You sound like a terrorist to me. You moderates are all the same. BURN’EM ALL and then rape their donkey eat their young.
You’ll stop taking me seriously now, won’t you?
GO!
I just know liberals better than they know themselves.
They’re offended by harsh reality.
Now, if I were to blow sunshine up their bums (and still make the same point(s) they’d find it more acceptable.
They’re fun to play with.
Are you playing, or being serious?
I contend that the war and increased military spending is pro terror since it facilitates recruitment.
Rebut me.
Damn, Token White Guy! You’ve now used the same parody website to bolster (heh) your arguments (heh again) that Kerry is the worst thing to come along since rat poison with ground up puppies.
And you want people to believe that you’re moderate in any way shape or form?
If so, you’ve got a really crappy way of demonstrating it.
I’m not on welfare (federal or parental - unlike you libs) and need to get back to work.
I’ll return Noon Central Time.
Don’t hurry on our account.
Already done.
Wanna bet? A certain event, happening soon, should prevent that.
It certainly does:
We’ll see.
That seems to have hurt you in particular. Maybe we can ask for a supplemental appropriations bill to get you some.
No, actually they don’t.
Could yo be so kind as to link to the specific bills that you are referring to so I may examine the source douments myself as thoroughly as you did?
I hate to have to take these sorts of thing only on the basis of hearsay.
[Moderator Hat ON]
If you want to insult Token’s intelligence, do it in the Pit. Token had best learn the rules of this forum immediately, but as long as he is in GD you will follow the GD rules.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/art/ 7/31 Cartoon
Amazing similarities between Bush and ObL:
Both gave up alcohol due to religion
Both were born in powerful families and rich
Both did business with the Saudis
Both are against Gay marriage
Both talk about God on their side
Saddam hates both of them… check the cartoon out.
If Osama were an american he would be doing the same things Bush is doing… attacking “evil” and fighting the alien culture.
Apparently that means NO SARCASM. Or no truth.
The personal attacks against me far exceed anything I’ve written.
I can tone things down though. But what fun is that?
Or debate apparently.
SentientMeat put it up to you. Do you have anything to say to him?
I agree its not fun having to deal with facts and truly debating things… all that is left is calling people liberals.
No, actually, the informal rules are that when people ask you to back up your claims, you provide the evidence, a courtsey usually known as “put up, or shut up.” You are claiming that John Kerry’s voting record proves he is pro-terror. You made the claim, you back it up with some actual facts. Kerry has a long record of voting both for and against all manner of bills, often for different reasons and purposes. Please cite those which you think are particuarlly harmful to the war on terror. Also, you might want to make sure that they aren’t bills or cuts which, say, Dick Cheney or George Bush the 1st didn’t also support, or which the Republicans ultimately made even BIGGER cuts on.
On these boards, people aren’t particularly impressed by bold claims with no evidence or argument to back them up. That’s the reason you’ve been met with smirks and derision: so far, you’re completely beneath anyone taking you seriously.
TWG
If you’d please post links to the parts of the relevant sections Congressional record that you’re wanting to discuss then we could all examine the voting record for ourselveas throroughly as you have. After such an examination, the debate could begin.
Until there’s at least that, there’s just not a debate here. What you’ve doen is to make claims without offering any support for them. This doesn’t make for much of a debate. It does work well for something like playing the dozens.
Don’t have tone anything down, but please bring facts and citations so that others can examine you case on its merits.
Good Luck
Just to play devil’s advocate… On the GOP web page (actually I don’t know if that’s an official page) it says:
I don’t see how a 1970 statement is relevant now, but is there an explanation on why the 1995 vote was a good idea at the time, while it now appears that intelligence agencies are vital and possibly inadequate.
(I don’t mean to support TWG but I keep hearing that claim on right-wing radio and I’m curious.)
[QUOTE=scr4]
"
1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)"
is there an explanation on why the 1995 vote was a good idea at the time, while it now appears that intelligence agencies are vital and possibly inadequate.
QUOTE]
It’s not legitimate to take a bare number and make a conclusion. It would be necessary to go back, read what the terms of H.R. 2076 were and what the pros and cons were at the time. After all, the thing was adopted so there must have been plenty of support. Would the 9 R’s who voted for it also be accused of supporting terrorism in 2004 for having voted for it in 1995?
Maybe, in light of the 9/11 commission report, maintaining FBI funding would only be “throwing money” at the wrong problem. There is no evidence whatever that increases FBI and CIA money in 1995 would have been applied to counter terrorism at that time.