Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Because it would be hypocritical to blast Bush for it, just to turn around and do it yourself. 95027[/snapback] Ooh, a Democrat who's also a hypocrite? That'd be news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Because it would be hypocritical to blast Bush for it, just to turn around and do it yourself. 95027[/snapback] Kinda like GB asking Kerry how he is going to pay for programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Kinda like GB asking Kerry how he is going to pay for programs? 95162[/snapback] Yup. Seeing a pattern yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Yup. Seeing a pattern yet? 95173[/snapback] That's why I'm voting for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I don't think that Kerry will make the mistakes that Bush made of going too far to the right and losing the support of moderate Democrats. He will be more moderate like Clinton to get the support of moderate Republicans. 94589[/snapback] What of Kerry's voting record and history in Congress gives you this impression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 That's a double edged sword though. I agree, spending has been an issue with me regarding GW. Spite and venom will roll though our congressional halls like never before. If you thought it was bad during Bush's Presidency, just wait for this one. If that's what you want, A Kerry presidency will be a looked at as failure. 94576[/snapback] One of the reasons for growth under Clinton had to be the gridlock. The Republicans have grown the govt at unprecedented levels, even if you take homeland security out of the numbers (the article removing the homeland security numbers is at CATO). It's really shocking what the Republicans are truly up to. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 One of the reasons for growth under Clinton had to be the gridlock. The Republicans have grown the govt at unprecedented levels, even if you take homeland security out of the numbers (the article removing the homeland security numbers is at CATO). It's really shocking what the Republicans are truly up to. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans? 95575[/snapback] Their Kool-Aid is tastier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 One of the reasons for growth under Clinton had to be the gridlock. The Republicans have grown the govt at unprecedented levels, even if you take homeland security out of the numbers (the article removing the homeland security numbers is at CATO). It's really shocking what the Republicans are truly up to. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans? 95575[/snapback] Because an all-democrat government gave us Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare and numerous other HUGE government wasters. That's why. It's the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 One of the reasons for growth under Clinton had to be the gridlock. The Republicans have grown the govt at unprecedented levels, even if you take homeland security out of the numbers (the article removing the homeland security numbers is at CATO). It's really shocking what the Republicans are truly up to. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans? 95575[/snapback] I had agreed with you earlier, with regard to the spending. Maybe I'm rationalizing, but there are alot of tangibles that have been discussed here at great length as to why the deficit has grown. Some I agree with some I don't. As far as the Clinton analogy, he had to move toward the center. Kerry, on the other hand, never has. His record speaks for itself. He has none. I'm surprised your only shock is with the republicans. I thought you equally despised both parties. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans? Simple really, Defense. The Dems, going back to the Clinton years have a history of cutting defense. And again, Mr. Kerry's record in the Senate is abysmal. Putting the security of this nation under this man, in my opinion, is dangerous. A couple for you, Do you really think Kerry will move toward the center for any of his proposed legislation if elected? And, would you be surprised if he were able to get any tax increases through, plus raise the minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Their Kool-Aid is tastier? 95579[/snapback] I dont drink Kool-Aid. BTW, maybe it should really be called Fool-Aid, with a spritz of Kerry on the side with a little umbrella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 ...with a spritz of Kerry on the side with a little umbrella. 95637[/snapback] You want stevestojan in your drink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 You want stevestojan in your drink? 95641[/snapback] Apparently, some do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts