I like that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
US National Debt
Printable View
I like that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
US National Debt
The National Debt:
as of 6/30/1950: 257 billion dollars
as of 12/31/1980: 930 billion dollars
as of 9/30/1992: 4 trillion dollars
as of 9/30/2000: 5.7 trillion dollars
as of yesterday: 7.1 trillion dollars
It doesn't take a math major to see which party is worse at mismanaging our money.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm
Growing up, if I wanted to buy a $10 Transformers toy but only had $1 in my pocket, my parents would let me take out a loan on future weeks' allowances ($1.50/week = 6 weeks of loan) to make up the difference. If I saw another toy the following week, too bad. My brothers and I would take opportunities like this to tease each other about having spent our money, and to this day I've learned to be fiscally responsible with my paychecks.
It makes me wonder, why is the government so bad with money management while I'm not? If the government would tax me more to pay off the debt, I'd still be in the black. wtf is wrong with them?
"Compassionate Conservatism" is code speak for "Cut taxes but don't decrease spending. Let the next generation pay it off."
For some reason you remind me of Dr. Evil when you say it like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I got a job this summer doing activism for the Environment.
That's right - diffusionx is gonna be an enviro-hippie this summer.
why not, your only piece of evidence agaisnt him is that he prayed for guidence,and i said so did truman, where is the problem? provide me with the difference, because i see none.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
None!? Truman was faced with either sending a million of his own men to their probable deaths, with the same number of casualties on the Japanese side, with who knows how many civilian deaths and the ruin of what was left of the country itself - vs. using the most unimaginably horrible weapon ever concieved by the mind of man to end the war in a single plane flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
THAT is the kind of decision you need divine advice for.
Dubya was not forced to do anything. There was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had anything - that's why the UN wouldn't go in for it. Of the "evidence" they claimed they had, half of it was fake, some amateurishly so. So unless you think some school kid's essay fooled Jesus in to backing the war, I think it's pretty safe to assume Dubya's "guidance" came from his own inner messianic delusions, not the ascended embodiment of God's love for mankind.
Really? The UN knew there were no WMDs? Im not quite sure about that. Everything I've read indicates that the UN had no idea if Iraq actually had them, but the UN assumed that they did. Iraq's stubbornness didn't help anything, either. They were not exactly forthright with the information.
And now that we have learned about the corruption of the UN Oil-for-Food program, which went right up the politicial ladder in countries like, oh look at this, France, Germany and Russia, is it really any surprise that there was opposition in the UN to this?
Strider, face reality, the UN opposition wasn't because of WMDs, it was because the leaders of those countries were protecting their interests in a corrupt system that enriched a dictator.
As for just who Bush consults or talks to before he does anything, I dont think it matters one bit. People have been consulting God before they do things for thousands of years, dude. Some people are cool hip atheists, and for others God figures prominently in their life. For Bush it's clearly the latter and I don't see how you can slag the guy for him.
It all comes down to actions - either you like the actions or you don't. You clearly don't, so don't vote for him. Wait, you're not American, so you can't vote.
I am of the opinion that Bush's executive decisions reference his religious beliefs in a manner that goes way beyond simply praying on a tough call. But as of now I lack evidence to back that opinion up.
In closing, 477 BILLION DOLLARS.
in reality both situations are just that. praying for guidence is, in the end, looking to what you beleive is right and taking your stab,and asking god to not let you fall too far on your face, its still all you, you are just hoping for better dice rolls. i am not arguing the situations being different, i am arguing that you are making a straw man of his beliefs to pillory a guy who can have a lot of more substantiative criticisms leveled at him, such as burg's number, or the number of lost jobs, or worst of all for conservatives, the amount that a republican enlarged government, not good form in our dark and lightless hearts. and when you make a blanket statement like you started with, you implicate that the beleif system motivated him to his act, honstly, it was revenge, or maybe misguided altruism, or whatever, but it sure as fuck wasnt him really thinking "jesus told him to" botom line, it was a stupid comment and i called you on it, and i still am.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
every time i want to hate you, you make me love you...in a strictly homosexual way of course :sweat:Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
you know ill be waiting when you are ready, i can bring some pancakes if ya want.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
:p
My comment about Edwards way back on page 1 or 2 of this thread:
"BUT, I think we'll be seeing a lot more of him in the future."
Then, RedcoKid's keen insights:
There's more, too, where Redco talks about Edwards' stammer-free statement that he would NEVER accept to be on the ticket as vice-president, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
It's like I'm psychic or something. Oh yeah, and I have the thrill of listening to lawyers every day.
prior to this pick, i was actually going to vote for kerry, im now just not voting, its a toss between a republican who bloated the govenment and a oppetunistic reanimated cadaver, and a pro-abortion "catholic" with a trial lawyer veep. fuck it.
Ok, before conservatives start parroting the whole "trial lawer/ambulance chaser" shit, I'd suggest you read up on some of the cases EdwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
fought in. He's one of the few lawers who give the practice a GOOD name.
Here's a snippet:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen in Febuary
I'll agree we need some serious tort reform, that there are too many lawyers in the US, and that our "Sue Happy" culture and trial lawyers are partly responsible for our skyrocketing health care costs.Quote:
In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history.
But before anyone starts demonizing Edwards for his trial lawyer background, I'd suggest you read up on his cases. If you want to attack him, do it on his lousy attendance record in the Senate, his lack of experience, and the various other things Rush and the GOP are telling you to attack on that actually have some substance. Or, feel free to research all of his cases and show where he prosecuted on lame cases.
Edwards did flip flop on his unwillingness to be VP, didn't he? :)
{Pulled from a previous post by RedCo Kid}
I think Edwards will say something to the effect of "I was totally focused on getting the nomination for president. By thinking about being VP, I would have split my focus and allowed myself and the voters to think "well, there's always the VP spot." I gave it 100%, and at the time, the option of being someone's VP wasn't an option at all."Quote:
BLITZER: And the decision you've made to drop out and not seek reelection was?
EDWARDS: Why?
BLITZER: Yes.
EDWARDS: Because I don't think you can run for president of the United States while you're holding onto the side of the swimming pool. I mean, you have to be very serious and totally committed. And no one can have any doubt.
When you ask a caucus-goer in Iowa to caucus for you or a voter in New Hampshire to vote for you for president, they can't be thinking, "Well, if this doesn't work, he's going to go do something else."
Agreed. Clinton increased the debt by 1.7/4 = 42.5%. Bush has increased it 1.4/5.7 = 24.6%. Raw numbers don't mean shit without context. Maybe it does take a math major...Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Clinton also had twice the amount of years to do it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Hey, I'm totally for John Edwards being the VP. How badass would it be to have a Vice President that can talk to dead people!
Stop! You're killing me! Ah ha haha!Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
Jerk.
Seriously, though, this was pretty much known from the minute he dropped off before polls closed.
And his economic policy also panned out, balancing things with money left over, by term's end. After what basically ended up as 12 years of Reaganomics, it was quadrupled with no such light in sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by kabuki
Anyone on this board arguing in favor of Bush's economics are forgetting that they're going to be alive when the shit hits the fan and they don't have millions or even billions to coast through the fallout on.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html
Some bipartisan political "satire" that highlights our upcoming Nov. choices. Server might be busy so try a few refreshes later if you can't get it first time around. Howard Dean's talents never get old it seems.
...to add two terms together?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You guys are so fucking funny. Decreasing the debt != Making it increase slower. Factor in the fact that Clinton's cutting of defense and intelligence spending in large part contributed to 9/11, and then do a cost analysis of his Presidency. He accomplished absolutely nothing, which is why he will be remembered only for Monica. It doesn't cost much to do nothing.
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
In his semi-defense, I doubt Bush saw all of this war stuff coming when he pushed on a tax-cut ticket when he ran. Then again, I agree that all things should be in balance when you budget, so taxes ought to go up to pay for all this spending, or spending should go down. Overspending is what sent CA's economy down the hole, and now the richest state in the US has the worst credit rating around. And then people complain when taxes go up, or spending on certain programs goes down.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
"Contributed in large part?" Like, it was largely his fault? A bunch of lunatics flying planes into buildings caused 9/11. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that if there'd been a defence budget increase it wouldn't have happened? Like, they were going to have moles higher up in Al Qaeda, it was just too expensive? Airport security would've noticed something if only they knew the intelligence budget was larger?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Come on.
If Clinton chose to fight terrorists instead of getting his cock sucked by Monica Lewinsky and going to therapy, then, well, its likely that 9/11 would not have happened. People love to talk about how the Clinton years were an "era of peace and prosperity", and while the latter is true the former is definitely not. There were plenty of terrorist attacks against Americans throughout the world, Clinton knew about bin Laden's will to kill Americans and he knew about his ability to pull it off, yet he chose to do nothing more than fire a few missiles at a few caves.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
There was a war going on during Clinton's years, he just chose not to fight it.
Apparently Clinton tried to assassinate Bin Laden at least once. After Sept. 11 he related to the media a story about how they fired on a convoy transporting Bin Laden but hit the wrong vehicle.
Well, so we should all applaud him for failing at one attempt, then giving up and passing it off to his successor.
Diff, you're a ridiculous republican.
Why dont you tell me why it is unreasonable to criticize Clinton's failure to go after bin Laden?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Especially when al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center 8 months after he left office?
Please, tell me why this is unreasonable.
Especially if we are talking about Clinton's legacy.
From CNN:
Take all that with a grain of salt if you like.Quote:
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about Osama bin Laden. You say in your book that you made several efforts to kill him. In retrospect do you believe, though, that you should have mustered some kind of special mission, some kind of special forces mission, even though many of your senior military advisers opposed that at the time. Do you think you should have done it?
CLINTON: Well what I wish now is that I had had a more vigorous military debate. One of the discussions that I had with the 9/11 commission involved the reorganization of the military in the 1980s under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which has done a lot of good. It's helped to rationalize military spending, it's helped us to downside the military and spend more on areas where we needed. It's done a lot of good.
But essentially it's made the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a much more powerful and centralized authority there. So when people began to second-guess the fact that I didn't send the special forces into Afghanistan even though concededly nobody knew where bin Laden was, nobody knew where [Ayman] al-Zawahiri was, nobody knew, but we had a general idea of where they were operating.
After 9/11, when people began to second-guess that, I wish that I had had a military debate because basically the Pentagon and [the Joint Chiefs chairman] were strongly opposed to it, they thought that the chances of those guys getting killed were high. And that's what they signed on to do, to risk their lives, but they didn't want to get killed with no reasonable prospect of accomplishing the mission.
So their view was: We don't know where these people are, we have no reasonable intelligence, we know we can't trust people on the ground because they told us bin Laden was gonna be at this training camp we hit.
We contracted with all these Afghan tribals and its borne no result for us. So we think it's very high risk for a very, very low chance of return, and we recommend against it.
But I'm the commander-in-chief, or I was then, and they would have gone if I had ordered them to. I wish I had debated it a little more thoroughly because if you look at it, the record will reflect that I took every other alternative that I had based on the available intelligence.
We did, it is true, consider bombing three other sites, three other times, but in each case the CIA before the mission could be completed said we just don't have that much confidence in our intelligence.
So you know, when something like 9/11 happens you think, "Well gosh, I wish I had done everything."
Now the other issue which I have been asked about is slightly different, which is after the USS Cole [was bombed in Yemen] in October [2000], do I wish I had ordered the special forces, and the answer to that is, I would have done it in a heartbeat to special forces and more with or without international support, once I got the CIA and the FBI to agree and make an official finding that bin Laden was responsible.
I just assumed he was from the day it happened, and everyone else did. But it was not until after I left office that the FBI and the CIA made a finding. If they had given me a finding beforehand I would have gone after him without regard to the politics, the timing, the election, the court cases, anything going on in America. I would have done it, but I didn't get the confirmation, and America didn't get it until after I left office.
Clinton could have taken a stronger stance on terrorist than he did. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have pushed the military to take whatever action he thought was necessary. As could have Bush when he took office. Clinton wanted to have solid intelligence from his folks before running off to war or sending special ops in. After 9/11, Bush took the other route and went to war without solid intelligence.
We need someone in the middle. We also need true solid intelligence. I'd say our recent intelligence has been rather runny and lumpy.
The only way 9/11 would not have happened would have been for all of the top of Al-queda to have been killed in 1999, before planning for the attack began. Even if Osama had been killed in 2000, the attacks would have occured under the direction of his lieutenants.
9/11 is not one man's fault. It's not just Clinton's. It's not just Bush. The whole intelligence community fucked up because every decision maker was a stuck-up dick head too worried about petty inter-agency rivalries.
Wolffen, Im at the stage now where I want a President who is willing to go after terrorists. We dont need airtight intelligence to tell us bin Laden is a threat to the United States and needs to be stopped. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 but like I said Clinton knew he was a threat and he didnt go after him. That much is obvious.
If Clinton went after bin Laden with vigor after the first WTC bombing, or after Cole, or after Kenya, then history would be very different.
But, really, thats all in the past. It needs to be discussed, though, when we discuss Clinton's legacy. With regards to terrorism, he just fucked up. He fucked up bad. And let's not even get into the whole Mogadishu disaster, which bin Laden repeatedly said showed that Americans are weak and will jump ship at first sight of blood (although, I do hope our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our defeat of al-Sadr showed them this is not the case).
Bin Laden was made as powerful as he is by the Reagan administration, with help from W's father in the early 80's. To blame Clinton like he should have fixed their mistakes is outright stupidity.
Thats probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. A President's job isn't to point fingers and wash their hands of problems that threaten America because of a previous President's mistakes. Their job is to defend America against her enemies, no matter who they are or where they originate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone
Wow, you're awesome at reading what you want to read. Amazing. However, I never inferred that Clinton should have pointed fingers and done nothing. Don't be so blinded that you only see what suits you.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You're holding someone responsible who's only earned a small part of the blame. Republicans made him, and republicans were in office when all that CIA training paid off for him, so saying "Clinton should have done something" is an acceptable remark, but only if said like this "Clinton should have done something, as should have the administrations responsible for the man rising to power and the one in power when he attacked, who was forewarned of the attack." You're a smart guy Diff, but you're not showing it here.
Oh, I definitely agree with that. Everyone who ignored him was part of the problem.
It's kind of like how the Cold War took every President from ~1947 until 1989 (or whatever) to win, not just Reagan. If just one slacked in their duties then something drastic could've happened.
However, that doesnt change the fact that Clinton was the man in charge after the first WTC bombing, after the Kenya attacks, after Cole, and he didnt do anything. Those were real, live, in-the-flesh terrorist attacks and he pretty much just ignored them.
I remember after he fired those stupid missiles at caves, and killed like 30 al-Qaeda guys, bin Laden came on TV and said, "I will kill 100 Americans for every 1 of my men you killed", or something like that. And Clinton's response? Pretty much nothing, Im afraid.
These are very distressing things, if you ask me.
Now if we want to get into discussions about Bush's legacy or Reagan's legacy then we can bring up those other issues, and we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
That must be why Bush did nothing while his counterterrorism chief was screaming in his ear to go after Al Qaeda.
What basis do you have for this claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Did "ignore" become synonymous with "did not start an unprovoked war with a Middle Eastern country unconnected to the war on terror" without my knowledge?
I won't absolve Clinton of his shortcomings in preventing terrorist attacks. But playing cowboy of the world will not win the "war on terror." You can't win the "war on terror", just like you can't win the "war on drugs", through military might. There is a fundemental failing on the part of many decision makers worldwide with addressing the root causes of terrorist and drug use. You can't kill all of the terrorist. They're like HYDRA, kill one, and 2 will take his place. That's not to say we shouldn't be killing terrorists. Just that simply killing them will not make them all go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Setting up a democracy in the Middle East that will act as a shining example to the Muslim world might work in 50 years. Unfortunately, we have 50 years of potential attacks to deal with while we wait for magic in Iraq. And right now, world opinion is not with us. A quick change in leadership (look! I'm trying to bring the thread back on topic!) would go a long way to mending some international fences. At least until Kerry pisses someone off. Terrorism is an international problem in terms of reach, but primarily a US and Israeli problem in terms of effect (yeah, yeah, I know about Madrid, and about the IRA in Ireland...key word is primarily). We'll get more accomplished with the world on our side than with the world against us.
As to the "we don't need airtight intelligence to tell us...": true. But we do need good solid HUMAN intelligence to help us find the bastards that want to kill everyone, and to find Osama. After the Cold War, and especially during the 90s, the CIA and FBI began to focus more on electronic intelligence than human intelligence. And that's where it all fell apart. How many people do we have on the inside in Al-Queda? How many double agents did we have in the KGB? We need to stop spending billions of dollars on one plane and start spending that money on human intelligence and our ground troops.
Long and short of it (and again, trying to get the thread on topic), I feel our current president and his administration have not done a good job with the War on Terror, do not have the full cooperation of the international community, and will not make the changes necessary in our intelligence agencies to improve our chances of finding terrorists worldwide. If the Republicans would put someone else up for election, I'd gladly consider him over Kerry depending on their background. But as it stands, I'd like to see a change.
I didn't say anyone should be applauded or anything of the sort. I'm just stating relevant facts as I know them.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
http://www.foxnews.com/images/132869...ea_clinton.jpg
Highlights from last nights speech.
Quote:
In this year’s budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they’re taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.
These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left—enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement—into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it’s not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they’re competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it’s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry’s your man.
...During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and myself—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.
...Since we’re all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.
Can you guys elect Clinton again?
If we could, I guarantee you we would.
Yes, hopefully we can, along with Sandy Berger. I believe there are some classified documents that need to be shoved up some pants.
He's right, seeing as the current administration is so far above such tactics.
Kerry is a scum bag commie canada lover!!!!!!!
Today is a sad day, Kerry has apparently lost the support of the joke account voters. Can he still take back the White House? Only time will tell.
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...ama_dnc233.jpg
Did anyone just hear Barack Obama's speech?
It was even better than, dare I say, Clinton's!
Quote:
I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
...A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
...In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!
Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.
Sorry didn't mean to post so much, but that shit was awesome!
Who is this guy and give me one reason why he wont be the first black president.
Yeah, I'd vote for him, but unfortunately Kerry's running.
I obviously mean down the road.
I know. I was just saying...
He's like a skinny The Rock. He has the same energy Schwarzenegger had when he gave his inaugural address.
Which is why I'm a big fan of him. They're very convincing people, regardless of what side of the political fence you're on.
He's the guy that'll probably take a senator's seat in my state come November, sadly. The Tribune here torpedoed Jack Ryan's run to replace outgoing republican senator Peter Fitzgerald who won't be running for relection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
It was a good speech for democrats though, I do admit. Clinton stole the show as usual however.
He should have never divorced Seven of Nine, I mean come on, that's a hot piece for a, and if her stories are to be believed he convinced her to do some pretty kinky things.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Yeah, resistance should've been futile if you ask me...
I said the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
Im sitting here during Kerry's speech, and honestly its not that bad, for Kerry. I dont know what's in the water in Boston but its not what is usually in his mouth. I dont agree with what he's saying, I dont think he will do 1/1000th of what he is talking about, but a very good speech for the base. I also dont think it will convince many fence-sitters to jump on his site... but yes, not a bad speech.
But umm its not like many people are watching it! Stupid DNC.
Oh, and Im tired of people seeing a well-educated, well-spoken black man in politics and saying, "he's gonna be the first black President!". What is with that? Why not just wish him well?
Besides, senators becoming President is a very rare occurrence. You guys should know that. ^_^
It was a well-written speech. Full of rhetoric, calculated, and stuffed with far-off promises, but fairly honest about what's really happening. (Yes, I watched the second half.)
I liked the shot across the bow of the Saudi Royal Family, though.
Say what you want, but I'll give it to Kerry that at least one of the candidates can make a speech using words that are actually words.
I have to say though, I wish Edwards would chill on the thumbs up... damn.
He said that kids in Harlem have asthma because of bad hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone
(But I'll let it go ;p)
Who, the blacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Obama laid it down. Solid convention. I don't think Kerry is going to get much benefit from his speech.
No. Obama and the Terminator.
Well, and with that speech, the Democratic Primary is now over. Time to let this thread die.
You left already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone