lol. Nader all the way baby.

I wish Nader had a chance, but unfortunately at these awful times we're leaving is either Bush or Kerry and I am definetely going for Kerry to the center; Bush is just too extreme right for me.

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere. I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now? Under clinton most definitely. The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window. Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are.

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere. I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now? Under clinton most definitely. The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window. Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are.

Indeed... I think Kerry will really bring some sense into the White House, plus I am sure he will be working with the last decent Republicans left in Congress... He can bring some unity to the country... That is if the Neocons want to work for the better of the country and not for themselves... :blink:

I'm afraid that bringing anyone together is an impossibility. I'm hoping for extreme conflict that ends up in more sound fiscal policies.

The clinton presidency cannot be compared with the bush presidency, because at the time of the clinton's presidency the economy was at the forefront now its the whole national security bit. Bush may have spent a lot but we dont know how much Kerry will spend and thats my fear, because this isnt peacetime like it was during clinton's time. And Soriano you have to much faith in a republican congress being overrun by 'neocons' And I assure you that Bush isnt far right, neocon does not equal right wing, again the true conservative is the classical liberal, so 'far right' in american politcis is a true classical liberal. Kerry is not a moderate either, hes no clinton,he is left leaning (not far left but left leaning) and he will not cut spending abroad b/c its too late for that and he will increase domestic spending for his new medicare programs and such. If he were to say lets get rid of domestic wasteful spending and reallocate those funds to useful sources then id defintely agree with him. Maintaining a failing status quo but further increasing size and scope of government to better our domestic programs is against what i believe is best.

The clinton presidency cannot be compared with the bush presidency, because at the time of the clinton's presidency the economy was at the forefront now its the whole national security bit.

 

This is a fake war. Sure, people are dying, but Bush made unnecessarily expensive foreign entanglements. So yes, I can compare one expensive administartion to a less expensive one. Don't give me this "War on terror" crap, the war in afghanistan was 20 billion dollars, iraq is now up to 300 billion.

 

And Soriano you have to much faith in a republican congress being overrun by 'neocons' And I assure you that Bush isnt far right, neocon does not equal right wing, again the true conservative is the classical liberal, so 'far right' in american politcis is a true classical liberal. Kerry is not a moderate either, hes no clinton,he is left leaning (not far left but left leaning) and he will not cut spending abroad b/c its too late for that and he will increase domestic spending for his new medicare programs and such. If he were to say lets get rid of domestic wasteful spending and reallocate those funds to useful sources then id defintely agree with him. Maintaining a failing status quo but further increasing size and scope of government to better our domestic programs is against what i believe is best.

With a democrat as president, the republicans will be forced to oppose expensive fiscal policies. Don't believe me? Look at every other democrat presidency and how the republican party acted (Truman, Johnson, Clinton, etc.)

We have spent a lot more money than just on those 2 wars fake or real. We have increased security around the nation and have modified agencies. All this costs money, so the fact remains that the clinton peacetime presidency cannot be compared with bush in terms of spending b/c those were different times. Regardless of anyones opinion on Iraq, it is still a war and the country is different now than then. And if you can where did you read that afghanistan is only 20 billion

We have spent a lot more money than just on those 2 wars fake or real. We have increased security around the nation and have modified agencies. All this costs money, so the fact remains that the clinton peacetime presidency cannot be compared with bush in terms of spending b/c those were different times.

 

What you are speaking of is the increase in government bureaucracy thanks to Bush.

 

I can't remember if I said it hear, but a balance of powers is essential. When one party controls all of the branches the republicans loose the incentive to demand government efficiency. In this case you have to cut off the thumb to save the hand and Bush is no thumb I'm going to miss.

 

And if you can where did you read that afghanistan is only 20 billion

 

/the war initially costed this much, it was passed in that intial bill which gave 20 billion to NYC and ect and the other 20 billion to fight. This was passed in 2001, so forgive me for my bad memory.

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere. I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now? Under clinton most definitely. The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window. Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are.

For the first time in my entire life on this forum I wholeheartly agree with Sorianofan... :blink:

Excerpt of interview of Bill Maher in Admin King on the "Nader Factor", check this out Shammy!!! :lol

 

KING: Should Nader leave the race?

 

MAHER: Well, it's a moot point because he never will. I don't think that

he's going to hurt Kerry.

 

KING: No?

 

MAHER: I really don't because I think...

 

KING: Every vote he gets is a vote -- potential -- it's not getting a Bush

vote, is it?

 

MAHER: That's not true. It's just like in television. Sometimes they play

a show that people really like to see, and they say, Well, you know, it

didn't hurt "CSI." It brought in a whole new audience. In other words,

they -- some powerhouse show ran up against it, and it wasn't that people

left "CSI." The same people who were going to watch it watched it. But

this brought in a new audience. I think it's the same thing with Ralph

Nader. Plus, nobody I know who voted Ralph Nader last time, including

myself -- and I do love Ralph -- is going to vote for him this time.

 

KING: Why do you still love him, if his ego appears to have run wild?

 

MAHER: Well, I can't help it. I mean, Ralph has done so many amazing...

 

KING: Great American.

 

MAHER: ... amazing things for this country. I do think he probably

shouldn't run this time just because it's so important. But I think

everybody last time who thought, Oh, Gore and Bush, you know, Coke and

Pepsi -- you know, we realized it wasn't Coke and Pepsi, it was Coke and

Jesus juice. And that's the choice we got, and that's who we got.

 

"It wasn't Coke and Pepsi, it was Coke and Jesus Juice" :rofl :rofl

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere. I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now? Under clinton most definitely. The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window. Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are.

For the first time in my entire life on this forum I wholeheartly agree with Sorianofan... :blink: you don't fully agree with my stance on immigration? that makes two things.

I honestly think that KErry will wind up with less government spending, because I really do not see republican legislative dominance going anywhere.? I ask you conservatives, what times were fiscally better, the republicans in power under clinton or now?? Under clinton most definitely.? The government needs checks and balances, but with one party in control everywhere, that is thrown out the window.? Honestly, fiscal conservatism will do far better under Kerry than Bush, and that is a testament to how truly scary these times are.

For the first time in my entire life on this forum I wholeheartly agree with Sorianofan... :blink: you don't fully agree with my stance on immigration? that makes two things. Ok two things.

:thumbup thank you