics the dems tried to use like: The phony threat of the draft Enron and haliburton influence on foreign policy John Edwards claim that "If you vote for Kerry, paralyzed people will get up out of their wheelchairs and walk again" NO WAR 4 OIL "tax cuts for the rich" Racism Racism Racism The draft threat has not been disproved. Bush saying he won't is pretty suspect after all the other promises he's broken. Not increasing the deficit, for one. He also promised he'd make health care more affordable. Since 2000, health care costs have risen an average of 12.5% Halliburton's influence is so obvious, it's nearly knocking people over when they read about it. Why has the WH fought so hard to keep secret the panel of industry heads who sculpted Bush's energy policy? It's not because they are afraid that "Future collaborators would be less likely to offer help" like they have be saying. Think about this: the administration has spent millions on fighting this in court. Millions of our dollars. I'd love to see this quote from a newspaper website about what Edwards said about people in wheelchairs. Or is it something that RushBeckHannity said and you took it as gospel? The fall of Saddam has brought terrorism to Iraq. They were a secular nation before March 2003. Now, the clerics and Muslim leaders are all vying for power. Coupled with Jordanians orchestrating attacks on convoys and troops, Iraq is not better off than before Saddam was taken out. The war is definitely about oil. Why else would the pipelines be attacked? Do the terrorists hate the Iraqis who would stand to gain from oil exports? 1/3 of the tax c