Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a
clear attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some
issues, notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is
somewhat tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been
adamant his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are
trying to do is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use
only those techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence
he's in lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up
at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest.
Look, the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure
cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or
any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in
favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government
and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation
and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is
one of the largest challenges facing us today?
It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about
and it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains
a lot..)

nate


Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government
and to usurp the Constitution.

you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate
you are a Liberal.


Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would
actually expand government less than another republican
administration.

Like they have in the past?
Obama and the Chicago political machine shows otherwise.
nate


Based on WHAT?
you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)

Bush did lie. If you can't accept that there's no point in discussing
anything with you, as no evidence that can be presented can convince you
that the One True Shrub is anything but infallible. It is so obvious,
so incontrovertible that Bush (and Cheney etc. etc. etc.) are liars and
regularly push the law to its limits and sometimes beyond that it is
impossible to have rational discussion with anyone who holds otherwise.

nate

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel