posted
Well, I don't typically always vote for one party just because, but I tend to consider myself more of a Democrat than Republican. Dems tend to be more friendly to Amtrak (and I am aware that this is not always true). Also, I am strongly critical of the GOP's and Bush's environmental stance, as well as the handling of the Iraq war. So... I don't know too much about Kerry, but I am surely not going to be voting for Bush. I think that the majority of the countries in the world have come to hate that man, and I'm not too comfortable with that idea.
posted
Why does the original poster create a post, and then sign back on, under his alter ego, and respond to the same question?
Posts: 255 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Donkey, 99.9%. Bush the Stupidist, (no I don't want to stoop to his level of intelligence(non-existant)), I'll say most , president since...... It's too bad I'm too young to vote(14)!!!!
Posts: 143 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'll say most, president...... <<< Capltd29 I meant to say most non-intellectual.
I also think that politics in this forum is getting out of hand , I know that I sound Hypocritical because I have been very far left in my recent replies, but I have released my steam and gonna get back to trains!!!
Posts: 143 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is so refreshing to see how intelligent you liberals are. Nothing like calling our President names. Yep, we Republicans are a bunch of dumb hicks. Since other countries supposedly hate our President, which I don't believe to be really true, we should give in. Why don't we turn our nation over to the U.N.? We can give all of our job salaries to The World and let them tell us how to live. Give me a break! You are entitled to your opinion but I am sick of hearing you people trash our President. Thank goodness we have a President who loves Jesus Christ and isn't afraid to live his faith. He has taken out a wicked dictator who ravaged his people and most of them love us. Just ask any honest military person who has been there as I have. If liberalism is so great, why can't you say what you are and tell everyone what you believe instead of trashing the man who is working hard and doing an honest job? I agree that President Bush hasn't been a pal of Amtrak but I don't recall Clinton doing anything for them except giving us Tom Downs and George Warrington who both ran the company into the ground. At least under the current administration, we got David Gunn. I wish we could ditch Mineta...who, by the way, was held over from Clinton's days.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: To Chatter....maybe because I'm not littletrain...check my IP address if you are so inclined
What I see is that both names signed up within several weeks of each other last summer. Both names posted with a similar frequency from last August through February, then stopped posting altogether. Both names have suddenly reappeared during this past month. That is what I see.
Its nice to know that you follow my record of postings, but as I said before if you want to accuse me of being a double please do your homework and check my IP address. Now, unless you have some actual proof, I think its best that we talk about trains!
posted
I wasn't going to play along since this is way OT, but since almost everyone else has, I might as well....
I am neither. I am an independent voter. Sometimes I lean left. Sometimes I lean right. But I avoid of the gutters on the extreme left and right sides of the road.
"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers too the right, Here I am, Stuck in the middle..." a victim of the crossfire.
(The above quote should be familiar to anyone over 30.)
posted
I am ex-Republican, if that now makes me a Democrat, so be it. I will assuredly vote for Kerry, if for no other reason than I think Bush has made so many enemies in the rest of the world that America needs a change of government for our security's sake. However, there are many many other reasons as well and, in fact, I think the Bush administration is just about the worst this country has ever known, certainly in my lifetime. I don't have time or inclination to argue further about it here, when it is so clearly OT. Nor, having made the Great Leap from the GOP myself, do I really have much interest in chatting with people (other than old friends or relatives) who still support the current Republican party, since I'm afraid it's hard for me to respect their opinions enough to bother. I am sorry if that sound rude, but the evidence of Bush being awful seems pretty plain to me.
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Off topic from this off topic discussion (guess the double negative make it on topic).
What I believe will be quite interesting is to observe to what extent and with what degree of enthusiasm Bill and Hillary "hit the trail' in behalf of "the Two Johns".
Hillary really has only one chance; it's '08 or never. She will be 61 years of age then, or "Big Sis" is running. Hypothesing (as distinct from predicting) that Kerry wins this year, Hillary would then not be in a position to "go for it" until '12 (one does not challenge a sitting president's renomination - OK, it's been done I know)when she would be 65. Now its "Grandma is running" (Chelsea will likely have delivered an appropriate stage prop by then), and for this first big step of a woman major party nominee, 'Grandma" may simply be too much to overcome.
[
[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 07-24-2004).]
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of if and/or when Hillary runs, it's nearly inconceivable she or her ilk could take any Southern state in an election. Same for John "Hanoi" Kerry. And Edwards, despite his charisma, is a scalawag, a DINO.
When the bottom line arrives i.e. the polling booth, voters will not change horses in mid-stream and WILL vote for security rather than trust a dilitante (sp).
As far as other countries "liking us," that's about a 1 on my list of 10 concerns. I'm really sick of PC pleasing our enemies -- who only want to bury us.
A strong America is our only salvation, along with leaders of character.
quote:Originally posted by littletrain: for the record i signed up a month before polarbear
Precisely what I said--several weeks apart.
I have done my homework and I have presented my findings. Having multiple ISP's is easily done and therefore constitutes no evidence. It is the pattern of postings to which I have referred; that is the REAL homework.
And proof of that is here in this thread, where both alter egos respond in a similar matter, intent on having the last word, all in a misguided attempt to create partisan political strife in an Amtrak forum.
posted
Good posts, Dixie Breeze. Also, I respect your comments Mr. Toy as this country needs more analysis of candidates by what they say and do, not just labels. Indeed, who cares about how other countries feel? The USA saved the French and other Europeans when Hitler had them down. America rebuilt those countries and has typically rebuilt our enemies' countries after we have defeated them (as we are doing in Iraq). If they don't like us, so be it. Perhaps they are jealous that we are the best nation on Earth and the most compasionate despite what some say or think. It is time for optimisim and pride in our country, not this "America stinks" attitude of the left. I do wish we would reduce some of our normal foreign aid and give it to Amtrak but that has gone on for decades and will continue. Now it is time for train talk!
Posts: 561 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republican and proud.I know Republicans make more noise about being anti Amtrak, but Amtrak was started by a Republican president,and the largest cuts have been under Democratic administrations. Support our troops!
He is a liar like his father is a wimp. Remember that one? The "wimp" was shot down over the Pacific during WW2, got up and went out again.
Now Kerry? He makes my skin crawl. As does his "my father was a millworker" VP choice. If you like high priced medical services vote for the malpractice lawyer.
The last Dem I voted for was Jimmy Carter, and have I ever done penance for that one ever since, and I am not even Catholic.
If I were go for any changes it would be for Condileeza Rice (sorry if I misspelled it) as VP and then President in 2008. The woman is brilliant and has good sense, a rare combination. And, a southerner as well, dixiebreeze.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll put in a vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I like him because he trusts each of us, not the government, to run our own lives.
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a huge Kerry fan, but Bush's violent and dangerous policies and actions in everything from the environment to world affairs have made me deeply upset with his administration, and I could not survive another four years of that. I am 18 and a newly registered democrat, and I hope to take a stand this November.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
George W. Bush. I don't care if the rest of the world likes us or not. Bush is president of the United States. He is NOT president of the world.
posted
When I first voted at the age of 18 I thought I was a Republican, but now I know better. I viewed our country as having the best overall situation for people to live in in the world and as long as peopled worked hard they would be just fine. I voted only on issues that bothered me one way or another (abortion for an example) not thinking that anything major would effect me one way or another.
However now that I've gotten a better view of the world, things make me sick. It is basically a crime in this country to get sick, because if you do it can all be taken away. My father is the supposed American ideal, a small business owner for quite some time now. But he also has a few minor medical issues that means no normal insurance company will insure him. The only one that will requires a significant portion of his yearly income. The rest of the industrilized world pays less per capita for their health care and actually does have it guarenteed to them. Here a person can fork over their money to pay for insurance, but when they get sick and can't afford it, they can be kicked right off, making all their payments having gone for nothing.
This doesn't even get me started with the war in Iraq that our President has us involved in. He posed no threat to our country, and that is the only purpose that our armed forces should be used for. I don't want anyone telling me otherwise. I mean if you really belived it, you wouldn't be sitting at home on your computer right now, would you?
I'm not holding my breath with all the partisan bickering going on, but I believe putting Democrats back in control is the only decent chance our country has to save itself from decline.
posted
If you like high medical costs, you will love the John & John team. Remember Edwards has gotten rich off of suing doctors and hospitals. Where do you think these multimillion dollar judgements come from? The insurance companies. Where do you think they get it? By charging high rates. How do those rates get paid? By incresing doctors' and hospitals' fees. Who pays them? YOU DO!! 'Nuff said, without even mentioning extra tests and other forms of defensive medicine practices so that you can try to show the lawyers you tried to do a good job when things go wrong. If you think medical costs are too high, BLAME THE LAWYERS!
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you an extent on the role of extensive lawsuits causing a problem with this system. I think it would help prices SOME to eliminate frivilous lawsuits, and settlements that are extensive. But let us not forget that sometimes these suits are justified. If the doctor screws up I should get some sort of compensation. Maybe not 10-15 million, but probably more than the $250,000 cap on settlements that is being proposed by the current administration.
Also, next time current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is up for election he should be voted out of office as well, especially with your logic being used. He is a doctor and I believe his father owns many FOR PROFIT hospitals across the country. Surely you have to admit there is a conflict of interest there.
posted
empirebuilder: The $250,000 is for punative damages only.
There is no cap on actual damages, such as hospitals, continuing medical treatment, property damage, etc. If that will cost you $5,000,000, you will get it.
Also, most of Congress is made up of lawyers. We have lawyers making the laws they will use to earn their living! Talk about your massive conflict of interests!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lawyers, doctors, oil men. They seem to be the only ones who are in politics anymore, so no matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, there is some conflict of interest existing
I probably shouldn't have beaten this dead horse of a topic back to the top of the page. Unless someone says something that I feel merits a response I think myself and everyone else should leave this alone from now on. It's not the reason we come to this particular forum.
posted
We'll have a forum in Liberty.com soon enough so how about saving your political thoughts for that place and keep rail conversation in RAILforum.com.
Posts: 22 | From: Fullerton, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
