>>>>Ah, Mike, you are a "good" liberal.
>>>
>>>I'm a conservative, moron.
>>
>>Arguments ad hominem don't do anyone any good.
>
>You labeled me a liberal without any supporting evidence.
>
>If you think ad hominem attacks are worthless, either retract or support your previous claim.
>

I think your position on many things over the years allowed you to label yourself a liberal. The legalization of drugs is not a conservative position. You do remember having espoused the values of a drugged out society, don't you?





>
>>Are you saying you voted for Bush?
>
>No. Bush is a neo-conservative, which is a liberal who is too embarassed to call himself a liberal.
>
>I voted for a third party conservative candidate, thanks for asking.
>
>
>>>>However, for me, the morals issue was one of the top reasons.
>>>
>>>This coming from the guy who just posted a link to a "brilliant" article concluding that moral issues was not a top reason for the democrats losing.
>>>
>>>What a joke.
>>
>>You must have read a different article. He didn't say it wasn't a top reason, he said it wasn't THE top reason. You missed it. He was saying it was more complex than just morals.
>
>This is what he is saying, in his own words:
>
> But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.
>
>This is more nonsense.
>
>Based on everyone that I've listened to, I don't think Bush would have won if it weren't for his religion. That cheesy pandering to human insecurity is what put him over the top. If that's not the way you see it, fine.
>
>But this article is nothing more than the obligatory oppurtunity to bash the democrats for damage control. Damage control is something both parties do day in and day out. If you think this story is actually news, and not partisan warfare, you're more of a tool than I thought.