What is it that Dean achieved?
Printable View
What is it that Dean achieved?
Just the exposure he acheived really. He went about it in a really unique way, especially involving the internet.
As far as what he accomplished, I think he really brought out some issues that the other candidates might not have done on their own. Plus he got lots of younger people involved too.
But how did he get those younger people involved? By whipping them into a frenzy and becoming the darling of the worst parts of the Democratic Party. He was riding high in the beginning because the vocal minority (made up of shit like MoveOn.org and its ilk) loved him. But, and thank the Lord for this, those sorts of fools do not make up the majority of the Democrats in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
I mean, in all seriousness, the guy was a failure, a total bust. I dont see why anyone in their right mind would want to emulate him in the future. A manager of a baseball team may have a new, daring approach to managing baseball, but if his team loses 100 games in the season, then that approach is gonna vanish.
Yeah, but for what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
He proved that if you:
1.) Get loads of donations from individual donors.
2.) Excite young people and get interested in the political process.
3.) Turn the Internet into a massive political instrument.
and
4.) Energize the base.
You can...get your ass kicked by the guy with nothing more on his side other than that he looks like the mainstream choice.
Dean showed me that the internet community is currently almost wholly unreflective of the Democratic party as a whole (something I've been saying for a while), that you can't get anywhere by just playing to your base, that centrism (or triangulation) is the correct policy for modern presidents to adopt, that dumbass Berkely polisci professors don't know shit about electoral politics, etc.
The point of government is to get as close as possible to the political center without pissing too many of the fanatics on your 'side' off. This is a good thing.
If the 2004 Presidential Race was the Superbowl, then Dean was Janet Jackson.
Dean failed because of his politics and his personality.
Dean only had a chance to fail because of his campaign tactics and the way he energized a whole class of disenfranchise voters. The Democratic nominee needs those votes, and thanks to Dean, he's going to get a lot of them.
No offense, but you're 22 and poor. Where do your politics come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
As a Republican, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Same here, too bad he dropped out, I might've voted for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Get him to run against Bush then. :) That'd make things very interesting.
Lieberman's anti-videogame speeches ruined his chances as a top-tier candidate because there was no way he could ever hope to win cherished support from the TNL demographic.
Well, no, thanks to Bush, he's going to get a lot of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
The vast majority of the people who made up the Dean movement were ABB (Anyone But Bush) voters, people who have completely bought into the image of Bush as being an oil-drinking-baby-killing-damn-frat-boy-who-teased-me-in-third-grade-and-was-successful-when-I-wasn't-and-god-damn-it-it-isn't-fair-because-look-I'm-smart-and-can-speak-in-complete-sentences-unlike-Bush-so-why-isn't-my-life-better-it-must-be-because-of-the-establishment-bastards-like-Bush-son-of-a-bitch.
The "Bush Lied, People Died" troopers were going to show up at the polls whether or not Dean was there, since most of them think the country is going to spontaneously combust sometime in the next four years if Bush remains president.
Dean was useful in presenting himself as an enemy for the eventual Democratic nominee to vanquish, and in that, he did prove himself useful. If I was the head of the Democrats, each primary season, I would use the media to slowly prop up candidates (Dean is the frontrunner...Clark's in the race, now he's the frontrunner!) in order to give the real, eventual candidate grist for his mill.
The primary season is free publicity, and it will overshadow the campaigning of the sitting candidate as long as it continues - it's in the Democratic Party's interest to keep the primary season going as long as it is possible to do that without one of the candidates self-destructing on the other.
I wonder whether presidential candidates really run against each other (like a competition), or whether they run against themselves - the difference between boxing and skateboarding. Each one has to do a better job of turning themselves into a President.
I believe I will be casting my vote on the 2nd for Edwards.
You know, my girl was registered as a Republican (switched to undeclared, I believe), and she received a thing in the mail saying that she might be able to take part in the Democratic primary. I mention this because diffusion had said something about wanting to vote. He's in California, too.
Check that out, diff, and see.
burgundy: mostly from my parents. Besides, I may be poor now, but I certainly dont plan to be forever... and I dont want my hard work to be stripped away by Socialist doctine or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
It had nothing to do with whether he did well or not. Maybe Im looking too locally, but I know quite a few people around me who really became interested in the primaries and who would have never even gone out to vote in them if it was not for Dean. Thats more important to me then who wins this thing.
Registering as an independant is kind've pointless. It (for the most part) doesn't allow you to vote in the primaries of either side. I'm still debating whether to register Republican or Democrat, I don't agree with most of the Democrats but I certainly agree with some more then others. Although the same could be said about Republicans in my case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Chances of the Amercian Public electing a Jewish President:
I'll put them after Woman, then Black and just before Homosexual which has 0 chance of ever happening.
Nader decides to run as an independent:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.campaign/index.html
:mad:
Ok, he says he wants Bush to be out, yet he's running. How about throwing his weight behind the Dem. candidate, and work on building a real campaign over the next 4 years? Things just got even harder for the Dems. I'm no fan of the 2 party system, but he's only going to pull votes away from the Democratic candidate like he did in 2000. And we all know how that turned out.
Yeah, it saved us from a President who proved his corruption during the Clinto era. It also saved us from one who was an enviormentalist Nazi that wanted to make gas about 2 or 3 times (at least) more expensive then it is now. You may not like Bush, but depending on how you look at it, he really hasn't fucked us on the homefront.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Even if you're not poor, you're unlikely to be rich, and that's the class Republicans care about for the most part. And there isn't a serious Democratic candidate who has even been close to Socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I tire of this. Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election. Al Gore (with assistance from stupid Florida voters, his opponent's brother and the Supreme Court) cost Al Gore the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Without the Green backing, Nader is unlikely to command a significant share of the votes or even make in onto the ballot in many states. It's really a nonissue, except for the fact that he's fighting the entrenchment of the two existing parties, which to me is even more important than who wins this election.
An independent candidate in a nation that cherishes independence. Go figure.
Oh, Im gonna be rich.Quote:
Even if you're not poor, you're unlikely to be rich, and that's the class Republicans care about for the most part. And there isn't a serious Democratic candidate who has even been close to Socialist.
With the exception of your ass, I don't know where you're pulling these corruption allegations from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
And I hope you're not planning to reproduce, because Bush & co. aren't planning on leaving an environment for your children nor any money to clean it up with, thanks to "don't-tax-but-keep-spending" financial management.
We need Ross Perot again. :(
You better hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
That may likely be the case, but I'm sure it would bring us a new branch in office if he should win the race. Of course he's not going with the green party this time and it's going to be pretty hard for him to even be noticed just for starting this late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
He's gonna have to pray luck runs on his side with the people he was asking votes from 4 years ago.
We'll see about the envoirment later, however Gore was connected with Clinton in their dealings with the Chinese and Koreans. While none of this is publically proven (Clinton did however assist the NoKos with their nuclear program) there is pretty good evidance that suggests so. I personally think Clinton is a traitor and should spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. Lying to your country is bad, you shouldn't be President, but selling nuclear tech to our unstable enemies who will without a doubt build nuclear weapons with it for personal gain is another thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
ok just a thought, and not trolling, but a serious, heartfelt commnet, nader will never win..ever, not if the republican is a active member of the ku-klux-klan, and the democrat is a member of nambla, never, so its pointless to really even discuss what will happen if nader gets in, because he wont, ever. I too am not a fan of the strict 2 party system, because i dont like either choice, kerry or bush, but until there are enough parties simultaneously out there so as not to have a house united vurses a house divided, third party guys only help those who they least agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by voltz
So, they'd be sharing a cell with Rumsfeld, correct? And Reagan while we're at it.
Fringe third parties help out the constituencies of fringe third parties. Nader voters have shown that they cannot be ignored by the Democratic Party just as Buchanon voters in the past showed that they cannot be ignored by the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Hey, if there was an investigation into the matter and they were found guilty of something like the situation I mentioned above then yes, they should be in jail. I'm not too big on Rumsfield but I'm a bit of a Reagen fan, but doesn't matter to me, a traitor is a traitor, Democrat or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Nader was not the only cause of Gore's loss, true, but he was definitely a contributing factor. I hate the two party system, but throwing your hat into the ring 8 months before the election seems like a waste. I realize he will not have as much of an effect on this election as he did in 2000, but he will have an effect, nonetheless. One thing the primaries have shown me thus far is that more people are paying attention and getting involved. Come election time, I think we'll have record turnout from both parties, and from independents. I think it's going to be close no matter what. Other than a potential chance of getting in a debate to decry the 2 party system, what is Nader going to accomplish? His efforts would be better served working on a campaign for 2008 starting right now, than it would be spending the next 8 months just trying to get on ballots.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. [/dennismiller]
Your statement and Bush's lack of leadership on alternative fuels is horrifyingly ignorant. Government subsidies to oil companies keep gasoline prices lower in the US than anywhere else on Earth. If we were to pay for the true price of gas, consumers would drive SUV's out of the automobile market, and people would want to buy hybrid cars with much higher MPG ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Our comfortable way of life was built up by petroleum, which takes hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to form but only decades to rip out of the ground. We could be just a few years away from when humanity has drilled half of the total available oil on Earth. At that moment--not when the last drop has been pumped--the US and other oil-based economies will face a permanent oil crisis like the temporary crisis in 1973. A permanent oil crisis with no energy alternatives will bring massive inflation and job loss.
Marketable fuels require years to develop. Although we could temporarily build more nuclear reactors (yet those take years to bring on line and U235 is a finite element), hydroelectric dams (reservoirs silt up), etc, those could only provide energy for houses, buildings, etc. Cars and transporatation requires movable fuel. We could start mining oil shale and harvesting ethanol from corn, but such sources require so much energy imput to transform into something useable that it's not feasable. Furthermore, petroleum is non-renewable and needs to be saved for practical purposes like medicines, plastics, etc.
The only answer to maintain our current way of life beyond 2020 is to harvest solar energy--create massive fields of solar panels. We'll still need to devise a way to change that energy into a transportable fuel. It sounds crazy, but it's still far less crazy than worrying about paying $2.00 a gallon.
For more info, go here or read Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein, physicist from California Institute of Technology.
Ah ha ha... Man, I thought this race was going to suck. Boy, was I wrong! Pwned by Nader.
This kind of thinking is keeping John Edwards from having a chance. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
I love this website:
http://www.turtlerock.com/RalphDontRun/
(FlashPlayer required)
I agree with the points about oil. It's an awful thing really, and a ticking time bomb for economic disaster as long as nobody does shit. And you know, if we really wanted to we all could be driving cars not running on petroleum by 2015. However, the problem is that people do not want to, and the government does not want to force them because of the oil industry, which might I add has been influencing government policy well before Bush came and will still be doing it way after he is gone.
I highly doubt Al Gore would've done any more than Bush has done, and I doubt Kerry or Edwards will do any more should they get elected.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...ws/8010857.htm
I attended Edwards' rally Saturday afternoon in St Paul, MN. My wife & I got there 1/2 hour early, but the room (cap. ~700) was already full. By the time he arrived, (which was about a 1/2 hr behind schedule) the lobby and parking lot were filled with people there just to watch the live feed on projection screens. The local newspaper estimated >2000 people showed up before the police started turning carloads of people away.
Oh, forgot to mention... We were given an Edwards sign to hold up whenever the crowd cheered; we were standing to his back-right side and might've shown up on TV. Afterward, my wife snuck through the crowd and got his autograph. :D
I will agree that no candidate has done or will be doing enough for alternative fuels, but you couldn't dream up an administration more owned by the oil industry than the current one.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
My girlfriend and her parents attended an Edwards rally about two weeks back and were pretty impressed. I only skipped because I had class. Now I wish I would have skipped class.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
What were his words during the 2000 campaign...
ah, yes...
"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the
spigot and increase the supply."
Fair enough, you bring up some good points, but depending on if Gore got his way or not this might've happened anyway, even know there was oil. I'm worried about what's gonna happen in the next 5-20 years when China starts importing a lot of oil. We better find a new oil source by then or develope new technology or there's gonna be a hell of a war.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
And we pretty much pay $2.00 a gallon anyway, at least in my area. Give or take $.30
Just thought I'd throw a nice little fact out there for you guys. The Oil industries of the U.S. only pay slightly less in income tax than the entire U.S. middle class. (Source: a speical on the history channel about the history of oil)
Hmm I dont think that statement tells me much, though, without a lack of context. It's pretty meaningless.
How much does the oil industry pay in relation to other large industries? How do we figure that out - amount of taxes paid per employee, maybe? I dunno.
Just walked by Kerry's apartment a few minutes ago(I live 2 blocks away from him). Dude's got secret service guys out front now. I think I'll take pictures of them next week.
It may explain why they get pandered to by the US government. It would be easier to make one industry happy than every one in the middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I hope they kill for you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinopio
And IronPlant... totally missed my point. I said that statistic is worthless. It tells me nothing. It sounds like something Michael Moore would fabricate because he hates Bush. Now if you told me that the oil industry pays less in taxes than other major industries, and gave me the methodology used to determine this, then told me the statistics that came out, I would say its worthwhile.
You try way too hard to be funny and offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
No... see, I really do hope that happens.
I'll bet Kerry gives off the impression of a career politician just by talking to him.
If I ever got the chance to go face to face with a canadate, I'd really love to pressure them on issues just to see how anti-american they are in general and give them a bad face with the public. I'll likely end up missing afterwards... :rolleyes:
I can't say I agree with this year's lineup with Dean gone and Greenspan coming in late, we're gonna be stuck with a lesser evil all over again.
Even I'm finding that kinda funny.Quote:
I hope they kill for you for that.
Greenspan? Thats the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
It's Nader, you knob.
You're doing better than me. I don't see what that statistic is worth even if it was quantified accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Any one of the candidates would own you. Completely. Even Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by voltz
Hell, Edwards would make you like him before he was done.
And just because I think Nader has a right to run and doesn't mean I don't think he's totally insane.
Why the fuck does America not have a preference based voting system?
http://www.australianpolitics.com/vo...erential.shtml
Well for starters, I'd like to get on him over how he's letting coporate business lobby for new laws at our expense over fair use and privacy which he's violating with silly things such as DMCA and the patriot act, both of which boycott-riaa have archived over how it has done damage to both people and business in general. Second, he's got hardly nothing on his reason's for the war in Iraq and his excuse for weapons of mass destruction have proven to come up short other then the capture of saddam which should have been done over the time his dad was in office. He can go on and on, but aside from using the terrorist cause over 9/11, he's already proven himself a war tyrant and just continues to avoid the fact so he can remain as president. His misuse of the authority congress gave him is clearly noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Reminds me of when clinton was almost impeached, along with that sudden missle strike.
I hear he's friendly with everybody.Quote:
Hell, Edwards would make you like him before he was done.
I'm glad to hear his issues on the partiot act being misused by the attorney general as well as removing liberties it's supposed to protect. He's also for banning lobbyist campaign donations and holding attorneys accountable for frivolous lawsuits, which is something that needs to be addressed badly.
I think I like this guy.
Oh, and he voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. :)
Now how in the hell did that come out?Quote:
If I ever got the chance to go face to face with a canadate, I'd really love to pressure them on issues just to see how anti-american they are in general and give them a bad face with the public. I'll likely end up missing afterwards...
Yeah I know, it's 6am and I can't hardly think anyways. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You can hope that I'm going to be killed by secret service guys just for taking their picture, and you can hope to pull off the "witty asshole" internet persona with any sort of success, but neither is going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
And you can keep trying to say something inciteful and interesting, especially in political threads, but, in the end, you're still just a worthless stoner.
Dammit. Edwards is dropping out tomorrow. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html
Fuck. Based on Kerry and Edwards' bantering in the last debates, I'm doubting Kerry will ask Edwards to be his running mate. That is, if Edwards was open to the idea.
It'll be interesting to see where things go from here...
So that's it then, just him and bush...
Oh yeah, Kerry supports the patriot act too. (even though he knew it was wrong)
What the fuck?!? Why on earth would they do that? Why not just print an article saying, "WE ENDORSE KERRY!"
Fucking bastards!
We can't go by any other wings in the white house because of 2 parties that want to wrestle control for themselves.... FUCKERS!
At least bush should be on his way out.
I don't think Kerry can beat him. Fuck it, I'm still voting for Edwards. You can't deter me, bitches!
Political masturbation > popular vote
I'm still gonna vote Dean.
http://www.nationalreview.com/geragh...0402200902.asp
But he won...Vermont!!!!!! You friggin' lying liars!!! Yeaaaaaaaaaargh!!Quote:
"The most powerful thing this campaign did is bring young people to the political process. These people really changed America's politics." — Joe Trippi, Dean's former campaign manager
But the Dean campaign didn't bring enough young people to the political process to win anywhere. He didn't win New Hampshire and South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. He never made it to California and Texas and New York. He never got to South Dakota and Oregon. He lost Washington and Michigan. And he never came anywhere close to Washington D.C. to take back the White House. In fact, he lost the D.C. primary, at least the binding one.
You're damn skippy, Mike. You show 'em, you show 'em good! :) Always, always keep in mind what Al Gore once said, "If anybody ever tells you your vote doesn't count, you send 'em to MEE... I wanna have a talk with 'em...!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Beh, lets all vote Independent and knock the two-party system on its ass!
Everyone should get up in the morning and thank their respective diety that Ralph Nader exists and actually cares enough about your worthless ass to try and save it from your choices of A.) An omnipresent socialist police state (like the far left wants) or B.) A moralistic theocratic corporate slave state (like the far right wants).
Mike, think, "Nader the Raider" or "Run, Ralph, Run!", dude... He's baaaaaaaaack... At the end of the day, you gotta vote on your principles, right? Riiight???? :D
http://www.votenader.org -- Hint, hint...
Edwards said on the Today show, with complete conviction, he would not go for vice president no matter what. He wasn't giving the typical politician's non answer, just flat out said no. So I doubt it'd happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Kerry/Edwards would be a good ticket though.
I was at the caucus last night. Kerry won the middle-aged vote. There were only 4/28 people 30 or younger. Glancing at the Georgia county-by-county results, it appears Kerry has little to no appeal outside of urban areas, just like Gore. Expect another 4 years for Bush. Maybe that'll be a good thing. In the midst of insurmountable economic and environmental crises in 2008 and 2012, people will begin to realize how baby boomers and the Republican party have trashed our country, planet, and way of life. When a Generation X'er gets into the White House, I look forward to seeing medicare and social security slashed from the same voters who didn't care about our generation.
I'm sitting home this November.
It's not that he tries too hard, it's that he still falls short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinopio
I really don't like Kerry much, but he's not Gephardt, he's not Leiberman, and most of all he's not Bush. So he'll suffice, I suppose.
I can't believe your country actually has to hold an election. The guy with his finger on the button says "yeah, I have to start a war. Jesus told me to. You know, Jesus? The pacifist who got the crap beat out of Him then got killed because He wouldn't raise a finger in violence, and then told everyone to follow His example? Yeah, Him. He made me do it."
Sensible countries would either lock Dubya in an asylum, or at least demote him to a position where he can't do any real harm, like church puppet show organizer or something. I think he's remarkably well-qualified for that.
The Canadian doesn't like how we do things.
Silence, Canadian! Or, have at thee!
We almost had a similar problem with Brian Mulroney back in the 80s. We just held a referendum, demoted him to puppet show, and washed our hands of the whole mess. Worked out great, and nobody got bombed. Well, I mean, he did, but his drinking is his own business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
We still have Mulroney's god damn GST though.
That was actually pretty funny. Good show.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
I don't want to hear you bitching about how Bush fucks up this country for the next four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
I don't understand how anyone with a brain can vote for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Because if a democrat were president, he might harm the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Worse than what's happened to our economy already?Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
I think that was one of the times when sarcasm didn't translate well over the internet. Given that the democrats handed Dubya a surplus when he came in to office, it would be tough to say they'd do worse than the current administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
You'll note that I didn't say, "Worse than what Bush has done to our economy?"Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Ah ha, Sherlock! A clue! ;)
Nader had my vote last election, but now that he's abandoned the Green Party he's never getting it again. He was building a legitimate third party in the Greens, now he's just running on a cult of personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
He's a moron with oil money and stock market investments, just like any other politician. And in the 2000 election he took money from Republican supporters to air Green Party commercials.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
We Connecticut folk know a lot about our politicians.
Thank you. I took great joy in it. Maybe a little too much perhaps... I need the comic relief after buying into all that Deaniac hype myself and having once seriously considered him a threat ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Ah dammit... My, my, Nader opinions have changed significantly... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Oh well, you're too clever for me anyhow... *sniff*
Al Gore highly disapproves of your attitude and would like to have a serious talk with you on this matter... I'm just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
And in a highly unusual rare turn of events:Hehe. I believe this news... There dammit, finally got an opportunity to use that shit too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
--
Well, in all seriousness, I do feel sorry for Edwards. Slight problem you get with a likeable guy in a party you want nothing to do with. But, now I'm curious to see what happens to the senate seat he leaves behind. At least, that was the word last I checked, not sure about it now.
ok, there are a lot of sensable criticisms that can be leveled at bush, but now you are just being stupid. Please find me the exact quote saying that george bush went into war because "jesus told him too" or talk sense, because this is a moronic characture,and you can do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
again, there were a lot of other factors involved witht he economy going downhill, Clinton was fortunate enough to come into office during the tech boom,when the internet stocks were being so perversely overvalued, once the market corrected, and keep in mind that this started during the end of the clinton administration, the economy shrunk significantly. But you really cant blame or praise either administration, it was more luck in that case. Plus, one could note that in korea, the tech boom didnt end because the government and businesses invested in the infrastructure that made (south) korea the powerhouse it is right now. Neither clinton nor gore were foreward thinking enough to build a coalition with the american buisnesses to do the same. To be horribly frank, one of the majore problems in america right now is the exporting of mid-level jobs to other countries, like india, which has become the source of most tech work, which is why during the larry king debate last sunday, all 4 dems sounded particularly isolationistic,and all were down on nafta, so if a dem does get in office, the world might see a much more isolated us than in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
As if the news wasn't isolated enough.
And they also handed him an economy that was already sinking and a dotcom bubble that already burst.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
And then two planes flew into the World Trade Center.
The democrats also handed Dubya a shitload of documents and testimonials about Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities.
Just sayin'.
Dang...I tried looking up a quote, but "George Bush pray Iraq War" comes up with some pretty freaky stuff when you type it into google. But I can say with certainty that Dubya has mentioned on more than one occasion that he prayed to Jesus about what to do in Iraq, and recieved the answer that invasion was the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Now, maybe Dubya has an open phone line to Jesus, and maybe Jesus had faulty intelligence too and told him to do it, but some how "shock and awe" doesn't seem like the big J's M.O., except for that one time he detonated a Mother of All Bomb(s) outside Jerusalem right after the Last Supper.
As for the economy, yes there were extenuating circumstances, and I don't count 9/11 expenses against the guy. But for crying out loud - an all-time record deficit of $477 Billion!? A quarter of the US budget? That's colossal mismanagement no matter how you want to skew it, and he has absolutely no feasible plan to make it better. I mean, he says he does (by 2009), he just doesn't have any details yet. If you're lucky it'll be a tax cut. Those always work, especially when you increase spending right after.
I like to bitch about Iraq and about his religious motives, but I might be able to look past both of those if not for this. The deficit, for me, is really the bottom line on Bush, and I challenge any of his supporters to explain to me why I should tolerate it. I can understand why selfish baby-boomers and retirees would want to live fat now on our generations' dime, but I can't fathom why any one us can stand for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Because the Democrats will overlook Homeland Security, which is the most important issue of this campaign. Aren't you paying attention?Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
The primary is essentially over. Now George and Kerry can start duking it out.
In my opinion, the Dems could have only picked one more candidate worse than Kerry. (Okay, maybe three or more are worse, but they weren't contenders). While Edwards would not have won, I think he would have gained a larger number of votes than Kerry come November.
The problem with Kerry lies in his voting record. The man has voted for some very unpopular packages, and against some very popular ones. He's against the DMA, for reinstating higher taxes, against the death penalty, and for weakening the military. While some of these issues won't grate on the nerves of some coastal blue states, they'll surely destroy him in red states and midwestern/southern blue states. Take Minnesota. I'm willing to put cash down that Bush will be the first Republican since Nixon to take the state.
As far as I'm concerned, the Dems knocked out their very best candidate in the first round. And one of their second best on Tuesday.
Needless to say, it's going to be an interesting year.
ok, but that is tremendously unfair, Truman mentioned that he prayed for guidence before dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, and if you look, you will find that most world leaders, regardless of the depth of their religious convictions, will say that they prayed on the subject, its just human nature before making a monumental decision too make an appeal to the highest authority that you feel connected to, its hardly as specific to bush as you point it out to be. the bottom line is that yes, if any of the ostensably christian influenced (or, correctly-interpreted muslim for that matter) truely looked at their faith, they would have no army outside of a strictly defensive force, but that is one of the perks of seperation of church and state, church is fully pacifistic, state must provide for their defence, but anyone who is religious will pray for guidence before making a decision of this level. your prior post makes it sound like bush was launching a crusade not reflecting on his faith before commiting to a military action against a repressive dictator. you can do better than that, bring reality to the plate, not slander and straw-men.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
That was very well put Frost.
Bush has always had my vote. ;)
Both are very valid. However, three years have passed and we've 3 million fewer jobs and a record deficit. How long can he go on blaming 9/11?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Maybe so, but there wasn't anything there they thought was worth invading over.Quote:
The democrats also handed Dubya a shitload of documents and testimonials about Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities.
So now here we are, a year later, and no WMD. No Saddam links to 9/11 either. I guess "freeing the Iraqui people" will have to suffice as justification, as the first two reasons didn't pan out. While toppling Saddam was noble, it would have sold better if it had been labeled as the primary reason for invading instead of WMDs.
I was watching Bush's commercials today. I'm not surprised he's going the "great leader and Commander in Chief" route. It's not like he can fill half a minute with his domestic victories. I do think, however, that he's wrong by going positive. He needs to attack Kerry and start defining him now, otherwise the Dems will nail him. The economy has never been a friend to the Bush family and Kerry knows this. He's going to play it out for all it's worth. As long as Bush trumpets Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn't attack Kerry's liberal record, he's doing the Dems a favor. I do think he'll go negative when his poll numbers don't move much. Politicians always do.
strangely, my vote is not assured, i dotn like kerry, but bush has not impressed me, he has spent liek a fucking democrat, the war,while i agree something had to be done, he really did a lot wrong in dealing with other countries,and he carries a strong taint of corruption with how he handled bigger buisnesses that behaved badly, plus he is just too vulnerable with his past. if anythign i hope we get him in just so we can run a republican with vision and character after him, if kerry gets in, the leadership could try to force him on us again. If you excuse me, i have to go cry over my photo of john mcCaine(who i respect, despite misspelling his name), a cantidate who would have eaten kerry and gore for lunch in back to back shots and pissed them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
no it was just worth running bombing runs when clinton was getting impeached. cry me a riverQuote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Moderate to Conservative Democrat President, Conservative Congress. That's the way it ought to be.
Which is obviously the same thing in terms of military commitment, spending, and U.S. lives lost...Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
no just unprovoked aggression resulting in lost lives, kind of passive aggresive really, you fly some planes over, kill a few people, dont really have any justification to speak of, just kind of fly off and attack another country , clearly the action of a clearer thinking man.
bah, conservative democrat, are you familiar with william casey? its the reason i left the democratic party in high school and joined the young republicans. democrats are a big tent,if you agree with everything th party tells you to, otherwise you get shut out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
There's not a lot of room for moderates in either party - the Democrats have Lieberman, the Republicans McCain, and a handful of other people on either side, that's it.
Notice I didn't include morality in my comparison? Neither is morally sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
...and I'd be a fool to argue morality when Bill Clinton is involved. :p
I was referring to cost and U.S. lives lost. When you send 139,000 troops to a foreign country, you tend to need better justification than when you send some planes to bomb.
I was slowly heading down the road towards "moderate" up until a few weeks ago.
Now, this FCC stuff is turning me into a conspiracy theorist. The Fellowship is brought up on the AP and they're shown to be actual members of Senate and Congress? There's a push being made for a ban on same-sex marriages? Howard Stern starts complaining about Bush and suddenly he's off six stations, with another heavy fine coming up this weekend against him for supposed indecency (and he most likely will be taken off all channels)? We get attacked by terrorists and now we're using it as an motivation for reduction of civil rights and an excuse for aggression against other countries? The economy is doing poorly (check NY Times - February job growth stalled) so the people are willing to accept scapegoats for such things? My common sense says to take these things as they are, as I've been doing.
It's getting harder to control my inner rebel, though.
I think his ass should start praying for $477 BILLION DOLLARS.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
How can God give anyone money when you go to church and they pass the basket around? God is terrible with money, he really needs an accountant, badly. I don't see how God could afford to be handing out cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
But if Dubya gets that money, you can count me in as a Christian. I'll be praying every day! :)
I'm shocked he's held out this long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Funny you should mention this, as this connection crossed my mind as early as September 11, 2001.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Worked with Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Me too, I just didn't want to list it first. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Some of this would make some sense if his dumb ass didn't proceed to CUT taxes when they clearly should have been INCREASED.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Still waiting to hear why the hell I should be comfortable with a deficit of $477 BILLION DOLLARS.
You ought to use that as your custom title. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Stop right there. Those two situations don't even compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
For crying out loud, he is.Quote:
your prior post makes it sound like bush was launching a crusade
He said so, himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
:)
You shouldnt be comfortable about it. I think its awful, myself. I could handle a deficit but not one that big.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
But you know, when you have Baby Boomers in office they are gonna protect Baby Boomers.
Only three Presidents have presided over such ridiculously high deficits. One of them was named Reagan and the other two were named Bush.
Everyone shits their pants at the mention of the word "taxes," so Bush can irresponsibly cut taxes and get votes. He's buying your votes with your own money, minus interest.
If you think the deficit is awful, you should factor it into your vote. Unless you think Kerry can possibly mismanage the budget as bad as Bush, and history says he won't.