I am tired of typing. Somebody else can finish the list.
Kerry has a superior environmental record. I for one value my RKBA and also value the right of my family to breathe clean air, drink pure water, and hike/camp/hunt in unspoiled lands.
I am tired of typing. Somebody else can finish the list.
Kerry has a superior environmental record.
I'm not going to bother trying to give this a reasoned response, but I did want to call attention to it so I could offer it as an example of an unhelpful addition to a rational discussion.5) Kerry does not operate on the premise that "I am right and anybody who disagrees is a terror lover who must be destroyed".
The UN (of all groups!) has actually said almost exactly that: Various materials useful to the production of nuclear devices disappeared shortly before the invasion. As for the claim Saddam never had WMDs, and wasn't trying to make more, this is the guy who used chemical weapons on his own subjects, the Kurds.6) Kerry appears to be able to grasp reality or at least recognize it when it knocks on the front door.... Bush and Cheney still believe Hussein was in bed with Bin laden and the WMD's all got smuggled out on camel back.
How do you reduce taxes on someone who's not paying any? Give them (more) of my money? Create some negative tax brackets?Well there you go. I guess it shoudn't hurt the government too badly if those little to no taxes the lower income brackets pay are reduced even further.
I never said that voting 3rd party has no relative effect on Bush vs Kerry. What I said is that it has half the impact of a vote for Kerry, and that it's not a vote against Bush.In all cases, abstention or diversion of votes results in a benefit to the Kerry campaign. Democrats have been hitting forums and chat boards HARD to convince folks to vote "Anyone but Bush." And it appears to be working.
Here we go again. If you think that without your ballot the Bush vs Kerry tallies will be within one vote, you're viewing the voting system as a mathematical computation rather than the complicated, error-prone mess that it is. Not voting for Bush does have an effect on vote totals. However, there has never been a congressional or presidential race decided by 1 or 2 votes, so yours is a rhetorical, rather than a practical, argument. If votes are ever that close, it's a matter of which party can rig or otherwise influence the inevitable recounts, not who actually won.Vote for an independent if you must in your local races, but for POTUS, vote against Kerry. If we don't, I fear that Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, et al, will be at us with a vengeance
No, that's just not so.
And we are tired of reading (and replying) to your erroneous and downright wrong statements.
Thank you.
Yes, every abstention or third-party vote affects the candidate who "loses" it.the removal or alteration of a vote from one candidate to another does affect the candidate which "loses" it.
Why conservatives must not vote for Bush
I've seen some people who are so busy running from Kerry that they aren't watching what they're running towards. - MP5
Don't imply that I am not concerned about who to support for 2008. Anyone who thinks all will be set right in one election is dreaming.
Lastly, I am with the poster who pointed out that "conservative" is an increasingly murky term.
The links you provided are all from groups with little or no credibility to speak about environmental issues objectively.