Dr.Worthless

-*BAD WORD*- Cheney isn't running for president. <3 "Yeah our guy made alot of bad votes, but your guys buddy did!!!!" Heh, sorry Vile, this administration has already shown their stance on the war on terror, the only thing we have to go by on with kerry is his past record, and it doesn't look to good. But.. Just for kicks Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999 Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. Flag Desecration Bill; Bill S. J. Res. 31 ; vote number 1995-600 on Dec 12, 1995 Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. Bill S Con Res 57 ; vote number 1996-140 on May 22, 1996 Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. Motion to invoke cloture; Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1997-275 on Oct 23, 1997 Voted NO on banning human cloning. Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998 Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. Bill S.Con.Res.86 ; vote number 1998-56 on Apr 1, 1998 Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. Roth Amdt #2339; Bill H.R. 2676 ; vote number 1998-120 on May 6, 1998 Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. Bill HR.3355 ; vote number 1994-126 on May 19, 1994 Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. Conference Report on H.R. 956; Bill H. R. 956 ; vote number 1996-46 on Mar 21, 1996 Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. Bill S.625 ; vote number 1999-360 on Nov 10, 1999 Votes to Cut Defense Spending by 2% (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49, Apr 25, 1991) Votes to Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182, Sep 10, 1991) Votes to Cut $6 Billion from Defense (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73, Apr 9, 1992) Votes Against Military Pay Raise (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73, Mar 24, 1993) ntroduced an amendment to SLASH defense spending by 4 billion dollars and Intelligence spending by about 1 billion. Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor Introduces a bill to SLASH Department of Defense Funding by 6.5 Billion (S. 1580, Introduced Feb 29, 1996) (No one was willing to co-sponsor this bill!) Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34 Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995) Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible. Bill S 1873 ; vote number 1998-262 on Sep 9, 1998 Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999 Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. Bill S.1513 ; vote number 1994-236 on Jul 27, 1994 oted NO on education savings accounts. H.R. 2646 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2646 ; vote number 1998-169 on Jun 24, 1998 School Vouchers: this legislation would force local governments to fund religious and other private educational schools through cash vouchers to students. JFK voted NO to vouchers. FK Has Voted Against Tax Reductions and for Higher Taxes a total of 379 times! Here's 352 and here are 27 more! (PDF format) Voted YES To Increase Gas Tax By 6 Cents Per Gallon. (S. 3209, CQ Vote #280: Rejected 45-55: R 8-37; D 37-18, 10/18/90) In Two Votes, Said YES to a 4.3 Cents-Per-Gallon Increase In Gas Tax And 2.5 Cents-Per-Gallon Extension Of Existing Gas Tax. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting A “Yea” Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea) Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000 Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-165 on May 23, 2001 Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003 Full list, showing his YEA and NAE votes, (some good, some bad) Linky Linky

I still see nothing about Kerry's senate record. -*BAD WORD*-, we'll give him an even year served in veitnam.. he's still served over a decade more in the senate. Yes, it is, because he can't focus on his Senate record, his voting history would tear his campaign apart.

And why do you think all this is happening? Mabye because they want the US out of Iraq? Why would they want that? The US going into Iraq didn't *cause* any terrorism.. the terrorism was already there. It's like trying to cure cancer. The patient has cancer and doesn't feel sick at all. The doctor discoveres the cancer and put the patient on kemo. The patient gets really sick and weak because of the kemo, but eventually defeats the cancer. Under your mindset, the doctor should have NEVER attacked the cancer, the patient got so sick due to the treatment that the doctor caused the sickness, not the cancer.. See the point? Yeah Monte, we coulda just sat back and not done anything like we had been doing all along, but we all know what that got us. OF COURSE TERRORISM IS GOING TO INCREASE ONCE WE ATTACK THEM. Thats how things works. Though i've said this before and it went on deaf ears. I suppose everyone truely believes that invading Iraq caused terrorism.. it obviously wasn't around before we removed Saddam...

Wow, I can stand intelligent conversation, but a liberal propoganda spounge throwing accusasion I cannot. Good day.

Wow, Vile.. trying to explain something to a liberal propoganda spounge really is impossible. In a country the size of afganistan.. all the Taliban has to do is disperse into the population, then come back at select times. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING A CONVENTIONAL WAR, WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDIOLOGY THAT IF WE DO NOT STOP IT WILL KILL AS MANY AMERICAN CITIZENS AS POSSIBLE. Wake up, seriously.

You're right Vile, I mean there's practically NO difference between a regular old american citizens that want to yell words, and terrorists carrying bombs/guns wanting to shoot someone or blow them up. If someone can get through posing as a convention supporter, carrying no weapon, then it only stands to reason someone strapped with a bomb, carrying a knife, or a gun could get through too. Wake up.

Yeah the west would be tons safer. I mean 3000 people didn't during September 11'th or anything. We should have just continued the old method of letting other people deal with it. Yeah, there would be NO problem in Iraq whatsoever, had we not removed Saddam. It would still be a land of cupcakes and roses, ran by a wonderful leader who had world peace in mind. Agree with how Bush is handling things or not, if you think we'd be any Safer had we not took an active stance at dealing with terror, you're -*BAD WORD*-ing Nuts. If we would have went to the UN, we'd still be waiting for authorization to act to this day. The UN does nothing but hand out resolutions that they have no intentions of carrying out, if you don't believe me just look at the track record of resolutions handed out to Saddam. In 1992 the UN gave Saddam a resolution to "cease inhumane treatment of Iraqi citizens , or face severe concequences". Man, that sure did work. Incase you still cant figure it out, here's a hint. Saddam didn't give a flying -*BAD WORD*- about the UN, and neither do the terrorists. UN or not, American forces or not, Action had to be taken, the old way of sitting back and hoping people comply to resolutions no longer works.

Vile, give me a break. Bush has explained himself on why he said that. You seriously cannot attack the president on terrorism, he's done more on the fight against them than any president since Reagan. The left is like * OH MY -*BAD WORD*-ING GOD WE FOUND A FLIP FLOP THAT WASN'T ONE OF OUR OWN, SHOW IT SHOW IT SHOW IT SHOW IT SHOW IT*. You know we cannot "win" the war on terror in the old sense. Terror isn't a state that we can go crush, its an ideology thats going to have to be changed. How does kerry plan to do a better job than the current president? Last I heard he planned to pull our troops out and replace them with a UN coalition. The UN is a largely European organization, and last time I checked Europe has been dealing with Terrorism for centuries. Thats a mighty fine track record that the UN has of dealing with terrorism. As i've said before, its perfectly ok to change your mind on things, but kerry has made it the rule, not the exception. Here is something to think about. Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam, while for the last 11 YEARS he's been in the senate. So why is it I hear more about his 4 months in Vietnam than I hear about his 11 years in the senate? Infact, why haven't I heard ANY talk from the Kerry camp about his 11 years in the senate? Shouldn't he be just as proud of his service in the Senate as he is about his 4 month term in Vietnam? I wonder why we aren't hearing anything about his Senate record??

Islamic fundamentalists.. So wait.. obviously you all didn't watch the DMC much, because every movie star / music star/ popculture star was there performing or talking. Funny that you would bring this up over Arnold.. and not over Bon Jovi / Dave Mathews Band / Dixie Chicks / etc etc etc etc etc.

Heh, the protesters were largely out of state and admitedly anarchist groups. The majority of them were peaceful yes, though there were alot of instances that they were not. As far as the 9/11 -*BAD WORD*- goes, IMO the president did a wonderful job rallying and leading the country during that time. Why should he NOT point that out. Should FDR not have pointed out his WWII performance, or how about Eisenhower. How about Teddy Rosevelt and the Spanish-American war.. etc etc etc. Under that thinking, Kerry sure as -*BAD WORD*- shouldn't be pointing out his Vietnam experience. Nearly 2 million people were killed during US involvement in that conflict...

You can legally own a good number of semi-automatic rifles that can easily be changed to full auto if wanted. (in the us ) Practically though, many police stations carry assault weaponry, gr!@#$%^&*-roots movements could capture caches of the weapons, etc. Fairly effective explosives etc can be made out of common chemicals, etc. If there were to be a situation where the right to bear arms would be needed, some states in the union would be able to put up quite a fight. ANYWAY, wierd tangent for the day over.

Or in the case of the person who started the threat, by what you smoke..

You'll have to spell this out for me cause im pretty stupid when it comes to the various laws surrounding campaigns. Am i understanding correctly that the problem is the switf boat organization is funded by republicans that support bush? If so, i'm willing to bet moveon.org is funded by democrats that support kerry. Generalize much? Somehow I think you'll have a tough time painting the general population of South Carolina as racist. NewsFlash.. the Civil War wasn't over slavery...

The suggestion is subjective. Meaning, just because you think that they were trying to imply anything about McCain doesn't mean that they were. That being said I agree that's a shady practice. Anywho, you would have to show that Bush somehow ordered these pollsters to ask that question. If he did he should have to admit it. If he didn't why would he have to "admit" anything. The above proves nothing about a supposed "lie". In order for it to be a lie, you would have to prove that he knew or ordered the pollsters do ask what they did. Its completely possible he had no clue what was going on, the size of presidencial teams are huge. I find the whole "Swift Boat Vets" thing kinda amussing. Can the democratic party say moveon.org, or micheal moore? If the SBV group is tied to Bush, those two should be tied to Kerry.

Please prove that Bush lied about WMD's. In order to do so, you'll have to prove that he knew intelligence presented to him was wrong, and said that it was right. Knowing A was wrong but saying A is true is the definition of a lie. Good luck proving he knew the intel was wrong. If you had the CIA, the English, Russians, and a few middle eastern countries all saying to you that Iraq had WMD's, would you ignore their information and pray that nothing happened (if something did happen, it being an impeachable offense) or would you act on the information? That being said, WMD's was a big flop. Not to say Saddam never had any (i believe he did.), but if he did have them they sure as -*BAD WORD*- aren't in Iraq.

Details Details...

The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point?

Since smoking marijuana is Illegal in the US (I'm !@#$%^&*uming you're in the US, if not then just call me an idiot ) you aren't exercising a freedom, you are breaking the law. Not that I believe marijuana should be illegal, just making a point.

ooooo I can be extremist too Vote Bush to have Americans run America Vote Kerry to have the UN run America yay!

VIVA LA CHAVEZ!

Yes, Dumb people are people too, but just because the are dumb doesn't mean we need to cater to their stupidity at the detriment to everyone else. If you're not comfortable with a nurse telling them that the scrape on their knee doesn't deserve emergency room treatment, then perhaps an intern medical student can be the person in the waiting room giving pre-diagnosis (doesn't something along these lines already happen? I dunno, haven't been to the emergency room since breaking my leg.) Why should any hospital be required to see patients that do not require immediate care? (And no this isn't a place for you to pick this post apart, the above is within reason) Simple, they shouldn't. I'm not preventing anyone from getting health care, I'm simply stating that if your case isn't an emergency, they shouldn't be at the emergency room. Now if Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork deems the cut on her finger an emergency, she has every right to go to the hospital, but the hospital shouldn't be required to take the time to treat a minor injury that can be handled by a general practice doctor.

Hopefully the legislation will continue forward and outlaw these sorts of lawsuits. In my opinion, there has to be a burden of proof on the person that sues, to prove that whatever wrong was done to them was done with malicious intent. Case in point, Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork above would have to prove that the medical center she was turned away from had malicious intent in doing so. They WANTED her to take the painkillers and kill herself, so therefore are liable for her death. Or prove neglect, say the hospital told her to take the painkillers, or didn't get to her in time to send her home. I do believe that if you walk into a emergency room for something that isnt an injury, they staff should atleast say "sorry, you do not require emergency !@#$%^&*istance, do X and Y and go see a normal doctor tommorow." Another case in point, sueing gun companies for the death of someone at the hands of their guns. The person who sues should have to prove that the gun companies made that gun, and sold it to X provider for the provider to sell to them, for the purpose of their child shooting themselves. Get the idea? Placing blame on other folks instead of placing the blame on ourselves is whats getting America into alot of trouble now adays. Folks need to wake up and realize some of the dumb -*BAD WORD*- they do is because they are dumb -*BAD WORD*-s, not because gun companies made guns that can kill, or because mcdonalds serves their coffee hot, or because the -*BAD WORD*-ing city doesn't put up signs warning you not to dive head first into a -*BAD WORD*-ing sandbank. (Holy jesus christ at the last one, If I was the judge I woulda kicked his -*BAD WORD*- out of my courtroom, even better if I was president i'd activate the draft, draft only this idiot, close the draft, and make sure he was parachuted into wherever al-sadir is fortified in Najaf. )

I propse a concept on posting: Don't do it while drunk or hopped up on drugs. I've learned from experience.

Source, please.

Duh.