2006 Senate Midterm Elections (or "Who do you want to ruin America this time?")

[mr_pikachu]

November 7 is a big day for the U.S. Senate, as Democrats will attempt to wrest control from the Republicans, who have held the Senate Majority since 2002.

33 Senate seats will be contested this year. Of those uncontested, 40 are Republicans and 27 are Democrats. The Republican Party must hold 10 seats in order to preserve a 50-50 tie in the Senate. (They would retain the majority, as Vice President Cheney breaks all ties in the Senate, giving the edge to the Republican Party.)

Due to recent events both foreign and domestic, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to swipe the seats they need to win the Senate. This has Republicans playing defense in order to win several extremely close races.

Below are the states in which Senate seats are up for grabs.


Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


According to the current totals compiled by Rasmussen Reports, eight of the 33 races appear to be safe wins for Republicans, while Democrats look to control 17. Three more races are leaning somewhat toward the Democrats. This leaves the GOP with 48 seats, Democrats with 47, and five races that are too close to call. Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Jersey may be the most critical states in deciding what party controls the Senate for the next two years.

So, what are your thoughts on this year's Senate elections? Which party do you think will win the Senate, and who do you want to control it? C'mon, I know you have something to say!

[Roy Karrde]

FINALLLY A political topic.

Anyway a fairly down the line talk show in the DFW area did the numbers a few days ago and it looked around 50 for Republicans and 48 for Democrats. That is until John Kerry decided to comit political suicide and possibly take his whole party with him. Now the news of what he has said has been circulating around and it has energised alot of people that have friends and loved ones in Iraq. Ever since it has happened people have been calling up saying that they are pissed as hell, and didn't plan to vote on election day, but now will just to get back at John Kerry.

And this radio show is not Rush, this guy: Mark Davis, spent a hour today talking about it and even admitted that we should give Kerry the benifit of a doubt about messing up. Anyway if emotions are this strong in Dallas, which is the second biggest liberal state in Texas next to Austin. Then I can't even imagine what reaction is around the rest of the US and how much the democrats will lose.

As for who I want to win? There was a AP story that came out yesterday saying that several middle eastern countries hope that Democrats win so that Bush will be forced to take less of a hard line against Syria and Iran. I think that right there tells you who shouldn't win and what our enemies are hoping for in the outcome of this election.

[Jeff]

Maryland has been leaning to the left in our Senate race but Steele (R) and Cardin (D) have been neck and neck a couple of times, so it could be close, you never know.

We also have the governor's seat up for grabs, incumbent Bob Ehrlich (R) vs. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D). As you can tell by my sig I'm voting for Ehrlich, I've been rooting for him ever since he had the you-know-whats to stand up to the democrat-controlled legislature by vetoing their Wal-Mart bill and their minimum wage hike. Both vetos were overridden, but at least he showed he didn't want business leaving the state. Too bad it's backfiring on him, O'Malley's ads are now attacking him for "siding with the corporations" by vetoing those bills. I hate election year politics, I really do, that's why I'm voting for the guy that didn't put up with that BS back at the beginning of the year. So yes, I am definitely voting!

Edit: oh yeah, and I completely forgot about Kerry, that might be the reason for Steele's latest boost (neck and neck now). And I can't believe Kerry tried to spin around his comment and try and claim he meant Bush and not the troops, when his exact words were "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Those were his exact words, straight from the horse's mouth (sorry couldn't resist that one ), and it seems alot of other people aren't buying his excuse either. All I can say now is that these races are going to be pretty interesting now.

Edit again, found quote...

[mr_pikachu]

Yeah, I forgot to mention that. The "joke" could end up being a significant factor, despite Kerry not competing for any seat himself. That's the sort of statement that could really wound his party at a critical time.

I have to say, I liked Cheney's (somewhat predictable) response: "Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it."

We'll see if and how this shifts the balance in the close races.

[Blademaster]

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

...

That's it? That's what everyone has been pitching a fit about?

...Hm, gee...

The guys from that 'Is this what you'd expect from your military' topic a few months ago are in Iraq...

...And guys like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are hanging around in the U.S. doing something that actually helps people.

Well, no wonder people are so angry.

[Roy Karrde]

Ummm Blade that made no sense. Anyway yeah that is why everyone is so mad. Basically he degraded the military, he attacked those that put their lives on the line each and every day. He called them either lazy, stupid, or a combination of such. Either way this is a US Representative that is attacking those that have decided to devote their life to this country. And his three day refusal to apologize makes it even worse. Democrats and such can spin it so much that it makes a tornado, but in the end he said something hurtful to those that are in the army and he should have apologized the first day. Not the second, not the third, not the millionth, but the first day. Instead he spent 72 hours trying to spin it and lie about it, and he deserves what ever fall out he and his party gets from it.

[mr_pikachu]

Valid point, Roy. It's especially damaging because of the time at which he did this. At the end of campaigns, candidates have to be extremely fast at responding to attacks - it's a matter of hours, not days. Kerry waiting for a full three days while allowing his party to take a bunch of heat could potentially be the turning point.

And Blade, I think the point is that he essentially called our soldiers, who have been dying on a daily basis for the U.S., "stupid" and "undisciplined." Any validity his point may have had is disregarded when he's insulting people who are falling for their nation. It's not the time or the place.

[Blademaster]

......

Uh...... K.

Good point.

...He waited three days? Damn it... I gotta start watching the news...

No, that's too painful - I'll just avoid topics like this. Sorry.

(leaves)

[mr_pikachu]

Do you think I watch the news? Hell no! I read stuff off the internet to get my information!

The way I see it, all television, newspaper and even radio media is now so heavily biased that it's impossible to get a clear picture of the world. At least with the net, I can roll the dice and pray that what I'm seeing is accurate.

Don't leave, Blademaster. We want you around; after all, even if you're not always right, you can still help to inspire discussion. ^_^

[Blademaster]

(comes back)

Well, thanks.

And I used to get info from the Comcast homepage, but now that I have my own laptop, I just turn the Internet Explorer on and come right here. Being lazy is a blessing and a curse...

But I will agree on two counts:

1. TV and radio are Hella-biased, not to mention boring as Hell. At least the Internet is easy on the eyes and you can come back later when you get bored.

2. Getting somewhere back on topic, Kerry waiting three days was a pretty stupid decision, but in all honesty, was one bad joke really that big of a screw-up? I mean, Bush, who has probably screwed up more than any President in U.S. history (which I won't say I agree or disagree with), gets re-elected for a second presidential term... And Kerry may lose the Senate election for a joke?

I mean, I don't care if Kerry wins, loses, goes back to the Addams Family manor, whatever, but if he loses primarily because of a joke...

When I first saw this topic, I thought it said 'Who do you want to RUN America this time... But now I see it says 'ruin.'

Hmmmmmmmm...

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah Blade stick around man, we havn't had a good discussion in like forever.

Anyway Bush always gets blamed for his mistakes, hell we even named it called Bushisms, yet Kerry should get a free pass? He should get ridiculed just as much Bush does, and you know if Bush said something like this. He would be flamed to pieces.

Also one thing I don't get is people always say "Bush is screwed up" or "Bush screws up" I wanna ask how so? We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years, the stock market is doing huge, consumer confidence is high, industries are raking in record growth. And for the first time in a long time America is not seen as a Paper Tiger that can be pushed around. Bush's domestic and economic policies are doing great things for this country, yet people say he is screwed up. My question is what is he screwing up?

[mr_pikachu]

Also one thing I don't get is people always say "Bush is screwed up" or "Bush screws up" I wanna ask how so? We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years, the stock market is doing huge, consumer confidence is high, industries are raking in record growth. And for the first time in a long time America is not seen as a Paper Tiger that can be pushed around. Bush's domestic and economic policies are doing great things for this country, yet people say he is screwed up. My question is what is he screwing up?

People are upset because war costs lives.

...

...Yeah. That's about it.

I will admit that maybe we could afford to move to the next stage of our plan for Iraq, because it does seem like all we're doing now is spinning our wheels with little effect. I think we might be able to turn over more control to the Iraqis, because it won't get much better than it is now. But then again, I never would've gotten us this far, so who am I to judge?

[Blademaster]

Yeah Blade stick around man, we havn't had a good discussion in like forever.

Good discussion? I had to give up like halfway through because you were too smart and verbose (whatever the typed version of 'verbose' is) for me!

Anyway Bush always gets blamed for his mistakes, hell we even named it called Bushisms, yet Kerry should get a free pass?

Oh, no no no no no, by all means, I agree - all I'm saying is that I don't think that if/when Kerry loses, he shouldn't solely (or primarily) because of a joke. I won't defend what he said as 'freedom of speech' or whatever else, but considering some of the royal screw-ups in the history of the country (not by Bush, eiter, but by folks like Nixon, Clinton, Raegan, etc.), I really think it'd be unfair for Kerry to lose over a joke, as opposed to something more pressing like being un-qualified for the postion he's running for (Not that I think he is - I don't follow politics, so I don't know if he's the man for the job or not.).

We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years

Wait, seriously? I thought the country had like an $8,00,000,000,000 deficit or something...

Or is that something else that I should've researched before saying?


EDIT:

But then again, I never would've gotten us this far, so who am I to judge?

Why, because you're the Judge of Everything, of course!

[Jeff]

Budget =/= economy.

Stock market & GDP = ecomomy.

The Dow has recently hit the 12000 milestone and continues to climb, we're doing alright

[mr_pikachu]

Well, Kerry isn't up for re-election; he'll retain his Senate seat. The main thing this has done is to take some of the heat off the Republicans - especially for their connections to Bush, whose popularity is steadily declining - and to create an easy target for the Democratic Party as a whole. Kerry's not hurting himself, per se, but he's damaged the image of his party.

[Roy Karrde]

The country has a high national debt, that is true, we do that by spending and spending. But you do not try to balance your budget when facing a National Depression as what happened post 9/11. Back in the Great Depression the Presidents thought it would be smart to try and balance the budget instead of spend, in the end we spent ten plus years in a depression. It wasn't until we started spending and spending and growing a debt and such in World War 2 that we came out of the Depression.

But what I mean by saying National Economic Growth is that with the Bush tax cuts, people are getting money back, there by they are spending money, and companies are making more money. In turn they are turning around and spending it and the cycle grows bigger and bigger. In turn lets say we decided to not spend money post 9/11 and grow a large national debt. The plane companies would go under becuase people would not be spending money to fly. People would also be saving money instead of spending it since they wouldn't be getting money from the tax cuts. Thus causing more and more people being laid off, and instead of having a 4.5? Percent unemployment, we would be faced with one in the double digets.

[mr_pikachu]

Well said, Roy. It's ironic, actually. If you look at economics historically, tax cuts usually boost the economy rather than hurt it. (The few exceptions are usually for powerful reasons such as depressions, wars, etc.)

On the other hand, the economy works in a cyclical manner. If I remember correctly, it tends to go in cycles of about 30 years. It'll rise for awhile, and then it'll fall back. That's just the way it tends to work.

[Blademaster]

...

Bri, Ryan, Jeff, you all have just taught me more about economics in 2 minutes than I learned in 9 months of high school.

Praise the Lord, it's a miracle!

[Roy Karrde]

I dunno if this goes along with the topic but National Geographic is running a documentary called "Inside Saddam's Reign of Terror" and my god some of the stuff in there. The dead bodies of children, how they look like dolls just laying in the street. How he wiped out 4,000 villages of people. Killing thousands. One thing I noticed that was interesting is that in the early 80s, Saddam was in a drawn out war with Iran. Now people like to say that Saddam is better than Bush and all that.

Well when people disagreed with Saddam on the war, he killed them. One of the videos they showed, they took people that disagreed with the war, straped Gernades to their chest, and blowing them up. Next time some one says Saddam is better than Bush or Bush is worse than Saddam, think about what would have happened if you said something like that against Saddam in the early 80s.

Also another thing is what Saddam said to the killing of hundreds of thousands, when one of his commanders asked about the International Community he reacted violently: "International Community? F*** The International Community! They will do nothing to me" and they never did. I have never seen a better reason for the UN to be gone than for the very reason of them standing around as Hundreds of thousands die!

I hope National Geographic runs this over and over again in the next week, people have gotten too relaxed about why we are in Iraq.

180 Mass Graves: Estimated 300,000 Bodies, and that is just the Mass Graves, not the Bio Weapons he used against towns too.

[Heald]

Maybe it's because I'm not Yosemite Sam, but regardless of what Kerry said, only an idiot would get so pissed off by it. Pissed off enough, in fact, to vote Republican 'out of spite'. Ever heard of don't tar everyone with the same brush, ladies and gentlemen? After Ted Stevens made ridiculous comments about the 'series of tubes', no one thought, "LOL REPUBLICANS DONT KNOW JACKSHIT ABOUT 20TH CENTURY TECHNOLOGY THEY CAN'T RUN THE COUNTRY." The fact is, all politicians have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the Intertron, video games, rap music etc. (but it still doesn't stop them from regulating it).

Also, yes Saddam was an evil sonuvva. No one is denying that. However, just because a country is run by an evil sonuvva is no reason to invade it. Or, if it is, why hasn't the US invaded the numerous African nations under military dictatorships that often commit evil acts much like Saddam? Well, obviously it must be because Bush had a napkin with 'WMDs in Iraq' handed to him in red crayon by Rumsfeld. Also, Iraq has oil.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, I'm not going to argue that people should vote against the Democrats just because of Kerry's comments. But I will say that I've heard worse reasons. Freudian slip or not, it's happened before, and people have made the same foolish response... at the expense of both parties. This is just another part of the endless lesson of "Politicians should be seen and not heard."

Why did we take greater action against Iraq than many of the African nations, you ask? Two reasons.

One, there was a greater perceived threat from Iraq. All the intelligence we had said that Iraq had nukes. What else does a president have to go on but that? He's certainly not going to use a ouija board to test the conclusions of field agents. In the end, all you can do is make the best possible decision based on the information you have.

Two, we have a finite amount of resources. While many seem to think we have all sorts of power to spare, in reality we've called troops from all over the military to be deployed in the Middle East. I'm not going to get into the argument of how many troops we should have in Iraq. Frankly, I think we could afford to move to the next stage of the plan by turning over a few more degrees of power; I don't see things getting much better than they are now with the current level of troops. But if we assume the presence of this many troops in Iraq, then we'd have to be idiots to try to deploy even more elsewhere. And to be frank, I'm a lot more concerned with North Korea right now than I am with Africa. Sorry, but again we have a greater perceived threat.

But that's an issue for another topic, methinks. For now, with all the attacking already happening throughout the various campaigns across the board, do you think that Kerry's comments will make a significant difference? Or will they merely be a single drop in the tidal wave of remarks?

[Heald]

One, there was a greater perceived threat from Iraq. All the intelligence we had said that Iraq had nukes. What else does a president have to go on but that? He's certainly not going to use a ouija board to test the conclusions of field agents. In the end, all you can do is make the best possible decision based on the information you have.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. What intelligence exactly? Iraq had jackshit in terms of WMDs or in fact anything. The most harmful thing they had was a batty old woman with a pointy stick. I fail to see how any intelligence could have pointed to anything near them possessing WMDs. You can't have evidence for something that just isn't there. What the government SAYS is intelligence is actually in fact spin, guessing topped off with a fine layer of horseshit. All in the build-up to the war, both our governments were like 'OMGZORS IRAQ HAS LIEK 10 MILLION NUKES WE HAVE TO REPOSSESS THEMZORS!' but when we nailed Saddam, they completely forgot about the WMDs and all they could say was 'WE GOT HIM LOL PANCAKE'. Ever since we nailed Saddam, both our governments have completely ignored any allegations that they were ever looking for WMDs.

Also, about the finite resources and the greater perceived threat, then fine, I agree, but I was merely countering the argument that the Iraq war can be justified by saying we ended a regime that kills civilians everyday (and replaced it with another one), but in both aspects war against Iraq was and still is completely unjustified. If you go for the 'ending a tyrannical regime' angle, there are countries out there that make Iraq seem like a haven, whereas if you go for the 'greater perceived threat', there are many more countries out there that are a far greater threat to us. Hell, you only have to change the last letter in Iraq to N and you've got one right there.

[Roy Karrde]

Remember Heald that the WMD Intelligence was verified by intel agencies all over the world. Not only that but as of a few years ago British Intel released a report about Iraq attempting to buy Nigerian Yellow Cake uranium. The report says and I quote:

"We also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient in the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Buying Yellow Cake Uranium or trying to buy it is against the UN Resolution placed on Iraq and can be used as a delcaration of war against the country. Also the whole declaration of war against Iraq was nine parts, WMD's were only one of those parts. Besides it doesn't matter if he had them or not, he was trying to get them, his own records have stated that they had the knowledge and was only waiting for the western world to leave them alone. And deciding to play hide and go seak with the Weapons inspectors for ten years was more then enough to take his ass down.

[Musourenka]

Personally, I don't really care who gets elected; the situation will not improve either way, so I simply refuse to vote.

[Heald]

Remember Heald that the WMD Intelligence was verified by intel agencies all over the world.

If everyone says 2 plus 2 is 5, it still doesn't make it any more true.

Not only that but as of a few years ago British Intel released a report about Iraq attempting to buy Nigerian Yellow Cake uranium. The report says and I quote:

Buying Yellow Cake Uranium or trying to buy it is against the UN Resolution placed on Iraq and can be used as a delcaration of war against the country. Also the whole declaration of war against Iraq was nine parts, WMD's were only one of those parts. Besides it doesn't matter if he had them or not, he was trying to get them, his own records have stated that they had the knowledge and was only waiting for the western world to leave them alone. And deciding to play hide and go seak with the Weapons inspectors for ten years was more then enough to take his ass down.

British Intelligence also said Saddam could kill us all within 45 minutes. Call me pessimistic, but that leaves me somewhat skeptical of British Intel.

[Roy Karrde]

Then again Heald we are talking about something much, much more deadlier than 2 plus 2.

Anyway Heald and I have agreed to get back on topic. One thing that I have noticed and is really bugging me, is the news coverage in the past few days on the net. I can't stand Rush not do I believe his paranoid view that everyone in the media is out to get the Republicans. With that in mind the only news that I have seen the last few days either on Yahoo or MSN is how the Republicans are going to lose. It is almost as if they have decided that the election has ended and the Republicans have already lost. Yahoo is running a story on how the Kerry story has not affected polls, which in turn they cannot be sure of since it has only been a few days since the story broke. And MSN has a three page article about a landslide democrat victory. On the last page, with about a paragraph of space, they have devoted coverage to the least possible scenaro, a Republican Victory.

Off year elections are always the hardest to judge, becuase if you do not poll one neighborhood it can throw off the whole poll. But the whole way these articles seem to be pimping the Democrats I wonder if they already have Democrat Victory articles drawn up for Tuesday.

[Heald]

Me? I love the stupids ads floating around Youtube. Like these gems:

Anti-Ron Kind - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWbS5dkotQ

Someone compares video games to pedophilia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeUwnjhZU8

The WRONG KIND - RON KIND!

EDIT: I realise that the last one was a Governor one, I don't care, eat shit etc.
EDIT 2: I also realise Ron Kind is a Congressman, stop electing so many assholes, you pricks.

[Roy Karrde]

The second ad it says "Outlaw Violent or Pornographic Video Games" anyway I actually support the second ad even though it goes against the industry I am working so hard to get into. NO not Pedophillia, Video Games. The reason I support the Ad is becuase I wouldn't mind seeing the death penilty used for Child Molesters.

Child Molesters and Rapists, those are the two sickning things in society that you cannot rehabilitate through treatment, thus since they become no use to society and a danger to those around them. Why should we let them out of jail?

[mr_pikachu]

The problem with that argument is that of course we know better now. Hindsight is 20/20. But when any decision is made, all you can do is use what information is available at the time. You can't go back later and argue that something was a stupid decision based on information we didn't have then.

Now, if he'd gone against intel that said there was no threat, then there'd be a legitimate argument. But when every intel source you can find says there are WMDs, can you honestly say that you'd distrust every single one of them despite the lack of any counter-argument?

[Roy Karrde]

I found a interesting news article on Yahoo. Basically a Senator is raising concerns about Military voting becuase of the possibility that hackers could hack the service and use it to make frad votes. Then again Frad votes are nothing new in American Politics, there was a story just a month ago about a Democrat group having over three thousand fradulant ballots registered with names of pets and dead people. All ready to be turned in. Anyway so should Military Troop ballots be allowed if there is a possibility for hackers? And here is a better question, the party affiliation of the person bringing up the question, and the time it is being brought up, brings up the possibility that this could be a way to stop Military Vote retaliation against Kerry's comments.

So what do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/...oting_military

[DarkTemplarZero]

I missed the cutoff here, I turned 18 just a bit too late to register >.<

And anyway, I don't see what the fuss about Kerry's comments are, everyone knows that it's true. Only people who have dirt low IQ's in the 80's and below (i.e. the entire fourth world country of Texas) or people who are overly religious, too stupid to understand "thou shalt not kill", and want to hold a gun and blow people to smithereens in God's mercy would voluntarily sign up for a profession where their job is to kill.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/08/u...for-iraqi.html

But where I stand is both sides are idiot conservatives who care about nothing but themselves and are screwing the world, but the Democrats seem to support human rights a bit more ("seems" because quite a few of them including both the dispicable excuses for toxic waste that we call New Jersey senators voted for the Military Commissions Act >.< ) and so if I could, I'd vote Democratic. But whatever, Jon Stewart for President in 2008!

[Roy Karrde]

You know DarkTemplarZero I'm a conservative, from the as you call it fourth world country of Texas, religous, and have several friends in the army and even considered inlisting when I got out of High School after 9/11 happened. I find your comments sick, very very bigoted toward people that give their lives in the service of their country.

You may say you turned 18, but your comments make you look like as if you had just turned eight. Also if you want to say it is the military's job to kill, tell those to the military that police the streets of Iraq to keep the citizens safe. That take part in rebuilding missions of schools and homes.

Also your comments about conservatives prove that you have no idea what conservatism is about. I would suggest shuting up before you make yourself look even more like a idiot.

[Jeff]

From my point of view, it's not that the republicans care "only about themselves" it's that the democrats seem more interested in individual interests while the republicans are looking out for the greater good. For example, the democrats here in Maryland, like I said before, pushed through bills that raised minimum wage, and forced health care requirements on Wal-Mart. Our republican governor, vetoed the bills knowing good and well that they would likely cause businesses to stop doing business here, thus causing the state to lose jobs. But the democrats don't care, as long as they can say "look, we raised minimum wage, that's more money for the little guy, were on your side!". It's really disgusting.

[DarkTemplarZero]

"It is a sweet and seemly thing to die for one's country" - Horace.

What a load of crap.

Let me tell you what Conservativism is about; Conservativism is about harming others to help yourself. Conservativism is saying that "every sentient being is sacred" while advocating the death penalty and invading Iraq to the tune of, by some estimates, 300,000 civilian deaths. Conservativism is believing that whoever doesn't think and act exactly as you do, if they don't follow the same religion, or are of the same sexual orientation then that is cause to discriminate against them. Conservativism is about believing that stem cell research is wrong, even if those embryos wouldn't exist if it wasn't for extensive embryonic research. Conservativism is saying that evolution is "just a theory" without understanding what a scientific theory actually is (There's also the General Theory of Relativity, although I don't see you saying that curvature in space-time is simply an illusion created by God). Conservativism is the belief that you can end conflict by killing everyone opposing you. Conservativism, quite frankly, is evil.

Hahah come on, let's debate.

[SuperSonicMewtwo]

DarkTemplarZero, can you really be serious? To define conservatism in that way is to say liberalism is the idea of letting people run rampent in the streets, get high off of everything and everything, have no rules and tax the hell out of those who are successful. Which is not true, neither my previous statement, nor yours, are true about liberals or conservatives.

What you have done is taken such an extremist view that it can't be even understood as a view but purely as uninformed and a refusual to be educated. Am I saying that what I think to myself is right? No. I say that you are judging people hypocritically-"is believing that whoever doesn't think and act exactly as you do...is evil." your statement is so solid, that really, you've just said that you hate conservatives by them being so different from you. you just called yourself evil.

[Roy Karrde]

Wrong sadly, Conservatism at it's ideal is about less Government, it is about less Government spending and more focus on smaller Government and local Government. Which is why Bush has never been a Conservative when it comes down to him expanding the size of Government and his spending.

But it seems you would rather AIM hack. I would suggest spending your time on better things like maybe cracking open a Government book.

[DarkTemplarZero]

There's a difference, I judge people based on how they treat others. Social conservativism and religious fanaticism have caused so much pain and suffering it's hard not to have an extremist view against them. When I see people who say that it is alright to hold people without charge and torture them, I, as a human being, have a hard time not reacting extremely. When I see people who oppose stem cell research, kill innocent civilians in Iraq, and support the death penalty, I have a hard time not reacting extremely to murder. I don't know about you, but when people suffer and die I don't accept that as "necessary" or "inevitable".

rofl AIM hack? What? Just because I imed you and you wouldn't respond? Right. And anyway, that is conservativism in theory, but unfortunately theory is not practice. You might want to read the news once in a while to see what your government is actually doing, not what it should be doing.

[Blademaster]

conservatism (kuhn-SERV-uh-TIZZ-uhm)
–noun
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

liberalism (LIH-buhr-uhl-IZZ-uhm
–noun
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

~Dictionary.com

There. Those are the simplest-but-still-thorough definitions I could find.

Roy: You're right and you're also wrong.
Zero: You're right and you're also wrong.

Everyone happy? Good.

So let's get back to the topic at hand, OK? This thread is about the Senate elections, not about whether conservatism is bad or not.

-Blade

[Roy Karrde]

I know what my Government is actually doing, and I support some of it while not others. But I do find it interesting that the minute, the very minute you start AIMing me, some one tries to AIM hack me. Very very suspicious if you ask me.

Back on topic, please do not attempt to say that one party is better than the other or saying one is evil. There are valid reasons for the support of the Death Penalty as I hold, and for the opposition to stem cell research. Believing that anyone is okay with the death of innocent civilians anywhere in the world, shows just how small of a view you have of the world and even others in the United States. If you want I can spout off things Liberals have done, and the views they hold that hurt the world. But unlike you I will hold myself to a higher standard.

Also try and get some better AIM hacks man.

[DarkTemplarZero]

One, if I tried to hack you, you wouldn't know it and I wouldn't have failed, trust me.

Two, I do not see any valid reason for the opposition of stem cell research, especially if you support the death penalty and the war in Iraq (at least one that doesn't involve hypocrisy).

Three, the Texas conservative who supports war says I have a small world view. The one who thinks that you can win the war on terror just by killing a few hundred thousand militants and civilians. I think that speaks for itself.

Four, I think you really need to get laid.

Five, Bulbasaur4 has really nice cleavage. If I was single I'd hit it
http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/in...ach=8369;image
Rawr.