Presidential Debates

BWAHAHAHAAAyou never fail to rise above your previous level of ignorance. What about republican senators against this waste of resources? Assume that the oil from Alaska is 1% of what the US goes through in one year and then tell me what this solves?For the sake of argument assume that the world is out of oil: what is the republican solution? Drill more oil? This is so silly. typical for you though: when you are shown wrong on one thing you bring something else into the mix to be equally wrong about ... RIGHT:(this came in an e-mail and I do not have an original source for it, sorry) Goodnight Joe.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ooh, RAZD! A couple of my coworkers are gonna crap when they find that in their inbox Monday! Thanks!

Razd, What if alaskan oil supplies 10 percent of our natural gas, how do we know for sure what resides under the alaskan tundra, do we not supply Japan oil from alaska, what about off shore Florida, what wrong with opening this up to oil exploration, other than evil environmentalists burdening Americans with high gasoline and heating costs. I'm all for alternative energy, though believe the republican party is going down the fuel cell, when it should be moving toward making hydrogen on demand combustion from water, it would not be much more dangerous than the gasoline combustion engine if its an on demand system, we have the technology to develop free energy, but all the democrats and the republicans seem to go is the expensive fuel cell, hybrid engine approach, but it makes no sense to burden the people with high fuel cell engines, just because you refuse to allow the drilling of oil, in places like offshore Florida, Alaska, and to curb building more refineries to take profit from the oil industries and bring the price off supply and demand down. Did not GWB want to develop ceramic, water scrubbers technologies in cleaning up coal burning technologies, to make use of our vast coal reserves buried piled hundreds of feet thick when the biblical flood waters rushed off the continents by the mountains, massive coal deposits all along the rocky mountains, truly we need to vote the democrat environmentalists out of office and develop clean affordable alternative energies, GWB tried to develop an energy policy, but it was cut down by environmental minded senators like Mr. Kerry that filibustered drilling for oil/natural gas in the Alaskan desolate lands, not fit for man nor beast, in hindsight you can see we need all the oil we can get now that our industries that were shipped to China by the previous administration, are now drinking from Middle east oil, but if Kerry is elected, you can look to higher gasoline prices, do you not realize that Kerry continually voted to increase gasoline taxes, and to prevent drilling to support supply, one can not in good faith vote for Kerry, you need someone that has a plan, that includes the people, GWB is the man with the plan, but you got to vote the democrats out of office, cause the democrats will filibuster our country having an energy policy, at a time when we need to get our act together, etc...

quote:

---

Question for Schraf: Do the poor and middle income taxpayers pay more, the same, or less taxes after Bush tax cuts than they paid before the Bush tax cuts?

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A61178-2004Aug12.html Remember also that payroll taxes are regressive; they take a much larger chunk out of a middle or low income paycheck than they do from a high income paycheck.Regressive tax | encyclopedia article by TheFreeDictionary

Whatever, why don't you mind the fact that Bush fixed it so you pay more personal income taxes, while the richest Americans pay less taxes?Did you just want the richest Americans to be more rich, and for you to have less money?

Whatever, why don't you mind the fact that Bush fixed it so you pay more personal income taxes, while the richest Americans pay less taxes?Did you just want the richest Americans to be more rich, and for you to have less money?

Whatever, why don't you mind the fact that Bush fixed it so you pay more personal income taxes, while the richest Americans pay less taxes?Did you just want the richest Americans to be more rich, and for you to have less money?

Whatever, why don't you mind the fact that Bush fixed it so you pay more personal income taxes, while the richest Americans pay less taxes?Did you just want the richest Americans to be more rich, and for you to have less money?

answer -- they don'tthey won'tthe bankruptcy of the republican policy on energy is that it has no plans for a future different from todaythey have their heads in the sandoh -- and the alternatives you mention: liberal alternatives, ones they have been mentioning for 50 years but which have been blocked by the republicansenjoy your sleep Joe Republican?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi Holmes (inter alia).I just thought you'd appreciate knowing that a brain-dead, died-in-the-wool Republican like me has decided for at least this one election to throw caution to the winds and vote for the Democratic candidate for president. My wife is delighted, of course...I decided to commit this treasonous action long before the debate, which therefore had little or no impact on the decision. I have to admit that the President's "one trick pony" act during the debate probably would have succeeded in the absence of any other reason, however. In any event, it was the President's blatant and increasingly dangerous (to my mind) religious fundamentalism and the erosion of the 2d Ammendment over the last year or so that tipped the scale for me.On the debate, it was crystal clear from nearly the very first question that Senator Kerry dominated. His answers were clear, succinct, and fairly cogent - even if I don't necessarily agree with them. The President, on the other hand, couldn't seem to answer a question or criticism to save his life. Sure as heck wasn't how I would have answered. Didn't really appear Senator Kerry was going for the soundbite for a change.Anyway, to me the question now comes down to "who is the most dangerous to the long-term survival of the US as a quasi-democratic federated republic?". The answer seems to be George W. Bush.Any comments?

Razd, You forget that GWB wants an energy policy, wanted to delegate moneys for developing clean coal burning technologies, hydrogen technology, etc...The reason we have not an energy policy is not the republicans, but the democrats. Mr. Kerry was the Senator responsible for filibustering drilling for oil in our own lands, this is not a candidate that cares about having an energy policy. BTW enjoyed your Joe Republican quip, but high energy costs are killing the people, and you all keep talking about alternative energies, that cost more than the oil were pumping, you do realize the environmentalists are spraying our schools with pesticides, herbicides, putting mtbe in the gasoline polluting the water table, the problem may well be the powers that are controlling the democrat party, the air car made in France might be an alternative for driving in the city, back and forth to work, but a simple hydrogen on demand system that would cost nothing to run, an on demand system would solve our energy demand, not the complex fuel cell approach that costs are prohibitive.P.S. Mr. Kerry wants to tax the gasoline, for obvious reasons, money for his socialistic agendas, a simple hydrogen on demand system would deny the democratic party the tax money's they crave. What should be done, in my opinion in the now, is to pursue coal burning technologies as GWB proposed, and then to bring in the air cars that are being pressed into the market place in France, so we could have cheap electricity, to charge these cars. The democratic party however has no intention to empower the people, their answer is always to make demand high and supply low, which is the problem with the democratic party, whose goal is to depower the people, not empower the people, and the reason to not vote for Kerry, who see's no problem with putting our citizens under International law, depower the people and empower the government (tax and spend is the democratic parties solution)and this is what Mr. Kerry consistently voted for, raising tax on gasoline, and middle class taxes. GWB has put a hold on raising taxes(wants to make it permanent), JFK wants to end this blessing on the people, and this is but one reason to not vote for someone that will raise taxes. I realize the debt is rising, but the answer is not to raise taxes but to stimulate the economy, open up coal burning, drilling for oil in our lands, building cheap electrical coal burning power plants to lower electricity costs, not to pour the water in californina to farmers in the deserts of california to create water shortages in the cities, we should be making utility costs cheaper, making supply greater to drive costs down, not going the democratic environmentalists way to create shortages to burden high utility costs on the people, we need more oil refineries not less, cause more will drive the costs down, do you really want the oil people getting rich because they have less refineries, creating a senerio that favors their supply / demand, so prices will always be high, what you should be pursuing is more refineries so as the oil comes in their would be a surplus, so supply and demand would favor a lower energy cost. I realize its the democrats goal is to keep gasoline , electricity, water, is to keep prices high, to protect mother earth, however, China, Mexico and other nations are polluting the earth at will, your democratic environmental agendas, that Kerry shares is the reasons for high energy costs, including the problems they put forth for coal burning electric power plants being built, surely GWB is on the right track to develop coal burning technologies, to help the people where they are being burdened by high utility costs, by defunct democratic party environmentalists law, that cares not about the people, but as their solution is not to help the people but to force the people to ration, by excessive prices, taxation, etc...

Whatever, why don't you mind the fact that Bush fixed it so you pay more personal income taxes, while the richest Americans pay less taxes?Did you just want the richest Americans to be more rich, and for you to have less money?

You forget that GWB want to make his tax relief permanent, and JFK wants to do away with tax relief, a reason to Vote for GWB. How can you vote for a candidate that says we need to raise taxes, and critized making tax relief permanent, though Kerry does say he will not raise middle class tax, why don't we just make the present tax relief permanent. Kerry is just talk, he's consistently voted to raise middle class taxes, and to tax gasoline. His actions when voting conflict with his new flip that he would never increase middle class tax, etc...

Have I ever been without comment? Heheheh.I would say that everything you said made sense to me, and add that you are not alone. There have been a number of high level Republicans (even a congressman) who said we can't have Bush again.I am at a loss as to how he even counts as a Republican after everything he's done. To my mind he is the traitor and his "true followers" just don't get it.Oh yes, one final comment: Talk to other republicans.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Bushes idea of an energy policy is like his other policies:eliminate forest fires by cutting down all the treeseliminate global warming by declaring it non-existentleave not child behind by letting no child get aheadall he does is give it a fancy positive sounding name while he exploits the system and guts whatever good program exists.he is 1984 double-speak personified. but I don't expect you to see it, as he is too much of a demi-god for you.