>> Kerry wins = Grid-Lock City for at least two years.
Are you suggesting that the only way to avoid gridlock is for one party to control both the legislative and the executive branches?
>> But checks and balances will not be restored if Kerry wins... The votes for the house and senate just aren't there.
If we won't have legislative "checks and balances," then why is gridlock inevitable if Kerry wins?
>> Last time I checked Kerry was AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE too!
Are you referring to the Defense of Marriage Act? Do you not appreciate the distinctions between this act and a Constitutional amendment? (In your view, what are the fundamental implications of a Constitutional amendment that seeks to restrict rights rather than ensure them?)
>> CIA gets it wrong, so now Bush is lying. What a leap.
Is it your understanding that Bush is considered untruthful simply because of the claims he made regarding Iraq's WMD?
>> Are you referring to the same missile defense system that has saved the lives of our troops on many occasions in the Middle East? Oh no, that's probably the Patriot system, which you were probably against as well.
Are you suggesting that the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is the same as the Patriot system and/or we can't have one without the other? Are the technological issues even within the same scope?
>> ...of course Kerry's unproven brilliance trumps all sense of morality and values.
Who is making this assertion/comparison? Are you charging that Kerry does not have a sense of morality and values? If so, then what's your basis?
>> Encourage development of alternative fuel sources. You mean like Bush's 1.7 Billion dollar Hydrogen program?
Do you believe this is a serious effort to compete with fossil fuels (see post, Bush's $1.7 billion hydrogen program?)?
>> Kerry is AGAINST ABORTION!
Is being against abortion the same as being against the right to choose?
>> How will he balance the budget when he's not going to pull out of Iraq at the same time he wants to expand social programs?
Are you implying if we pulled out of Iraq and did not increase any social spending, then we would have a balanced budget? Or in a broader sense, do you believe that the war on terror is responsible for our deficit?