NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:
I see what you're saying. From personal experience, I would say that the Libertarians that planned to vote for Bush would not have been swayed by increased advertising by Badnarick. My reason was his weak position, no his opposition to national defense. I suspect most Libertarians voting for Bush did so for the same reason.

The only way Kerry could have won was to have established an honorable record in the Senate.

I see what you're saying. From personal experience, I would say that the Libertarians that planned to vote for Bush would not have been swayed by increased advertising by Badnarick. My reason was his weak position, no his opposition to national defense. I suspect most Libertarians voting for Bush did so for the same reason.

The only way Kerry could have won was to have established an honorable record in the Senate.
Do explain.

The Democratic party of America would also stand a better chance at winning an election if they secretly started a Christian Coalition Party, to attract all the crazy fundimentalists. This party's mandate would probably include gay stonings, abolition of abortion AND contraceptives, manditory bible readings in all public schools, and other such nonsense. This would siphon off enough of the fundimentalist votes to weaken the Republican party, and give the Democrats a better standing.

But enough about conspiracy theories...

I see what you're saying. From personal experience, I would say that the Libertarians that planned to vote for Bush would not have been swayed by increased advertising by Badnarick. My reason was his weak position, no his opposition to national defense. I suspect most Libertarians voting for Bush did so for the same reason.

The only way Kerry could have won was to have established an honorable record in the Senate.

The only way Kerry could of won, was to actually choose a position and stick with it. Not to change said position because of some polling data for that day. The man was shaker than a one legged man in a kicking contest. It was quite comical though I have to say, I never laughed at someone so hard since 1984 and Mondale. God was that man a compelete and utter Moron.

He could have won if Bush had choked on the pretzel. Like he was supposed to.

The only way Kerry could of won, was to actually choose a position and stick with it. Not to change said position because of some pollind data for that day.Nah. Bush had the same problem. They're politicians. That's how they work. It's just that Bush's team was better at name-calling.

Personally, I think Kerry could've won by being clear and concise. People don't want to listen to him blab on for hours and hours.

He also should have made a larger effort in the West and mid-West. Their values are more in line with Democratic values than the South, though of course, he shouldn't have given up on it.

Nah. Bush had the same problem. They're politicians. That's how they work. It's just that Bush's team was better at name-calling.

Personally, I think Kerry could've won by being clear and concise. People don't want to listen to him blab on for hours and hours.

He also should have made a larger effort in the West and mid-West. Their values are more in line with Democratic values than the South, though of course, he shouldn't have given up on it.


Actually I think the Dems have taken over the title for best name callers.

by being clear and concise, you need to first have only one side of an issue to stand on right? How else can you be clear and consise about anything if you are not resolute in what it is you believe in the first place.

By giving up on those states shows exactly how he would of handled the Presidency. If it got to tough to make a clear and consise chose he would of ran and hid in the oval office till it was over.

Of course this is my own personal opinion of the man

The only way Kerry could of won, was to actually choose a position and stick with it.He did. He still lost. So much for your theory. Do you also think Al Gore would have won if he hadn't claimed to have invented the Internet?

Actually I think the Dems have taken over the title for best name callers.

by being clear and concise, you need to first have only one side of an issue to stand on right? How else can you be clear and consise about anything if you are not resolute in what it is you believe in the first place.

By giving up on those states shows exactly how he would of handled the Presidency. If it got to tough to make a clear and consise chose he would of ran and hid in the oval office till it was over.

Of course this is my own personal opinion of the man


let me ask you something:

two of the things that kerry had been called were a 'flip-flopper' and 'the most liberal sentator'

which one is true?

in order to be the most liberal senator (at least more liberal than ted kennedy and hillary) he would have to vote liberal on every single issue on the table.

but on the other hand, in order to be a flip-flopper, he would have to vote liberal on half, and vote the other way on the other half.

being a flip-flopper makes him, at most, a moderate, while being the most liberal senator ever makes him pretty damn steadfast in his beliefs.



and anyway, tell me why flip-flopping is a bad thing.

to me, the ability to re-evaluate the situation and adjust your plan accordingly is a sign of intelligence.


if you're driving towards a cliff, turning the steering wheel is not 'flip-flopping'

Do explain.
Kerry had very few important bills that he could point to. He never established a real position on any issue. That would seem to be why his semi-honorable service in Vietnam became so important.

Kerry couldn't have won. A position I held since the primaries finished.

I feel such a fool for not trying to but a bet on though :(

He did. He still lost. So much for your theory. Do you also think Al Gore would have won if he hadn't claimed to have invented the Internet?


Kerry chose one position? By position I am not talking about "I am not Bush"

at the start of the campaign he was for the war, then he was against it, but for it, then he was against it again and then for it again. He even stated that he voted for the war before he voted against it. This is just one isssue,

If you look at his senate voting record it is even more marred with more indecisions.

No I think Gore would of lost no matter what for the simple fact he was tied to Clinton. When will the Democrats learn that Clinton is the death of the party, since that man won his first election the Democrats have lost more seats in the House, Senate and Governships than any other President that I can remember. Truth be told Clinton is one of the reasons why I started voting for anyone else not listed as Democrat.

Thank GOD he had no chance in hell for winning. The main thing that got him canned was his "flip flopping". By this I mean his "I'll do this" speach countered later by his "I did that" actions. Seriously, did anybody who voted for this moron actually pay attention to what he did rather than what he said? Actions, it is said, speak louder than words and his actions ALWAYS went against his words. My favorite was his voting AGAINST sending more money to our troops because he wanted a way to protest the war. Hey, buddy. Give them the money and grab a plaquard.

BTW, the only reason I voted Bush was because he actually stuck to what he said most of the time. I'd rather a truthful idiot behind the wheel than a cleaver liar.

let me ask you something:

two of the things that kerry had been called were a 'flip-flopper' and 'the most liberal sentator'

which one is true?

in order to be the most liberal senator (at least more liberal than ted kennedy and hillary) he would have to vote liberal on every single issue on the table.

but on the other hand, in order to be a flip-flopper, he would have to vote liberal on half, and vote the other way on the other half.

being a flip-flopper makes him, at most, a moderate, while being the most liberal senator ever makes him pretty damn steadfast in his beliefs.



and anyway, tell me why flip-flopping is a bad thing.

to me, the ability to re-evaluate the situation and adjust your plan accordingly is a sign of intelligence.


if you're driving towards a cliff, turning the steering wheel is not 'flip-flopping'

You are making very little sense, Seeing I never said anything you are quoting me on. but I will respond to your post anyway


You might see the ability to re-evaluate the situation a good thing, but to a politician it makes him look an opportunist and only out for himself. Most people prefer to have someone in there that will put the Country first and Kerry didn't give anyone that impression. That most liberal senator bit came from an organization that rates all the Senators based on how they vote. Not just how they vote on one issue but how they Vote on every issue that comes up while they were in the Senate. Kerry scored higher than both Kennedy and Hillary as far as being liberal went. Might have had something to do with the fact that there wasn't a tax increase he didn't like and a tax cut that he did like. Or the fact that for every military budget that came up for a vote he voted against, save the one where Clinton put forth in an attempt to help Gore look like a national defense supporter.

Oh besides the issues that I highlighted in another post in this thread. There was a few more

In Detroit Kerry told a crowd of Union Workers he owned SUV's, A few days later speaking to some enviromentalists in California Kerry stated he didn't own any SUV's.

When Speaking to a pro-life group Kerry said that abortions were wrong. Speaking a pro-choice group Kerry said that abortions should be fully legalized in the US.

Speaking in front of more Union guys/gals Kerry said he was all for building up the military, this was a plant that made tanks for the Military. But a few days before Kerry spoke in front of a anti-war group saying the defense budget should be cut even further than it was in the 1990's

Would you like some more instances of where Kerry said one thing to one group and another thing completely different to another group? It really defined his campaign and made it impossible for him to get a simple base message which never resonates with the voters.

The Democratic party of America would also stand a better chance at winning an election if they secretly started a Christian Coalition Party, to attract all the crazy fundimentalists. This party's mandate would probably include gay stonings, abolition of abortion AND contraceptives, manditory bible readings in all public schools, and other such nonsense. This would siphon off enough of the fundimentalist votes to weaken the Republican party, and give the Democrats a better standing.

But enough about conspiracy theories...
actually this party does exist..... actually multiple parties like this do exist.... ever heard of the constitution party? im to lazy to look up the rest of the parties and go through which ones are populated by psychos

The Democratic party will not have more than one term in a row for the next 20 years I'm betting. As a party the have no solid platform.

Kerry did make decisions and stuck to them, the problem was he explained his thought process.

The best quotes from the election were...(Not exact quotes)
Kerry: I'm against Abortion, but I don't think my morals should be legislation limiting the rights of others.

And even better...
Nader: Bush isn't a man. He is a corporation disguised as a man.

Ah..I love Nader..so cool.

He could have won if Bush had choked on the pretzel. Like he was supposed to.
quiet you idiot do you want them to find out!

<INSERT BULLSHIT REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA HERE>


he was for the war, and then against it?

really?

must be news to me!

oh wait...

you mean the part where he signed to give bush authority to go to war?

sorry, but saying "yes, the president should have the decision to go to war" is not the same as saying "yes, let's go to war"

Kerry did make decisions and stuck to them, the problem was he explained his thought process.

The best quotes from the election were...(Not exact quotes)
Kerry: I'm against Abortion, but I don't think my morals should be legislation limiting the rights of others.


sure, i feel that way too.

i would never have an abortion done, if the option were left up to me, but i'm also not in a position to tell other people what to do.

The Democratic party of America would also stand a better chance at winning an election if they secretly started a Christian Coalition Party, to attract all the crazy fundimentalists. This party's mandate would probably include gay stonings, abolition of abortion AND contraceptives, manditory bible readings in all public schools, and other such nonsense. This would siphon off enough of the fundimentalist votes to weaken the Republican party, and give the Democrats a better standing.

But enough about conspiracy theories...

wouldn't work. for the same reason that democratic sucking up to and cowering in fear of republicans doesn't work. why vote for the knock-off when the real thing is right there?

a better strategy would be to not run democrats in some of the districts where they aren't going to win anyway, but gets some people to run as a new branch of the party there which completely takes on the tiny number of issues that most republican voters seem to actually pay attention to. so the campaigns won't be guns, abortion, and forcing your religion on people, because both sides will be in agreement on these issues (remember, this is in places where democrats can't win anyway). instead, they will have to focus on other issues; labor rights, healthcare, etc - issues in which the majority of americans don't hold the republican line, but which are lost because of the single issue voting most people engage in. if you are going to lose to the reactionaries, you might as well limit the damage and make progress in at least some areas by having them be reactionaries that vote with you on most issues. basically, hold out until you can get the social revolution to sweep the country outside of the urban centers.

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:

Couldn't this plan also backfire? A lot of liberals might vote Badnarik because of the Libertarians leftist stances on social issues.

he was for the war, and then against it?

really?

must be news to me!

oh wait...

you mean the part where he signed to give bush authority to go to war?

sorry, but saying "yes, the president should have the decision to go to war" is not the same as saying "yes, let's go to war"

You mean this doesn't give the President the right to go to war? Which by the way is the bill that Kerry and all other Democrats signed onto. Of course I could just say you are a mind numb robot of the Democrat spin machine. Try reading the bill fully before you make an idiot of yourself. By the way the President spent 14 months at the UN, hardly a "Rush" to war when Saddam had 12 years prior to fully comply with the world view of Sanctions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

of course it gives him the right to go to war!

but nowhere does it say that he has to.

once again: "it should be the president's decision" does not equal "yes, let's go to war"

The Democratic party will not have more than one term in a row for the next 20 years I'm betting. As a party the have no solid platform.

Kerry did make decisions and stuck to them, the problem was he explained his thought process.

The best quotes from the election were...(Not exact quotes)
Kerry: I'm against Abortion, but I don't think my morals should be legislation limiting the rights of others.

And even better...
Nader: Bush isn't a man. He is a corporation disguised as a man.

Ah..I love Nader..so cool.

I almost voted Nader but in the end I couldn't vote for a person I knew so little about. I was to busy trying to make Kerry lost some votes that I didn't get a full chance to read up on Nader's positions. I was in the Anybody but Kerry crowd.

of course it gives him the right to go to war!

but nowhere does it say that he has to.

once again: "it should be the president's decision" does not equal "yes, let's go to war"


By saying it is his decision to go, he decided to go. How is that so hard to compherend? If the Congress didn't want him to have that choice it should of worded it differently. To late to cry over spilled milk now.

I stand by my pervious opinion where Kerry was a complete moron and the worst choice the democrats ever put forth. He couldn't even beat a man that you all dubbed a "chimp" "idiot" "stupid" and many others. So if Kerry couldn't even beat a idiot stupid chimp, what does that make him?

Thank GOD he had no chance in hell for winning. The main thing that got him canned was his "flip flopping". By this I mean his "I'll do this" speach countered later by his "I did that" actions. Seriously, did anybody who voted for this moron actually pay attention to what he did rather than what he said? Actions, it is said, speak louder than words and his actions ALWAYS went against his words. My favorite was his voting AGAINST sending more money to our troops because he wanted a way to protest the war. Hey, buddy. Give them the money and grab a plaquard.

BTW, the only reason I voted Bush was because he actually stuck to what he said most of the time. I'd rather a truthful idiot behind the wheel than a cleaver liar.
bush is consistent yet he payed for his ex-girlfreind to have an abortion (Kitty Kelly) and is opposed to abortion
hes pro-life but he opposes stem cell research
he wanted to save Terri Shaivos life by keeping her officially declared brain dead body alive....yet wants to cut money towards medicare
he supports democracy in iraq but not in saudi arabia
he wants to help third world countries BUT HE RECOMMENDED WOLF BLITZER AS HEAD OF WORLD BANK!!! do you have brain damage? no....don't answer that.....just format your hard drive and cancel your internet account to be safe
in case you dont do the above visit here and get 30 other examples http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 please actually take a look.... if you notice IT GIVES ACTUAL QUOTES OF THE PRESIDENT

at the start of the campaign he was for the war, then he was against it, but for it, then he was against it again and then for it again. He even stated that he voted for the war before he voted against it. This is just one isssue,

If you look at his senate voting record it is even more marred with more indecisions.Got any evidence to back that up?

he was for the war, and then against it?

really?

must be news to me!

oh wait...

you mean the part where he signed to give bush authority to go to war?

sorry, but saying "yes, the president should have the decision to go to war" is not the same as saying "yes, let's go to war"
i forget the actual quote but bush said before the vote that the vote was necessary to maintain peace and that it was a deterrance toward Iraq.....i guess that worked out alright!

:headbang:
There aren't enough libertarian leaning voters anywhere to have swung this election. 100,000 wold have been needed in Ohio!

Do you have any idea what the political landscape looks like in the U.S. or are you living in a bubble???

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

The only way Kerry could have won was to have established an honorable record in the Senate.



He had a great record in the Senate. He was a personal proponent of Small-business rights, sponsoring many successful small business promoting bills. He is not the most liberal senate in Congress either. In 2003 he was rated the most liberal senator, but he is not even in the top 20 for liberal senators today.

there wasn't a tax increase he didn't like and a tax cut that he did like. Or the fact that for every military budget that came up for a vote he voted against, save the one where Clinton put forth in an attempt to help Gore look like a national defense supporter.

Kerry spoke in front of a anti-war group saying the defense budget should be cut even further than it was in the 1990'sagain, got any evidence to back that up?

:headbang:
There aren't enough libertarian leaning voters anywhere to have swung this election. 100,000 wold have been needed in Ohio!

Do you have any idea what the political landscape looks like in the U.S. or are you living in a bubble???

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
i live in a bubble :(.....i think there may be that many libertarian swing voters in ohio, i also think you severely underestimate how fickle and stupid the american public is

Got any evidence to back that up?

How about checking out the Senate voting record of Kerry for starters, then checking out campaign stops and speaches he gave for more info. Or better yet go back to the Democrat presidential debates in January and Febuary and see Dean rail on Kerry for supporting the war. It was only after Dean started in on Kerry and others for supporting the war and after some polling data came out saying Americans were against the War at that time did Kerry come and say he was against the war, Then said he voted for the war before he voted against it.

Honestly just because the New York Times doesn't report these things doesn't make them any less true.

Now as any good American must do, I need sleep so I can make money this week to keep the economy going and make Bush look even better. Although I am starting to believe if this is all the Democrats have to offer for the Future the Republicans will control the Country for the next 50 years.

They say selective memory is a bitch, No wonder the Dems can not get a standard platform together. They seem to forget everything that happens the day before let alone years before.

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:

Badnarik was, and still is I'd assume, wacky. If Kerry donated a sizeable amount of money to his campaign people would have heard about his stances and voted Republican anyway.

On the other hand, Barnarik wouldn't try to get rid of filibusters.

He had a great record in the Senate. He was a personal proponent of Small-business rights, sponsoring many successful small business promoting bills. He is not the most liberal senate in Congress either. In 2003 he was rated the most liberal senator, but he is not even in the top 20 for liberal senators today.

Kerry got less liberal? Ol' George must have knocked some sense in to him during those debates. ;)

[QUOTE=Talfen] Although I am starting to believe if this is all the Democrats have to offer for the Future the Republicans will control the Country for the next 50 years. [QUOTE]
honestly my fellow democrats, if we cant beat bush we are pretty pathetic

if only we had the Kerry we had back after Vietnam who wasnt afraid to stand up to the government

The easiest way for Kerry to win, assuming he wasn't being a complete fucking liar about his military record all he would have had to do was sign form 180. If he was telling the truth, it would have blown any and all swiftie accusations out of the water, causing Bush to lose serious credibility. He never did, now I wonder why that is?

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:

We only have Two outrageuos notions. The first is: That no one is better informed and able to make decisions about your own life than you are. This means most civil matters should be kept out of the state's hands. (meaning: Marriage, Religion, etc.) Also: The Freer the market, the freer the people.

Insane huh?

As for the election, anyone who would have voted for Bush in the Ohio election would have voted for him, reguardless of how much the Libertarians tried. The Dems. Should have done a better job of trying to get the Libertarian and Green party voters to vote Democrat, to get rid of Bush.

Kerry got less liberal? Ol' George must have knocked some sense in to him during those debates. ;)
Bush made sense in the debates!?!?!?

The easiest way for Kerry to win, assuming he wasn't being a complete fucking liar about his military record all he would have had to do was sign form 180. If he was telling the truth, it would have blown any and all swiftie accusations out of the water, causing Bush to lose serious credibility. He never did, now I wonder why that is?
....because george bush never lied about his military record.....

How about checking out the Senate voting record of Kerry for starters, then checking out campaign stops and speaches he gave for more info. Or better yet go back to the Democrat presidential debates in January and Febuary and see Dean rail on Kerry for supporting the war. It was only after Dean started in on Kerry and others for supporting the war and after some polling data came out saying Americans were against the War at that time did Kerry come and say he was against the war, Then said he voted for the war before he voted against it.I already checked the voting record and listened to his speeches. If you can't find these contradictions in his voting record that I supposedly missed, now would be a good time for you to stop repeating Bush's lies about Kerry.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq5.htm

Here you can find the polls about Iraq from January and February of 2004. Did you notice that most Americans were suddenly against the war in February? I sure didn't.

The Dems. Should have done a better job of trying to get the Libertarian and Green party voters to vote Democrat, to get rid of Bush.
any and all credibility any of your arguments may have had just went out the window. no real libertarian would ever have voted for kerry in that election. please bash your head against the wall until every las I.Q. point is gone

Kerry lost Ohio because of his stance on morality issues. Churches dubbed him as immoral, consolidating religion and politics only to let another immoral man continue his presidency.

Maybe if Kerry (I would say sacrificed his views, but he seems more pragmatic than idealogical, a foil to Bush) were pro-life and against the death penalty...

Nah... to me it seems most of his votes were "Anyone-But-Bush" Votes. You can't win on those alone.

A lot of people I know sincerely think Bush is the best president! They like how he integrates religion and politics, "Defends the West", Asserts US Authority as the "Last Super Power" (Hahahaha, Like we represent the entire world and are an international police force who is above the U.N. even when we tell them to do something and then ignore the results if we don't like them and only our views are correct and anyone who disagrees with us are evil and immoral and need to be tortured), paints a black-and-white picture of the world ("You are with us or against us!" "Axis of EVIL!!!!"), and believes in international "Witch Hunts" (We kill you if you have WMD, We kill you if you don't have them... you're prolly just hiding them... We won't even wait till see if the water refuses to take your evil carcus, we'll prepare you for the fires of hell early on). The also like his self-justification, the idea ALL people on the left are immoral/unpatriotic, and how our rights are curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. Honestly!

(As a Note: I use my definition of immorality. Death Penalty, Forcing Your Religion Onto Others (I'm okay with the mention of God on money, the ten commandments and stuff like that, but I think Bush's policies are a religious politic salad bowl), Pre-Emptive Strikes, and Questionable War are under that flag. Abortion is also immoral in my view, though I'm concerned about illegal abortions... I also am against the unjust killing of animals. Kill them for food humanly... not for sport...).

any and all credibility any of your arguments may have had just went out the window. no real libertarian would ever have voted for kerry in that election. please bash your head against the wall until every las I.Q. point is gone

I think in order to have made such a statement he must have already...






No... I don't think what I said was funny either... sorry... :(

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
just for anyone who missed it

actually this party does exist..... actually multiple parties like this do exist.... ever heard of the constitution party? im to lazy to look up the rest of the parties and go through which ones are populated by psychos
I'm sure they exist, but if the Democrats dished out enough funding to get some actual support behind them (not to much mind) then you might actually steal some Republican voters.

Not that I was serious about my idea in the first place. Meh.

No... I don't think what I said was funny either... sorry... :(
agreed

I'm sure they exist, but if the Democrats dished out enough funding to get some actual support behind them (not to much mind) then you might actually steal some Republican voters.

Not that I was serious about my idea in the first place. Meh.
psst...why spend the extra money of starting a new party when one like it already has money, contributors, members and voters...

psst...why spend the extra money of starting a new party when one like it already has money, contributors, members and voters...
psst, maybe because liberitarian philosophy is too different from conservativism to actually make a difference. Plus there's a huge market for fundimentalist christianity (70 percent voted because of "moral" issues anyone?) as opposed to the relatively small group of liberitarians.

psst, maybe because liberitarian philosophy is too different from conservativism to actually make a difference. Plus there's a huge market for fundimentalist christianity (70 percent voted because of "moral" issues anyone?) as opposed to the relatively small group of liberitarians.
psst, i was talking about the constitution party stupid

....because george bush never lied about his military record.....

That's nothing but a distraction. You failed to tell us why Kerry didn't sign the form.

psst, i was talking about the constitution party stupid
My bad, in my defense you did create this thread talking about the liberitarian party, my mind strayed. If such a psychopath party already exists then my recommendation would be for funding it, that was my point... I think. :confused:

any and all credibility any of your arguments may have had just went out the window. no real libertarian would ever have voted for kerry in that election. please bash your head against the wall until every las I.Q. point is goneI voted for Harry Browne in 2000 and for John Kerry in 2004. The only reason I can't destroy your credibility is that the elections were done using secret ballots. John Kerry supported vetoes aganist pork barrel spending, was pro-choice, was against the death penalty except in some terrorism-related cases, supported the removal of redundant agencies, and supported changing parts of the USAPATRIOT Act that had reduced civil rights without offering much extra security. For libertarians, he was at worst the lesser of two evils

Stop your quibbling [Word of the Day]! You miss the main issue:

Kerry was depicted immoral by religious leaders and all his votes were not-Bush votes, whereas

Though Bush is equally if not more immoral, he was portrayed as the moral Savior of the West and therefore strongly supported by War Hawks, Paranoid/Insecure Right-Wingers, Evangelicals, and anyone who wants their rights vaguely and excessively curbed.

That's nothing but a distraction. You failed to tell us why Kerry didn't sign the form.
he did an interview on nbc just on that issue i saw part of it and cant remember plus im too lazy to look up the transcript
i guess you were too busy watching FOX to see it though

John Kerry supported vetoes aganist pork barrel spending
he did what!?!? now im sorry i campaigned for him!!!

I believe that had Kerry donated a large sum of money to the libertarian campaign he could've won the election. he had 15 million left over anyway.
THINK ABOUT IT! there are many republicans who mightve voted to for badnarick but not a single democrat. had the libertarians concentrated all this money along with all the money they had in Ohio it may have been enough to swing the election Kerry's way

id just like to say that im not a libertarian, in fact i find their political views to be disgusting and immoral. id also like to add that im good freinds with some libertarians :fluffle:


It might have worked, but it's a dirty trick. I belive Kerry could have won and kept his moral integrity.

He could have won if he was Bush. Bush was/is a better canadite.

But Kerry was portrayed without any moral integrity by the right and religious...

Edit: And Bush is not the better candidate in my humble opinion which I won't be entitled to if the status quo is maintained. Bush classifies me as immoral/unpatriotic/evil because i disagree with him. He was only a better candidate in the sense that the right pretty much blindly supported him (or to me it seems) and had a better campaign strategy.

Also, to respond to the flip-flop comments about Kerry, I thought we wanted someone who'd vote on issues we want, who would not-stick to an iron ideology. Pragmatism does have its advantages...

(Im too lazy to quote people, but I think it's obvious which posts I'm referring to)

I belive Kerry could have won and kept his moral integrity.
...doubtful

he did what!?!? now im sorry i campaigned for him!!!It was in the section of his campaign platform that talked about how he planned to improve the economy. Didn't you wonder how he would reduce the deficit by $250 billion?

the original post was kinda gay and now its degraded into bush vs kerry bashing - using the stupid arguements that most of you seem to have ate up during the election - "hes a flip-flopper" - why are you repeating that? - anyways to the original post - 15 million isnt a lot in a campainge of this size - could he have thrown it all into Ohio? -sure - ohio was close - and it would have been worth a try - but probably wouldnt have made a diffence
- i mean after all look how heavily some people where brain washed - they're still saying hes a flip-flopper

But Kerry was portrayed without any moral integrity by the right and religious...

Edit: And Bush is not the better candidate in my humble opinion which I won't be entitled to if the status quo is maintained. Bush classifies me as immoral/unpatriotic/evil because i disagree with him. He was only a better candidate in the sense that the right pretty much blindly supported him (or to me it seems) and had a better campaign strategy.

Also, to respond to the flip-flop comments about Kerry, I thought we wanted someone who'd vote on issues we want, who would not-stick to an iron ideology. Pragmatism does have its advantages...

(Im too lazy to quote people, but I think it's obvious which posts I'm referring to)

Portrayed is not the same thing as is.

Besides, I'm talking John McCain integrity, not moral values.

We're all brain-washed. Even left-leaning moderates like me. Mine Brain-washing is all I have to base my opinions on, so I might as well... I haven't been involved in any major political events personally, so I have to take their words.

Thoguh I don't think Kerry is a sandal, he just takes a more pragamatic appraoch. He changes his views to suit the needs of the people, unlike stubborn ol' Bush

Speaking of John McCain, why the hell did he endorse Bush after the "push polls" of the Republican Primaries?

Or are "push polls" too obscure?

he did an interview on nbc just on that issue i saw part of it and cant remember plus im too lazy to look up the transcript
i guess you were too busy watching FOX to see it though

Transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886726/) It took all of ten seconds to find it. Too lazy for that, huh?

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...

SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn't been appropriate...

MR. RUSSERT: So they should sign Form 180s for themselves as well?

SEN. KERRY: You bet.

The part where he says "We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record." deserves some questioning. You can't draw any real conclusions from that, but it does make you wonder what the supposedly irrelevant information was. If it wasn't all that bad why didn't he just sign it all over to be made public since it probably would have meant the election tilting decidedly in his favor? At no point in the last few months were all the polls constantly in one person's favor. Surely his strategists, even with as poor of perception as Democratic strategists seem to have, should have been able to lead him around by the nose one more time and convince him to release it anyway.

Nah. Bush had the same problem. They're politicians. That's how they work. It's just that Bush's team was better at name-calling.

Personally, I think Kerry could've won by being clear and concise. People don't want to listen to him blab on for hours and hours.

He also should have made a larger effort in the West and mid-West. Their values are more in line with Democratic values than the South, though of course, he shouldn't have given up on it.
I'm from Iowa & Kerry went toe to toe with Bush until the end. What killed Kerry in the end was the fear game. He played the terrorish card quite well & so many idiots believed that if Kerry was elected terrorism was going to come rushing into their backyards.
Had Sept 11 never happened Bush never would have come close to getting elected. He would have found another reason to go to war in Iraq & his popularity would have been about as high as his fathers before him.
It's fear plain & simple.

Kerry was depicted immoral by religious leaders and all his votes were not-Bush votes.


not true.

i liked the guy even through the primaries.

being better than bush was not all he had going for him

It was in the section of his campaign platform that talked about how he planned to improve the economy. Didn't you wonder how he would reduce the deficit by $250 billion?

I think Club House was being sarcastic. Most reasonable people would be for being able to veto pork barrel spending while still passing a necessary bill (I assume that's how it works).

We're all brain-washed. Even left-leaning moderates like me. Mine Brain-washing is all I have to base my opinions on, so I might as well... I haven't been involved in any major political events personally, so I have to take their words.

Thoguh I don't think Kerry is a sandal, he just takes a more pragamatic appraoch. He changes his views to suit the needs of the people, unlike stubborn ol' Bush

Nah. Kerry changes his mind based on how the situation develops. Bush could have been called "soft on terror" before 9/11 happened and he re-assesed the situation.

Well... as long as we are candidate bashing.. what about the whole "I never said I stopped caring about tracking down Bin Laden" thing...


To Bush our army is a teaspoon just strawberry jam to spread thinly from toast to toast

I think Club House was being sarcastic. Most reasonable people would be for being able to veto pork barrel spending while still passing a necessary bill (I assume that's how it works).

I read his book, so I can help. He says a lot of money is spent on stupid things ($500,000 for praying mantis defense research, ect), and how if we cut that out, we'd save cash. I don't belive we'd save quite that much money, but we would save.

...doubtful

Hey...

What can I say, I'm an idealist. 13 year old idealist.

not true.

i liked the guy even through the primaries.

being better than bush was not all he had going for him

I liked him too.

I'm from Iowa & Kerry went toe to toe with Bush until the end. What killed Kerry in the end was the fear game. He played the terrorish card quite well & so many idiots believed that if Kerry was elected terrorism was going to come rushing into their backyards.
Had Sept 11 never happened Bush never would have come close to getting elected. He would have found another reason to go to war in Iraq & his popularity would have been about as high as his fathers before him.
It's fear plain & simple.


I agree.

let me ask you something:

two of the things that kerry had been called were a 'flip-flopper' and 'the most liberal sentator'

which one is true?

in order to be the most liberal senator (at least more liberal than ted kennedy and hillary) he would have to vote liberal on every single issue on the table.

but on the other hand, in order to be a flip-flopper, he would have to vote liberal on half, and vote the other way on the other half.

being a flip-flopper makes him, at most, a moderate, while being the most liberal senator ever makes him pretty damn steadfast in his beliefs.




and anyway, tell me why flip-flopping is a bad thing.

to me, the ability to re-evaluate the situation and adjust your plan accordingly is a sign of intelligence.


if you're driving towards a cliff, turning the steering wheel is not 'flip-flopping'
I think he voted his conscience on a case by case basis. Not on if the liberals would approve his issue or not. If I were in Kerry's shoes & was given "factual" information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction I would vote to go to war too. On the same tolken if I found out a month later that the "facts" were questionable I'd vote not to fund the war based on a series of lies. it's called voting your conscience instead of voting on what people flipping his bill want or don't want.

I know I've been exaggerating, but it seems to be that the overwheming majority of Kerry's votes were leaning more to the against Bush, rather than the for Kerry side.

Nah. Kerry changes his mind based on how the situation develops. Bush could have been called "soft on terror" before 9/11 happened and he re-assesed the situation.

Changing or sticking with your plan based on how a situation develops is something done in many everyday activities. Walking, driving, conversation, and fighting 'whack-a-mole'-like terrorists across many different regions of the world are all excellent examples. I'd hope that both candidates would be able to do this. George Bush could have been implying that he wouldn't change course just because a powerful lobbyist tells him to if changing means that the best interests of the nation are jeopardized. But it's pointless to infer anything from it because it was meaningless rhetoric. I have little doubt that both are beholden to one lobbyist or another.

It's all about picking the guy that is beholden to the lobbyists that are for keeping our country financially afloat and me from paying exorbitant taxes. That was neither. From there we move on to an array of smaller issues.

I know I've been exaggerating, but it seems to be that the overwheming majority of Kerry's votes were leaning more to the against Bush, rather than the for Kerry side.
is this some great mystery to people? isn't it somewhat obvious?

By giving up on those states shows exactly how he would of handled the Presidency. If it got to tough to make a clear and consise chose he would of ran and hid in the oval office till it was over. You're an idiot. Yeah, that's a good way to start.

Kerry had very few important bills that he could point to. He never established a real position on any issue. That would seem to be why his semi-honorable service in Vietnam became so important.As I understand it, the militaristic posturing was based on [what I think is stupid] the idea that by excentuating Kerry's service in Vietnam, they would be able to beat the Republicans on the Defense front. Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, Bush Sr. got his son into the Texas National Guard. However, it was a bad strategy. Kerry didn't have the best people in his campaign.

at the start of the campaign he was for the war, then he was against it, but for it, then he was against it again and then for it again. He even stated that he voted for the war before he voted against it. This is just one isssue...This is actually a Republican Talking Point, nearly word for word. Not exactly a validation of your integrity as a critical and independent thinker.

Might have had something to do with the fact that there wasn't a tax increase he didn't like and a tax cut that he did like.The position of the Republicans and President Bush on fiscal matters is indefensible. That's why Bush's campaign strategy didn't really touch on the issue - that is a debate they would have lost.

Would you like some more instances of where Kerry said one thing to one group and another thing completely different to another group? It really defined his campaign and made it impossible for him to get a simple base message which never resonates with the voters.You're the one saying these things were done and said; that they are fact, not fiction, and that they are represented accurately. You're the one who has to back it up. Until then, it's hot air.

The Democratic party will not have more than one term in a row for the next 20 years I'm betting. As a party the have no solid platform.The party has a platform, it's just that it's not getting out to the public. And twenty years is a long time; it's just a matter of whether or not the Democrats lean right or left in the future as to what their new platform will be. But there is a bright future in healthcare, corporate fraud, social security, energy policy and gov't corruption, amongst other things.

he wants to help third world countries BUT HE RECOMMENDED WOLF BLITZER AS HEAD OF WORLD BANK!!!While your attention to Bush's reversals of thought and action are enlightening, I would note that Paul Wolfowitz was nominated; he is the former Deputy of Defense. Wolf Blitzer is an anchor on CNN. Take a chill pill.

i live in a bubble :(.....i think there may be that many libertarian swing voters in ohio, i also think you severely underestimate how fickle and stupid the american public is
I must live in a bubble too. I know far too many Libertarians in Iowa to believe that if Kerry would have reached a hand out to our party more of us would have followed him. Esp with edward as his running mate. I heard him speak when he was caucusing & he sounded like a libertarian in Dem clothing. Get rid of special interests groups & make the goverment smaller.

i liked the guy even through the primaries.

being better than bush was not all he had going for him



I liked him too.



Yeah, Club House... Apparently it is a mystery

It's all about picking the guy that is beholden to the lobbyists that are for keeping our country financially afloat and me from paying exorbitant taxes. That was neither. From there we move on to an array of smaller issues.Cynical, pragmatic, true. Nice. ;)

While your attention to Bush's reversals of thought and action are enlightening, I would note that Paul Wolfowitz was nominated; he is the former Deputy of Defense. Wolf Blitzer is an anchor on CNN. Take a chill pill.
*formats hard drive and cancels internet account out of shame*

*formats hard drive and cancels internet account out of shame*It's understandable. Both are names circulated in American political circles, and you were in the midst of partisan rage; we all make mistakes like that. :)

Best way to approach partisan hackery such as this thread best embodies is with a clear mind and some tried-and-true reason. Even when you see bald-faced lies and it appears as though you're the only sane person in the world, you just have to sit back and think logically about the situation at hand, and then respond appropriately; sometimes, that entails no response at all.

Edit: Most of the time, you'll never convince people that what they're saying is wrong; Talfen, for example, will probably not be swayed by what has been discussed above in any way. The Party Line appears to be his source for political thought; and I suppose there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Hell, maybe you do that too.

The point, though, is that when you're faced with someone whom you cannot convince using reason, angry reason certainly won't work. That's when you throw up your hands and get back to work.

I must live in a bubble too. I know far too many Libertarians in Iowa to believe that if Kerry would have reached a hand out to our party more of us would have followed him. Esp with edward as his running mate. I heard him speak when he was caucusing & he sounded like a libertarian in Dem clothing. Get rid of special interests groups & make the goverment smaller.
i find it hard to beleive that a libertarian would ever vote for kerry

It's understandable. Both are names circulated in American political circles, and you were in the midst of partisan rage; we all make mistakes like that. :)

Best way to approach partisan hackery such as this thread best embodies is with a clear mind and some tried-and-true reason. Even when you see bald-faced lies and it appears as though you're the only sane person in the world, you just have to sit back and think logically about the situation at hand, and then respond appropriately; sometimes, that entails no response at all.
i like this guy, he sounds smart. but for all i know he could be a communist :( such is the flaw in the internet
care to give me a hand on the form 108 issue?

i like this guy, he sounds smart. but for all i know he could be a communist :( such is the flaw in the internet

and what's wrong with that?

[QUOTE=Club House]*formats hard drive and cancels internet account out of shame*[/QUOTE
Lets talk about fine impartial journalism. Is this a thing of the past or has everyone taken a queue from Fox "news" now & decided to fill their reports with speculation & rumor disguised as genuine fact that it's hard for anyoner to tell what the truth is in any given ecection,presidential decision or report on anyone in the political arena.
It's sad when I think I'm getting more factual news from John Stewart on comedy central then I am from our major news networks.
Fox news(AKA NOX media) is a giant & they have taken over the eyes & ears of much of america.

and what's wrong with that?

Because being Communist and being smart are mutually exclusive.

and what's wrong with that?
fine if you insist ill change it to marxist and say that marxists believe in a violent revolution and if you dont want me to change it then communists believe that property should be seized by the government

Because being Communist and being smart are mutually exclusive.
finally bipartisanship

i always like to refer to FOX news as GOP TV

I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works. This way I avoid messy affiliations that get me tagged as something I'm not and let people make assumptions. Though sometimes I embrace the label of liberal, since I'm more likely the vote Democrat as of this moment.

And ultimately, that's what America used to be about. Pragmatism. But then the USSR fell and it was all about who's the most moral and who's a liberal and who's a conservative and who best fits the party line. Bleh. We used to be a great nation...

*groans*

I thought the election was over five months ago!

i find it hard to beleive that a libertarian would ever vote for kerry
Haven't you ever hear of separation of chuch & state. Thats a big issue in my book along with many other Libertarians.
Voting for Bush is like letting the God squad lead the country.
I use to be a Republician because I believed in small goverment.
They have lost their way. The Libertarians believe in small gov & stick by it. They are also big on let society decide what is acceptable in social issues & political freedoms not with laws but with action.
Now extremist Libertarians scare me as much as any other extreme pqarty member. Like I think therer should be police & fire departments & the like but the gov should be very careful about how they spend my hard eqarned money & the Libertarians & the Kerry campaign with Edwards onboard would do this.

finally bipartisanship

"Bipartisan Candidate? One's sexual orientation should not be an issue."
~ Said at the Dem Nat'l Cov when asked by Right-Wing journalists on their feelings of a "bipartisan" candidate :rolleyes:

Instead of witch-hunting "terrorists" why don't we "witch-hunt" politicians

No this isn't really a valid remark, I like seeing my name in print)

*groans*

I thought the election was over five months ago!
true, but that will never stop me from whining and complaining

*groans*

I thought the election was over five months ago!

Your annoyed but took time to post................................................................................................ .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...........I'm waiting for you point here!

[QUOTE=Club House]*formats hard drive and cancels internet account out of shame*[/QUOTE
Lets talk about fine impartial journalism. Is this a thing of the past or has everyone taken a queue from Fox "news" now & decided to fill their reports with speculation & rumor disguised as genuine fact that it's hard for anyoner to tell what the truth is in any given ecection,presidential decision or report on anyone in the political arena.
It's sad when I think I'm getting more factual news from John Stewart on comedy central then I am from our major news networks.
Fox news(AKA NOX media) is a giant & they have taken over the eyes & ears of much of america.

I hate to break up the tin foil hat convention, but I hear the words 'speculation' and 'rumor' used quite often used with the intent of catagorizing news as such. I hear it on Fox and CNN; every reputable news source. If they're on television then they're reputable. They might not always report on all the stories that I think are importaint and they might jump on bandwagons (Gary Condit. Thank god for 9/11 or we'd have never had useful news again) but when they do report on a story then they're almost always reporting on the facts as they know them. When they do try to disguise fiction as genuine fact they get their shit ruined eventually every time (Dan Rather).

Now this might not apply to guests on shows, but that's to be expected. The only hosts this doesn't apply to are the ones that host shows like that abomination, Crossfire. On that show you generally the 'other side' to be full of it 80% of the time and 'your side' to be full of it, or at least making the same argument you would in the stupidest way possible, the rest of the time. But these shows never claim to be reporting facts.

Haven't you ever hear of separation of chuch & state. Thats a big issue in my book along with many other Libertarians.
Voting for Bush is like letting the God squad lead the country.
I use to be a Republician because I believed in small goverment.
They have lost their way. The Libertarians believe in small gov & stick by it. They are also big on let society decide what is acceptable in social issues & political freedoms not with laws but with action.
Now extremist Libertarians scare me as much as any other extreme pqarty member. Like I think therer should be police & fire departments & the like but the gov should be very careful about how they spend my hard eqarned money & the Libertarians & the Kerry campaign with Edwards onboard would do this.
funny you say that because extremist libertarians are only extreme to us, but if you actually look at the party platform they are making sense and the people who disagree with them are the extreme rightists.
the basic party platform is minimal government, meaning no social programs whatsoever, minimal taxes, freedom of speech, and taxes only on defence/police (for some).
so take badnarick for instance who beleives the department of child services (i know the real name is different but im to lazy to look it up) should be disbanded, thats right disbanded...public schools gone, public libraries gone, public (insert good thing here) gone.... to me thats extreme but it follows all basic libertarian principles

I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works. This way I avoid messy affiliations that get me tagged as something I'm not and let people make assumptions. Though sometimes I embrace the label of liberal, since I'm more likely the vote Democrat as of this moment.

And ultimately, that's what America used to be about. Pragmatism. But then the USSR fell and it was all about who's the most moral and who's a liberal and who's a conservative and who best fits the party line. Bleh. We used to be a great nation...

Competition breeds success and all that. Maybe it's a good thing that Asian countries like India and China are on the rise. We could use a bit of healthy competition to scare us shitless and whip us into shape.

Competition breeds success and all that. Maybe it's a good thing that Asian countries like India and China are on the rise. We could use a bit of healthy competition to scare us shitless and whip us into shape.
china wont "whip us into shape" they will simply overtake us as the worlds super power.....and well we'll never catch up......ever........

[QUOTE=Botswombata]

I hate to break up the tin foil hat convention
i have no idea what your talking about but anyway....
i suggest you watch the movie outfoxed
true, they do have a good portion of speculation but at times they do present some interesting statistics and they show actual memos which go out to the employees at the fox news network which are quite shocking and show clear intent of bias. they also have interviews with former and current employees of fox news who say there is a clear intent of bias towards the republicans. this of course would contradict fox news' use of the slogan "fair and balanced" which they repeat every 5 minutes

The only hosts this doesn't apply to are the ones that host shows like that abomination, Crossfire. On that show you generally the 'other side' to be full of it 80% of the time and 'your side' to be full of it, or at least making the same argument you would in the stupidest way possible, the rest of the time.Apparently, thanks to Jon Stewart's efforts, Crossfire has been cancelled. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crossfire+cancelled&btnG=Google+Search) Some day, the media will be respectable again. Some day...

Competition breeds success and all that. Maybe it's a good thing that Asian countries like India and China are on the rise. We could use a bit of healthy competition to scare us shitless and whip us into shape.That's what I've heard. Hopefully it will be an economic competition and not a cold war with nuclear stand-offs, this time!

[QUOTE=Botswombata]

I hate to break up the tin foil hat convention, but I hear the words 'speculation' and 'rumor' used quite often used with the intent of catagorizing news as such. I hear it on Fox and CNN; every reputable news source. If they're on television then they're reputable. They might not always report on all the stories that I think are importaint and they might jump on bandwagons (Gary Condit. Thank god for 9/11 or we'd have never had useful news again) but when they do report on a story then they're almost always reporting on the facts as they know them. When they do try to disguise fiction as genuine fact they get their shit ruined eventually every time (Dan Rather).

Now this might not apply to guests on shows, but that's to be expected. The only hosts this doesn't apply to are the ones that host shows like that abomination, Crossfire. On that show you generally the 'other side' to be full of it 80% of the time and 'your side' to be full of it, or at least making the same argument you would in the stupidest way possible, the rest of the time. But these shows never claim to be reporting facts.

First off. Drop the tin foil hat talk. My hat is made from mylar(just kidding).
Tell me if the new organizations are so "reputable" Why have they resorted to using unnamed sources in over 80% of their reporting.
I've never heard news sources use more phrases like "some people might say..........or Sources tell us.............or an unnamed wittness explains.

It's slock & the journalistic community ought to be ashamed of themselves for not going that extra mile to get the real quotes from reliable witnesses that we deserve. Instead were taught just the opposite even in journalism school. My Legal & Ethical issues in Journalism should have been named "How to stretch the truth & not get caught 101"

wow i didnt know that... today is a great day for media journalism and you know that jon stewart is gonna have a great time with this on tomorrows show

The reason Bush won was quite simple: the Republicans have spent the last 30 years doing everything in their power to create a nationwide political infrastructure, on the top of which they can pop any candidate they think will do well. Bush was not choosen to run because of excellent credentials or any real skill; his most important quality was being a friendly-seeming guy ordinary folks could relate to, who could be convinced to toe the neoconservative line on enough issues. Look at him! A two-term governor, with a pretty bad record overall, who previous to running for governor never did a single useful thing in his life except fritter away family money running a failing oil company that doubled as a tax shelter.

With the massive financial and logistical backing of organized wealthy and corporate donors, dozens of right-wing think tanks constantly receiving funds and funneling them into studies and "research" to put right-wing ideas into the public consciousness, the truly humongous right-wing religious movement that passes out voting cards to folks in order to advise them as to the "most Godly" way to vote, and the FOX New, Regenery Publishing, and Rush Limbaugh (and their ilk) press, however, even a candidate with such a pathetic record could take a shot at the White House. Al Gore was lambasted for a misquotation about his legislative funding of ARPANet while Bush was largely unharmed by admitted cocaine use, a drunk driving citation, his inability to give a speech without screwing up, and a fundamental lack of knowledge, and any appearance of intellectual curiosity to offset it. The same happened to Kerry: the obscene Swift Boat Veterans "For Truth" got away with lying bloody murder, he was branded a "flip-flopper" by the right wing echo chamber until everyone else called him that, and his own record in the Senate furiously attacked as though Bush had done anything better during those years. The Republicans, or more precisely the neoconservative wing of that party, are waging full-time political war and have been for thirty years -- the presidential election is only the culmination of their efforts. The Democrats, on the other hand, cram everything into a handful of months and are always playing catch-up.

Until the Democratic party can put together the sort of power foundation the right wing as amassed, which may be impossible because the Dems simply cannot offer the incentive to rich/corporate donors that neoconservatives can (Less taxes! Less unions! Enviro-what?), they will always be at a severe disadvantage. Fortunately the success of their fundraising during the election and of Howard Dean's primary run show that, with enough effort, they may be able to put together a large enough grass-roots movement with enough sway to bring the balance of power back to something near fair. But it ain't happened yet.

Bill Bradley recently wrote an editorial for the New York Times about this, but it's no longer accessible from their site for free, more's the pity.

Snip.Wow. That's an accurate description of what happened, I'd say. An inevitable, and well-planned, reactionary backlash to decades of Democratic dominance in the federal government. Heh. You study political science?

I agree that at least, when Bush was chosen in the primaries, it wasn't based on any substantial credentials; it was, in the sorest of ironies, on electability.

Although it seems to me as though the Democrats have put up a pretty good fight in both the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections. I mean, come on, 49%? The Democrats can't be financial and organizational dwarfs in comparison to the Republicans if they can still garner that much of the electorate.

-snip-

Agreed. But, don't forget about voter intimidation.

I'm glad I don't listen to the media...

But that's also why I have no actual "facts" to back my arguments

[QUOTE=Evil Arch Conservative]

First off. Drop the tin foil hat talk. My hat is made from mylar(just kidding).
Tell me if the new organizations are so "reputable" Why have they resorted to using unnamed sources in over 80% of their reporting.
I've never heard news sources use more phrases like "some people might say..........or Sources tell us.............or an unnamed wittness explains.

It's slock & the journalistic community ought to be ashamed of themselves for not going that extra mile to get the real quotes from reliable witnesses that we deserve. Instead were taught just the opposite even in journalism school. My Legal & Ethical issues in Journalism should have been named "How to stretch the truth & not get caught 101"

A lot of stuff coming out of the capital comes out in the form of leaks. You certainly won't be able to credit someone for those. Abroad, perhaps it could come from sources that would be put in danger if their names were released. As for the rest, I'm sure you could get them if you shoved the journalist against the wall and punched them in the stomach a few times.

china wont "whip us into shape" they will simply overtake us as the worlds super power.....and well we'll never catch up......ever........

Sounds familier. Didn't someone say that about the Soviet Union?

Wow. That's an accurate description of what happened, I'd say. An inevitable, and well-planned, reactionary backlash to decades of Democratic dominance in the federal government. Heh. You study political science?

I agree that at least, when Bush was chosen in the primaries, it wasn't based on any substantial credentials; it was, in the sorest of ironies, on electability.

Although it seems to me as though the Democrats have put up a pretty good fight in both the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections. I mean, come on, 49%? The Democrats can't be financial and organizational dwarfs in comparison to the Republicans if they can still garner that much of the electorate.
you and i both know it should have been higher than 49%

[QUOTE=Botswombata]

A lot of stuff coming out of the capital comes out in the form of leaks. You certainly won't be able to credit someone for those. Abroad, perhaps it could come from sources that would be put in danger if their names were released. As for the rest, I'm sure you could get them if you shoved the journalist against the wall and punched them in the stomach a few times.



Sounds familier. Didn't someone say that about the Soviet Union?
funny you should mention that because im dodging an essay about the collapse of the Soviet Union which is due in about 15 hours...
but anyway...communism was doomed to fail and china, although they may pretend it is, is not communist

and anyway lets take a look at the current financial situation of the united states...we are essentially kiting a debt. the world continues to lend us money so that we will buy there products. as strange as this may seem its true. if they stop there businesses will suffer from not having any buyers, and if it collapses they will be screwed but not nearly as much as the US...during the soviet era we had a much smaller debt to kite...but anyway unless there is a political change or coup of some sort in china the same thing isnt going to happen

Agreed. But, don't forget about voter intimidation.
Hear hear! They did everything they could think of to keep me away from the polls in November... including slashed tyres and having Union "guys" hanging around outside the door.

[b]I still voted against Kerry[/b.

Voter intimidation, and other pieces of the Political Machine are wll and truly in action here in the 'Great northwest'.

As for the rest of it-the Democrats had a NATIONAL MACHINE FIRST. The republicans have been spending the last thirty years playing catch-up.

you and i both know it should have been higher than 49%

We haven't even counted the voting errors yet. We probably won't even start this time around. Thanks a lot, Ohio. You're great. Really great.

-words-

Gee, when you put it that way the President does come off as lacking in the resume department. Of course it hinges on 'their' candidate winning the caucuses. Now if someone with personality and intellect had run against Bush, except on a more libertarian platform, he could have potentially ruined 'the plan'. What's the party going to do? Tell us that they aren't going to support the winner because we didn't vote for their stooge? They'd support him. Some happily, some not so. Those that would support him happliy are the same Republicans that probably think that a constitutional ban on gay marriage ranks up there with the most pointless things they could support and that a balanced budget would be real neat. They're in the party somewhere.

Our government moonlights as a feudalism, did you all know that?

you and i both know it should have been higher than 49%I dunno. Maybe. Voter fraud occurs in every election; I think it's unavoidable in a bereaucratic nation of our size. But I have nothing that tells me that there was any foul play beyond dirty pool on the part of the Republicans. And unless I have facts, or 10+ "coincidences", I won't be pointing my finger at anyone.

Obviously, there was something amiss in Florida in 2000. But I think the 2004 election was legit.

We haven't even counted the voting errors yet. We probably won't even start this time around. Thanks a lot, Ohio. You're great. Really great.
i meant more than 49% should have voted, not did vote and were defrauded my point being john kerry ran a terrible campaign

Kerry ran a good campaign. He got huge numbers of votes above and beyond what Gore got, he convinced a lot of people. He just didn't do as much as Bush. What were the problems? The perceived negativity of Kerry supporters, the decentralization of his campaign, and the image that was successfully painted by Bush and co. are what killed him. If he had a more centralized campaign and got his supporters to seem less angry, then he might have been more successful.

I know that the treatment I got from Kerry supporters at the rally I attended made me cool to Kerry, and probably cost him this Ohio voters vote.

[QUOTE=Evil Arch Conservative]
funny you should mention that because im dodging an essay about the collapse of the Soviet Union which is due in about 15 hours...
but anyway...communism was doomed to fail and china, although they may pretend it is, is not communist

and anyway lets take a look at the current financial situation of the united states...we are essentially kiting a debt. the world continues to lend us money so that we will buy there products. as strange as this may seem its true. if they stop there businesses will suffer from not having any buyers, and if it collapses they will be screwed but not nearly as much as the US...during the soviet era we had a much smaller debt to kite...but anyway unless there is a political change or coup of some sort in china the same thing isnt going to happen

Bingo.

-snip-

I heard on CNN earlier today that many registered Democrats in Cincinnati received calls from officials, saying that voting for Democrats was a day later than Republicans. It may or may not be true, but it sounds like more Bush shenanigans.

Gee, when you put it that way the President does come off as lacking in the resume department. Of course it hinges on 'their' candidate winning the caucuses. Now if someone with personality and intellect had run against Bush, except on a more libertarian platform, he could have potentially ruined 'the plan'. What's the party going to do? Tell us that they aren't going to support the winner because we didn't vote for their stooge? They'd support him. Some happily, some not so. Those that would support him happliy are the same Republicans that probably think that a constitutional ban on gay marriage ranks up there with the most pointless things they could support and that a balanced budget would be real neat. They're in the party somewhere.

Our government moonlights as a feudalism, did you all know that?
its like ive always said good old oligarchies are the best....and not those fake ones the real council of elders stuff......

I heard on CNN earlier today that many registered Democrats in Cincinnati received calls from officials, saying that voting for Democrats was a day later than Republicans. It may or may not be true, but it sounds like more Bush shenanigans.

No one would fall for that. :confused:

Gee, when you put it that way the President does come off as lacking in the resume department. Of course it hinges on 'their' candidate winning the caucuses. Now if someone with personality and intellect had run against Bush, except on a more libertarian platform, he could have potentially ruined 'the plan'. What's the party going to do? Tell us that they aren't going to support the winner because we didn't vote for their stooge? They'd support him. Some happily, some not so. Those that would support him happliy are the same Republicans that probably think that a constitutional ban on gay marriage ranks up there with the most pointless things they could support and that a balanced budget would be real neat. They're in the party somewhere.

Our government moonlights as a feudalism, did you all know that?More reason to abolish the Party infrastrucuture now legislated into our political framework. It'll never happen, of course.

And I think I grasp the concept of American feudalism, but perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining?

funny you say that because extremist libertarians are only extreme to us, but if you actually look at the party platform they are making sense and the people who disagree with them are the extreme rightists.
the basic party platform is minimal government, meaning no social programs whatsoever, minimal taxes, freedom of speech, and taxes only on defence/police (for some).
so take badnarick for instance who beleives the department of child services (i know the real name is different but im to lazy to look it up) should be disbanded, thats right disbanded...public schools gone, public libraries gone, public (insert good thing here) gone.... to me thats extreme but it follows all basic libertarian principles
Your telling me every democrat wants to burn a flag. Raise welfare to epic proportions & have an abortion just so they say they believe in it. Come on your train of though puts everone at an extreme that is not realistic. One persons view as a libertarian is not law. The idealogy is very little gov. Yes & I agree with that on most levels. Most Libertarians also know that it would be a horrible to enact that tomorow without proper checks & balances in order.
To be honest I don't think were evolved enough to deal with any of the govermantal extrremes we talk about on these forums. Were looking for that "King Arthur" figure or that "Robin Hood" figure to lead us & were forced to accept the Bush's & Kerry's that don't live of to the ideals of the person we want running the big show.I just know that I want my ideas heard & sometimes I have to side with the extreme to get the little changes made that will make the lives of the people around us better. Our society would colapse if tomorow we had to be true Democracy or true Socialist or a true republc. Or a true libertarian paradise.
I think Kerry was my best choice for that happening as a libertatian. Just look at Bush's goverment spending. Were all going to have to pay for it eventually.That stinks my money is better spent elsewhere.

No one would fall for that. :confused:

That's what I'm thinking, but then again, there are very gullible people in this country (well, every country).

[QUOTE=Club House]

Bingo.
its much harder to have a political change in a dictatorship unless theres a coup....maybe your plotting something.....

Bingo.No. The capitalists in the Party are slowly and peacefully winning the war of ideas, and the old order is giving in. The change to capitalism has begun, and to be frank, it can't be stopped. I think the conservatives of the Party realize this.

wow i didnt know that... today is a great day for media journalism and you know that jon stewart is gonna have a great time with this on tomorrows show
????????????
I Don't get the joke here.

its like ive always said good old oligarchies are the best....and not those fake ones the real council of elders stuff......

But who would our elders be? All the presidents with any hint of badass in them (you know the ones I'm talking about) and the founding fathers are dead. We're out of elders.

Who alive today could lead an American tribal council?

I read his book, so I can help. He says a lot of money is spent on stupid things ($500,000 for praying mantis defense research, ect), and how if we cut that out, we'd save cash. I don't belive we'd save quite that much money, but we would save.

"Do you know Praying Mantis?"
"You're lookin' at him."

i meant more than 49% should have voted, not did vote and were defrauded my point being john kerry ran a terrible campaignOh! Well, yeah, sure. It should have been 100%. Congress should also award me $100 million for extraordinary bravery in internet forums. But here I am, going into debt.

Anyway. The future looks bright for the Democrats in America; and hopefully, the Republicans will be able to purge themselves of the corruption and power-madnes that seems to have creeped into them over the past fifteen years. And maybe we'll need China for that.

Wow. That's an accurate description of what happened, I'd say. An inevitable, and well-planned, reactionary backlash to decades of Democratic dominance in the federal government. Heh. You study political science?

I agree that at least, when Bush was chosen in the primaries, it wasn't based on any substantial credentials; it was, in the sorest of ironies, on electability.

Although it seems to me as though the Democrats have put up a pretty good fight in both the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections. I mean, come on, 49%? The Democrats can't be financial and organizational dwarfs in comparison to the Republicans if they can still garner that much of the electorate.

I do not study political science (engineering major actually) but find it extremely interresting.

The Democrats have indeed had some degree of success in the past two presidential elections, given the stiff competition they face. However, it also helps to look at the larger picture. Bill Clinton was, by most accounts, quite a successful president, who accomplished many things and was (heck, still is) extremely popular. But look at the rest of the country during his eight years. By the time his second term ended, the Democrats had fewer sentators, fewer House reps, fewer governors, and less influence in state politics nationally. While he, personally enjoyed political victories, he didn't really help out his party, and by 2000 the country was clearly still swinging to the right.

As Bradley wrote in his article, the Democrats rely on a presidential candidate to set party strategy: whomever they pick chooses which issues to accentuate, where to take a hard line and where to bend, and which constituencies to focus upon most heavily. The Democratic plank is so varied and they rely on such a broad and diverse constituency that there is no way to please everyone at once; first they have to appoint a "leader" to figure out how to play the game, this time. Once the presidental candidate is chosen, things get moving, because the party's position finally solidifies into something at least mostly clear, and the political infastructure can build and get moving.

The Republicans, on the other hand, and most especially the increasingly powerful neoconservative wing, have a rock-solid, painstakingly clear set of objectives and stances, which pretty much never change, and have not for the post 30 years. People know what they stand for, and if they happen to support those things, or even a couple or even just ONE, they support the party. Democrats have to scrimp and scrape among the dozens of causes they support for an organizational framework and contributions. Local Republicans run on being Republican, because that by itself tells people all they need to know about their ideology (there are some exceptions, of course, such as Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe, but they're quite rare and not exactly popular within the party right now), while local Democrats try to find the magic formula for winning in their area from the hodgepodge of stuff the Democratic party likes. Flip-floppers? Hell, they're just trying to figure out what most people actually care about!

IMHO, the Democrats either need to put together a Contract With America of their own to define, in concrete, what they plan to do and how, or cast as broad a net as possible and enlist the hundreds of progressive groups and institutions (NOW, NAACP, Sierra Club, etc.) to work towards furthering their cause full-time. Until they do that, even if they manage to win presidential elections now and then, they will be unable to really get all that much done.

No. The capitalists in the Party are slowly and peacefully winning the war of ideas, and the old order is giving in. The change to capitalism has begun, and to be frank, it can't be stopped. I think the conservatives of the Party realize this.

You mean in China? I'm talking about political change in the US. If we're smart we can save ourselves.

We need to keep our sources of cheap labor though. I mean keep them indefinatly. But if I talk about that I'm just talking out of my ass. How much would it affect the US if we suddenly had to revert to the ratio of industrial jobs we had in the US in the 1950's and before to the number of cheap foreign labor jobs we had overseas during the same time period? Or wouldn't it matter?

But who would our elders be? All the presidents with any hint of badass in them (you know the ones I'm talking about) and the founding fathers are dead. We're out of elders.

Who alive today could lead an American tribal council?
Ford Bush Carter Clinton & GW what an amazingly scarry thought.

No. The capitalists in the Party are slowly and peacefully winning the war of ideas, and the old order is giving in. The change to capitalism has begun, and to be frank, it can't be stopped. I think the conservatives of the Party realize this.
doubtful, although economic freedom is growing political freedom remains dead. the beauty (thanks to jim carry i can spell) of the late soviet era is that there was more freedom on both sides plus the army wasnt willing to shoot the demonstrators. if you look at tiananmen square clearly the army is capable of shooting the demonstrators

Ford Bush Carter Clinton & GW what an amazingly scarry thought.

Our primitive ancestors of the jungles would piss themselves laughing.

You mean in China? I'm talking about political change in the US. If we're smart we can save ourselves.

We need to keep our sources of cheap labor though. I mean keep them indefinatly. But if I talk about that I'm just talking out of my ass. How much would it affect the US if we suddenly had to revert to the ratio of industrial jobs we had in the US in the 1950's and before to the number of cheap foreign labor jobs we had overseas during the same time period? Or wouldn't it matter?
i dont understand, we were talking about china...do you mean we should have a neo-fascist political reform in the U.S.?

Good evening & good talking with you all. This was a fun thread tonight.

Of course it hinges on 'their' candidate winning the caucuses. Now if someone with personality and intellect had run against Bush, except on a more libertarian platform, he could have potentially ruined 'the plan'. What's the party going to do? Tell us that they aren't going to support the winner because we didn't vote for their stooge? They'd support him. Some happily, some not so.

John McCain ran against Bush in the primaries. You may have noticed the utter lack of support for his candidacy by large (neo)conservative powerbrokers and his forced reliance on grass-roots means, as opposed to humongous wads of cash. You may have heard about the push-polling before the South Carolina primary, where registered Republicans were called up and asks could they take part in a poll, which consisted of one question: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you were aware he had an illegitimate child with a black woman 15 years ago?"

Bush and Bush alone had the backing of the political machine I discussed in earlier posts. Without that support, none of the rest had a shot in hell, unless they could overwhelm billions of dollars and massive political power with sheer charisma and brilliant ideas, which, not surprisingly, didn't happen. As long as a wing of the party controls that machine, they control the candidates, and they control the message. Unfortunately at this time, "real" Republicans appear to be willing to go along with the neoconservatives because their system works; in the relatively near future I suspect they may mutiny.

And, quite frankly, even if the "annointed" candidate lost, it would not surprise me if he ended up getting the nod. Whoops, the guy who beat him had an affair 6 years ago, we just found out, can't use him. Teddy Roosevelt found out one man, no matter how great they are or how hard they try, cannot singlehandedly overcome the power of political organization.

i dont understand, we were talking about china...do you mean we should have a neo-fascist political reform in the U.S.?

The second paragraph is a new train of thought. When I said 'Bingo' I was saying that you agreed with me. The US needs political change if we're going to be financially viable fifty years from now. I thought Trammwerk assumed I was talking about China when I said that, so I replied "you mean China?". When I asked this I was asking if he was referring to China in his reply to my "Bingo". Then I went on to say that I was referring to the US.

No one would fall for that. :confused:
Those who do fall for it, tend to vote Democrat...

Meh... Kerry couldn't have won the election if he wanted to. Bush rigged it we all know it. It's just some are too brainwashed to see that. The Republicans are just pissed because a fatfuck by the name of Michael Moore revealed some shall we say pretty shameful things about him? The others are just pissed because they voted for him 2nd term and decided that they voted for the wrong person prior to the Iraqi elections where there seemed to be a small hope for everyone. The people who voted for Kerry know that he didn't stand a chance, they just thought they'd vote for him anyway because Cameron Diaz and P Diddy started spreading "you can do it" propaganda in the MTV vote or die campaign. I was paranoid and frantic a couple months ago because I was convinced Bush was the anti-Christ. I'm not anymore because the dumbass has been quiet for once about his bullshit. And we all know that there's a whole pretzel industry and nations full of anti-Bush psychos. ;)

Besides we need not to worry. According to my Grandma, Jesus has arisen again in the form of Pope John Paul and in relatively short amount of years, the apolcalypse will come. I shall find salvation because appranetly "I'm a good person". ;)

The second paragraph is a new train of thought. When I said 'Bingo' I was saying that you agreed with me. The US needs political change if we're going to be financially viable fifty years from now. I thought Trammwerk assumed I was talking about China when I said that, so I replied "you mean China?". When I asked this I was asking if he was referring to China in his reply to my "Bingo". Then I went on to say that I was referring to the US.Yeah, I misinterpreted you. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

I agree. We do need political change. The question is, what kind? Both parties offer fixes and temporary solutions. What we need is a New New Deal.

John McCain ran against Bush in the primaries. You may have noticed the utter lack of support for his candidacy by large (neo)conservative powerbrokers and his forced reliance on grass-roots means, as opposed to humongous wads of cash. You may have heard about the push-polling before the South Carolina primary, where registered Republicans were called up and asks could they take part in a poll, which consisted of one question: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you were aware he had an illegitimate child with a black woman 15 years ago?"

Bush and Bush alone had the backing of the political machine I discussed in earlier posts. Without that support, none of the rest had a shot in hell, unless they could overwhelm billions of dollars and massive political power with sheer charisma and brilliant ideas, which, not surprisingly, didn't happen. As long as a wing of the party controls that machine, they control the candidates, and they control the message. Unfortunately at this time, "real" Republicans appear to be willing to go along with the neoconservatives because their system works; in the relatively near future I suspect they may mutiny.

And, quite frankly, even if the "annointed" candidate lost, it would not surprise me if he ended up getting the nod. Whoops, the guy who beat him had an affair 6 years ago, we just found out, can't use him. Teddy Roosevelt found out one man, no matter how great they are or how hard they try, cannot singlehandedly overcome the power of political organization.

There go my dreams! You can see them billowing in the breeze outside my window. Weren't they beautiful?

I could think of counter-arguments, but I think it would be a moot point. The chances of overcoming such a force, unless you were extremely wealthy, Mr. Smith, or Arnold himself (if his own party dropped him because his dad was a Nazi or some such nonsense, I'd laaaaugh), are fairly low. I'll take the mutiny option. As far as I'm concerned it'd be poetic justice if the cause was the attempt at eliminating filibusters, but I doubt that'll be it.

Yeah, I misinterpreted you. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

I agree. We do need political change. The question is, what kind? Both parties offer fixes and temporary solutions. What we need is a New New Deal.

I wish I had the background in economics to answer that, but I don't. I'm sure google has infinitely more suggestions then neo-cons do.

*seconds later* Epiphany! Hey, someone take a look at this web site and tell me if it's legit. I read though quite a bit of it a few months ago, but I never finished. I think I'll reread it all now.

Grandfather Economic Report (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/hodges.htm) It's a hell of a lot to read but I know you guys will eat it up.

Yeah, I misinterpreted you. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

I agree. We do need political change. The question is, what kind? Both parties offer fixes and temporary solutions. What we need is a New New Deal.
ok now your scaring me into thinking you came here to spread pro-social security privitization propoganda

I wish I had the background in economics to answer that, but I don't. I'm sure google has infinitely more suggestions then neo-cons do.

*seconds later* Epiphany! Hey, someone take a look at this web site and tell me if it's legit. I read though quite a bit of it a few months ago, but I never finished. I think I'll reread it all now.

Grandfather Economic Report (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/hodges.htm) It's a hell of a lot to read but I know you guys will eat it up.
one im to lazy to read all that
two it smells like propoganda to me
three im to lazy to read all that

Yeah, I misinterpreted you. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

I agree. We do need political change. The question is, what kind? Both parties offer fixes and temporary solutions. What we need is a New New Deal.

Fixesa and temporary solutions are pretty much what you're stuck with when you re-elect most of your government every two years. Sadly unless there is a titanic disaster looming immediately on the horizon, the government is rather slow to react; heck, usually it doesn't do anything until we're right in the middle of said disaster.

Our infastructure is falling apart, China and India are poised to overtake us economically within 50-100 years, our energy dependency will cripple us more and more with every passing year, and all of this is exacerbated by raising debt which dilutes our dollar and hamstrings an economy designed to run on virtually free oil. The problem is that none of our problems can be solved without truly epic spending, and the capacity to spend said epic sums is swiftly disappearing.

New New Deal? How about a new tax code, circa World War II, with funds earmarked to pay off the debt, blast money into alternative energy, and do whatever it is that makes the Netherlands kids smarter than us to our kids. The only problem would be that most high-bracket folks don't like paying 96% income tax.

one im to lazy to read all that
two it smells like propoganda to me
three im to lazy to read all that

You are the embodiment of the root cause of the problems you complain about.

Anyway, his site was endorsed by Milton Friedman. That says a lot.

The only problem would be that most high-bracket folks don't like paying 96% income tax.

That's ok. Their income will only be $10 unless they're one of the unlucky few who is foolish enough to reside merely 'just above' the highest bracket.

You are the embodiment of the root cause of the problems you complain about.

Anyway, his site was endorsed by Milton Friedman. That says a lot.
its one in the morning here do you really expect me to read all that crap, besides what guarentee do i have that this is not a load of bull shit and no i dont care if he endorses it

its one in the morning here do you really expect me to read all that crap, besides what guarentee do i have that this is not a load of bull shit and no i dont care if he endorses it

I don't expect anyone to read it all in one night. Read it and decide for yourself whether or not it's bullshit.

the more and more i read it the more it sounds like propoganda... especially when they say something is "shocking" and it fails to suprise me and in fact meets my expectations entirely

god forbid we spend increasing amounts of money on the poor or the sick, who would ever want the help the sick!

Grandfather Economic Report (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/hodges.htm) It's a hell of a lot to read but I know you guys will eat it up.I'm reading the summary now. I'll digest it over the course of the week. Thanks; this is really nice.

"New New Deal" is just a term used to describe how we need a new economic structure initiated. The New Deal was a new economic model for the United States that dealt with the problems it was facing at the time; that is, the dangers of laissez-faire capitalism. We need a new economic model to deal with the global economy and welfare state-economics.

oh my god the debts increasing who could have known!

the more and more i read it the more it sounds like propoganda... especially when they something is "shocking" and it fails to suprise me and in fact meets my expectations entirely

I don't think it's 'shocking' when gay men kiss in public.

Jesus as time goes on theres more inflation in america and whats this you say its getting faster? who would have thunk it?

Jesus as time goes on theres more inflation in america and whats this you say its getting faster? who would have thunk it?

I think you're reading every other word. You didn't make the connection between that detail and the topic.

I don't think it's 'shocking' when gay men kiss in public.
Shocking? No. They have desensitized too many already...

Disgusting? Yes. But that's MY view and I don't pretend to force it on anyone else. Of course, I wish the gays wouldn't force their views on me and my family, but what can we do?

voter turn out is shitty in america why didnt anyone tell me!?

Shocking? No. They have desensitized too many already...

Disgusting? Yes. But that's MY view and I don't pretend to force it on anyone else. Of course, I wish the gays wouldn't force their views on me and my family, but what can we do?

Exactly. Be it desesitization or inborn inclination, I don't care. Much like Club House doesn't care. The only difference is that we can both agree that he 'doesn't care' about something that is importaint.

voter turn out is shitty in america why didnt anyone tell me!?

Ok, ok. You know everything. May I ask that us uneducated peons be allowed to get what knowledge we can from the essays?

Shocking? No. They have desensitized too many already...

Disgusting? Yes. But that's MY view and I don't pretend to force it on anyone else. Of course, I wish the gays wouldn't force their views on me and my family, but what can we do?
whos forcing anything on you? did a gay man come into your home and start kissing you?

whos forcing anything on you? did a gay man come into your home and start kissing you?

No one is forcing anything on anyone. You don't have to read the web site if you're already able to explain to me in full, from memory, to the extent that he does, every topic that he covers. From your sagely comments regarding the web site I suspect that you're quite capable of this.

Exactly. Be it desesitization or inborn inclination, I don't care. Much like Club House doesn't care. The only difference is that we can both agree that he 'doesn't care' about something that is importaint.



Ok, ok. You know everything. May I ask that us uneducated peons be allowed to get what knowledge we can from the essays?
i dont care? im sorry but ive read enough about the state of americas economy to not be shocked that the government has expanded, voter turn out is shitty, inflation is on the rise and what that means, and basically everything else ive come across on this report so far, so when they use the word "shocking" im some how not impressed

Kerry lost Ohio because of his stance on morality issues.
Results from New Mexico, Ohio and Florida are dubious.

These states are known to have large populations of immigrants/ethnic voters.

"There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.

Exit polls in the November election showed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., winning by 3 percent, but President George W. Bush won the vote count by 2.5 percent.

The explanation for the (ed: historically unprecedented!) discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an "implausible theory," according to the report issued Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.
The report says of the official explanation -- that Bush voters were more shy about filling out exit polls in precincts with more Kerry voters -- if true, then the precincts with large Bush votes should be more accurate, not less accurate as the data indicate.
...
The report also called into question new voting machine technologies.

"All voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party, (which) certainly warrants further inquiry," the report concludes.

This document, referred to above, was put together by a bipartisan non-profit group in Utah.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

Same goes for Florida in '00.
53,000 people with similar name to convicts or birthdate to convicts were cut off Florida electoral rolls.
Perhaps they all would not have voted, however, Bush winning by 200 meant if all those people voted, and if participation rates are at something like 30%, that's enough votes to push the Dems over the line (even if just over a half of those who voted voted dem)
(and Bush being the *excellent* leader that he is, according to some in this thread, promoted the woman that cut the people off the roll)

In Florida '04, 2 million more people than are registered Republicans alledgedly voted Republican.

In response to the topic heading, he did win the votes from all the evidence I've seen, but wasn't "buddy-buddy" enough with the polling company,
"I am committed to helping Ohio delivery electoral votes to the President next year"
and, even though I support him, he has no balls.
He should have stood up and contested the election results, and he opportunities to, but failed to do so (how can you expect others to believe in you if you don't believe in yourself).

whos forcing anything on you? did a gay man come into your home and start kissing you?
You obviously manage to miss all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis. Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?

i dont care? im sorry but ive read enough about the state of americas economy to not be shocked that the government has expanded, voter turn out is shitty, inflation is on the rise and what that means, and basically everything else ive come across on this report so far, so when they use the word "shocking" im some how not impressed

I'm not asking you to be shocked. I doubt the writer's intent is to shock. The reports might have that affect on someone that hasn't read a great deal about American economic issues, though. That's merely a side effect. What the author intends to do is to bring together a comprehensive list of issues that he feels the government needs to address and reasons why he believes they should be. It just so happens that his list is an extremely broad and convincing argument that most people would do well to read, even if they don't learn much from it.

You obviously manage to miss all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis. Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?

You forgot Desperate Housewives, the entertainment channel's complete lineup, almost every music video on MTV, and PPV porn.

And that is how John Kerry could have won the election. ;)

You obviously manage to miss all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis. Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?You're kidding, right? The Big Gay Conspiracy to Gay Things Up?

Anyway. EAC's website, Grandfather Economics, does more than point to problems. It suggests solutions. In addition, it describes the problems in a far more concrete and graphic manner than, say, a Congressional report might. I have a much easier time understanding this than the mumbo jumbo that comes from inside the beltway.

There's no need to demean this. And I don't see propaganda so much as a plea to decrease government spending and return to a private, capitalist society, for the "sake of the children." That's a little corny, but I can sympathize with the message. I'm not exactly Adam Smith, but besides healthcare, social security, defense and education, I see no point for the government to dip it's hands into my pocket. But it does. And this website illustrates rather clearly just how much it has dipped over the years.

You forgot Desperate Housewives, the entertainment channel's complete lineup, almost every music video on MTV, and PPV porn.

And that is how John Kerry could have won the election. ;)
Also, that was the side of America that was almost solidly 100% behind him.

Also, that was the side of America that was almost solidly 100% behind him.

You've got a point. I think the Democrats should hire me as a strategist. I'll make them winners, even if it means compromising America's principles.

I heard on CNN earlier today that many registered Democrats in Cincinnati received calls from officials, saying that voting for Democrats was a day later than Republicans. It may or may not be true, but it sounds like more Bush shenanigans.
Is this the same Cincinatti that Democrat activists were paying homeless people to vote their man?
Sounds like there's at least life on both sides. Here in Washington State, the GOP acts like they're dead-even when it takes three recounts and 1800 false ballots to put Democrat Empress Christine Gregoire into the state-house.

(There's the forty-nine states, and the Soviet Of Washington...)

You're kidding, right? The Big Gay Conspiracy to Gay Things Up?

Anyway. EAC's website, Grandfather Economics, does more than point to problems. It suggests solutions. In addition, it describes the problems in a far more concrete and graphic manner than, say, a Congressional report might. I have a much easier time understanding this than the mumbo jumbo that comes from inside the beltway.

There's no need to demean this. And I don't see propaganda so much as a plea to decrease government spending and return to a private, capitalist society, for the "sake of the children." That's a little corny, but I can sympathize with the message. I'm not exactly Adam Smith, but besides healthcare, social security, defense and education, I see no point for the government to dip it's ands into my pocket. But it does. And this website illustrates rather clearly just how much it has dipped over the years.
Good points. I agree, except...the government's role in my life should be to protect the borders and enforce laws. That's it. Education, health care, and post-retirement care of the elderly, before the great experiment in American Socialism of the 1930's and 40's, were all handled at the local level, either through your friendly LOCAL government, or through private efforts. And guess what, the 8th grader of 1920 knew a lot more than today's high-school graduate...indigent people didn't have to worry about how to pay for medical care, doctors didn't have to worry about the next class action lawsuit putting them out of business, and elders were able to survive on their own means after retirement.

Roosevelt's New Deal created an American culture of irrational and excessive dependence on the Central Government, which of course had to grow in order to support all the dependence, and which required (and still requires) massive taxation in order to support all the demands on it. The tax system, in turn, became a way for politicians to punish the successful in order to benefit the unproductive.

You've got a point. I think the Democrats should hire me as a strategist. I'll make them winners, even if it means compromising America's principles.
Hell, I can give the Dims advice for free. Simple way for them to win again: try thinking like AVERAGE people from Flyover Country, instead of listening to the elites from the East and West Coasts.

Hell, I can give the Dims advice for free. Simple way for them to win again: try thinking like AVERAGE people from Flyover Country, instead of listening to the elites from the East and West Coasts.At least they don't pretend to do so, unlike a certain grand and old party I will not mention.

But, you're right, they need to make contact with the Mid-West and West. Democratic values are more in-line with those areas than, I think, those people suspect. They just don't know it yet. This will become especially true, I think, if the GOP [oops, there I go] continues it's evolution into an excessively authoritarian political party, in which case the Democrats might respond by growing more libertarian. Wouldn't that be ironic!

So, yeah. I agree. The Democrats need to get in touch with the West. As it is, they can't win the South; their only hope is the pin-pricks that the mid-Western states will provide.

Good points. I agree, except...the government's role in my life should be to protect the borders and enforce laws. That's it. Education, health care, and post-retirement care of the elderly, before the great experiment in American Socialism of the 1930's and 40's, were all handled at the local level, either through your friendly LOCAL government, or through private efforts. And guess what, the 8th grader of 1920 knew a lot more than today's high-school graduate...indigent people didn't have to worry about how to pay for medical care, doctors didn't have to worry about the next class action lawsuit putting them out of business, and elders were able to survive on their own means after retirement.

Roosevelt's New Deal created an American culture of irrational and excessive dependence on the Central Government, which of course had to grow in order to support all the dependence, and which required (and still requires) massive taxation in order to support all the demands on it. The tax system, in turn, became a way for politicians to punish the successful in order to benefit the unproductive.

In a perfect world I agree that the federal government would not control education and social security would not exist. I'm not sure about health care though. In theory it should be something that you pay for yourself, but in practice some people can't (I'm sure in part because the government is more willing to shell out more then an individual would on an individual's health care). The cost are so exorbitant and the benefits are huge. Some people simply would not be able to pay for the treatment that they get. I wouldn't feel right denying such services to people. Would the disbanding of government funded health care cause a lowering of prices to the point where it would be affordable?

Kerry's big mistake was that he sucked ass and lost. Half the country hates Bush and he loses?! WTF! Let's face it, John Kerry was born to suck.

You obviously manage to miss all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis. Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?
it is your right to turn off the tv or change the channel any time you want to.
unfortunately in this country we have legislation in clear contradiction to the fifirst ammendment which states that we don't have the right to broadcast whatever we want and because of this ridiculous legislation people like you actually do have a legitimate argument. but either way my argument stands, if you dont like it just turn off the tv

I'm not asking you to be shocked. I doubt the writer's intent is to shock. The reports might have that affect on someone that hasn't read a great deal about American economic issues, though. That's merely a side effect. What the author intends to do is to bring together a comprehensive list of issues that he feels the government needs to address and reasons why he believes they should be. It just so happens that his list is an extremely broad and convincing argument that most people would do well to read, even if they don't learn much from it.
"It may 'blow your mind' " no propoganda there
"Many will answer, "About 10% to 20%" who is many people? he has taken his own view and said many people will answer. id like to see some sort of actual scientific poll before i make such claims.
if you actually look at his word choice alone you can instantly tell its propoganda, he attempts to provide new economic information for people and then draws the conclusion that the government is "like cancer" just actually pay attention to what hes saying

Kerry's big mistake was that he sucked ass and lost. Half the country hates Bush and he loses?! WTF! Let's face it, John Kerry was born to suck.

I believe that the primary problem the Democrats had was relying on big money. The Republicans evidently had a much stronger grass roots organization on the ground, from which they received both money and on the ground support to get voters out. Aside from moveon, the Democrats didn't have jack.

I honestly think that the Democrats thought that with Soros' money, and just "getting out the message" that "Bush sucks" would win for them.

Obviously, many people thought that not only did Kerry suck, but ideas such as gay marriage suck (11 states stomped that idea down), and having foreign newspapers call Ohio voters sucks, and some Democratic Senators and Congressmen suck as well. It wasn't just Kerry losing - it was the whole idea behind the Democratic Party's message.

I firmly believe that the Democrats have no real idea of what motivates people to vote for Bush. Until they figure that one out, they're going to lose the next election.

You've got a point. I think the Democrats should hire me as a strategist. I'll make them winners, even if it means compromising America's principles.
maybe the republicans should hire you. maybe then they'll stop subsidizing farms in Iowa, Ohio (swing states mind you) and many other states with billions of dollars each year, or perhaps they might not give tens of millions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry right before the election
you seem to think government is becoming more socialized but your party is contributing to the problem and yet no one says anything

I believe that the primary problem the Democrats had was relying on big money. The Republicans evidently had a much stronger grass roots organization on the ground, from which they received both money and on the ground support to get voters out. Aside from moveon, the Democrats didn't have jack.

I honestly think that the Democrats thought that with Soros' money, and just "getting out the message" that "Bush sucks" would win for them.

Obviously, many people thought that not only did Kerry suck, but ideas such as gay marriage suck (11 states stomped that idea down), and having foreign newspapers call Ohio voters sucks, and some Democratic Senators and Congressmen suck as well. It wasn't just Kerry losing - it was the whole idea behind the Democratic Party's message.

I firmly believe that the Democrats have no real idea of what motivates people to vote for Bush. Until they figure that one out, they're going to lose the next election.
exit polls blasting me with statistics saying they voted based on moral values gave me some idea.
1. stem cell research=bad
2. woman's right to choose=bad
3. equality for homosexuals=bad
are those a few real ideas? should we sacrifice our veiws and attempt to go for the right wing nut job vote?

exit polls blasting me with statistics saying they voted based on moral values gave me some idea.
1. stem cell research=bad
2. woman's right to choose=bad
3. equality for homosexuals=bad
are those a few real ideas? should we sacrifice these veiws and attempt to go for the right wing nut job vote?

No. But calling your electorate "right wing nut job" isn't going to help.

I feel that most Americans don't vote on the issues. It's more of a gut feeling for who to vote for President. Clinton, for example, didn't do any of the things he stood for (universal health care, anyone?), and many of the things you would think a Democrat would never take credit for (end welfare as we know it). But he had charisma. A certain aura.

Most Americans believe we're in a war on terror. It's scarier than a real war, since we get to be paranoid like we were in the Cold War, only with real planes flying into real buildings. So we want a man who appears "macho". I firmly believe that just as Dukakis was classified as a wuss, so John Kerry, the man with medals and combat experience, was classified as a wuss. Because he had allowed himself to be shown by his PR people as a metrosexual - an emasculated man.

George Bush still sleeps with a Glock on the bedside table. When he went to Florida for cheap PR shots, he was photographed hauling out tree limbs - while Kerry was photographed on a fake duck hunt (just to convince gun owners that he might like some guns, instead of looking at his voting record and finding out that he would ban every gun he could see).

Neither man may be very truthful about who they really are. But no one wants to vote for a wuss, especially right now. They want to know we have a President who will wage a war on the other side of the globe, capture people, and interrogate them mercilessly - they don't want to hear the Amnesty International complaints - they want someone to pay for 9-11, and they don't care who it is.

Hearing apologetic mumblings from an emasculated metrosexual doesn't cut it.

Hillary has more balls than Kerry. Her recent proposals about Homeland Security sound more right-wing than John Ashcroft, but I don't hear Democrats crying about it. She would win purely because everyone knows she's tough - and Democratic ideals be damned, she would be kicking the world's ass - just like Bush.

No. But calling your electorate "right wing nut job" isn't going to help.

I feel that most Americans don't vote on the issues. It's more of a gut feeling for who to vote for President. Clinton, for example, didn't do any of the things he stood for (universal health care, anyone?), and many of the things you would think a Democrat would never take credit for (end welfare as we know it). But he had charisma. A certain aura.

Most Americans believe we're in a war on terror. It's scarier than a real war, since we get to be paranoid like we were in the Cold War, only with real planes flying into real buildings. So we want a man who appears "macho". I firmly believe that just as Dukakis was classified as a wuss, so John Kerry, the man with medals and combat experience, was classified as a wuss. Because he had allowed himself to be shown by his PR people as a metrosexual - an emasculated man.

George Bush still sleeps with a Glock on the bedside table. When he went to Florida for cheap PR shots, he was photographed hauling out tree limbs - while Kerry was photographed on a fake duck hunt (just to convince gun owners that he might like some guns, instead of looking at his voting record and finding out that he would ban every gun he could see).

Neither man may be very truthful about who they really are. But no one wants to vote for a wuss, especially right now. They want to know we have a President who will wage a war on the other side of the globe, capture people, and interrogate them mercilessly - they don't want to hear the Amnesty International complaints - they want someone to pay for 9-11, and they don't care who it is.

Hearing apologetic mumblings from an emasculated metrosexual doesn't cut it.

Hillary has more balls than Kerry. Her recent proposals about Homeland Security sound more right-wing than John Ashcroft, but I don't hear Democrats crying about it. She would win purely because everyone knows she's tough - and Democratic ideals be damned, she would be kicking the world's ass - just like Bush.
1. hilary clinton will never win in the primaries nor would she be able to win in an actual election
2. im only talking about the right wing nut job sector of the republican party, despite popular belief, it does exist

Truth be told Clinton is one of the reasons why I started voting for anyone else not listed as Democrat.
I hate Clinton too but to me the things I hate about him, I also see in Bush and Republicans in general.

When Speaking to a pro-life group Kerry said that abortions were wrong. Speaking a pro-choice group Kerry said that abortions should be fully legalized in the US.
Hold on. Saying that it's wrong is not opposite to saying it should be legal. The law is not a rubber-stamp of approval for everything that is legal. A politician can be personally opposed to something but legally in favour.

1. hilary clinton will never win in the primaries nor would she be able to win in an actual election
2. im only talking about the right wing nut job sector of the republican party, despite popular belief, it does exist

If the Republicans don't nominate someone with balls, Hillary would win.

If you look down the corridor of recent history, and look at who ran against whom in the Presidential elections, the election went to the candidate who was perceived to have bigger testicles.

Hillary wouldn't win in Democratic primaries because the party is too hung up on nominating wusses.

The only way Kerry could of won, was to actually choose a position and stick with it. Not to change said position because of some polling data for that day. The man was shaker than a one legged man in a kicking contest. It was quite comical though I have to say, I never laughed at someone so hard since 1984 and Mondale. God was that man a compelete and utter Moron.

Yeah... Kerry's middle name must be "Pander"

If the Republicans don't nominate someone with balls, Hillary would win.

If you look down the corridor of recent history, and look at who ran against whom in the Presidential elections, the election went to the candidate who was perceived to have bigger testicles.

Hillary wouldn't win in Democratic primaries because the party is too hung up on nominating wusses.
i dont think you understand just how many people hate hilary clinton, nor do you understand just how much they hate her. just trust me on this one she will never win the primaries, democrats arent stupid enough to put forward a candidate who they are sure wont win

i dont think you understand just how many people hate hilary clinton, nor do you understand just how much they hate her. just trust me on this one she will never win the primaries, democrats arent stupid enough to put forward a candidate who they are sure wont win

Just look how much the people running Kerry's campaign thought that people hated Bush...

On a personal level, I can't stand Hillary any more than any other Republican. But I DO respect her because she's got more balls than half the Democratic Senators put together.

I just wish you idiot, religious, neocon, right wing nutjobs would just stop calling us progressive thinkers names and labels.

Just look how much the people running Kerry's campaign thought that people hated Bush...

On a personal level, I can't stand Hillary any more than any other Republican. But I DO respect her because she's got more balls than half the Democratic Senators put together.
like ive been trying to say shell never make it past the primaries

I just wish you idiot, religious, neocon, right wing nutjobs would just stop calling us progressive thinkers names and labels.
that was kind of random.......

from a left-wing pinko

from a left-wing pinko
we're reds, get it right comrade frangland

(hehe... get it? repubs doling out negative labels to democrats...)

(hehe... get it? repubs doling out negative labels to democrats...)
...

were reds, get it right comrade frangland

who were reds?

hehe

*we're

wow, this conversation has really digressed

hehe

i knew that you knew the difference between "were" and "we're"

You obviously manage to miss all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis. Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?
what about the straight propoganda, what about every time im "forced" to see a straight person kiss on tv, what about the oc or summerland what about the christian lobby demanding gay marriage be banned

I just wish you idiot, religious, neocon, right wing nutjobs would just stop calling us progressive thinkers names and labels.
uh-oh, hypocrisy alert!

uh-oh, hypocrisy alert!
i thought that was the point of his joke........????

all the gay propaganda we get blasted into our homes on a daily basis
Hahaha! This is good. Next you'll be shouting and screaming about the "vast liberal conspiracy".

Starting with Will and Grace...then it's Queer Eye...
You fool, that's not propaganda, that's entertainment. The TV stations put it on because they believe it will make money, not to brainwash people with "the homosexual agenda". If you hate it that much, you don't have to watch it.

watch the news, almost daily you get news about the gay lobby demanding gay marriage...and of course, how many times did we have to see gay couples kiss on tv live from Massachussets and San Francisco when either one started marrying same-sex couples?
Maybe if conservatives didn't oppose gay marraige the gay lobby would feel no need to demand and protest, and you wouldn't hear about it. Again, if conservatives had not made such a big issue out of it, the news networks wouldn't feel the need to report it.

You whine about all the "gay propaganda". Poor you, you brought it on yourself.

Panhandlia, you truly are an idiot.

Hell, I can give the Dims advice for free. Simple way for them to win again: try thinking like AVERAGE people from Flyover Country, instead of listening to the elites from the East and West Coasts.
What about the average people from the East and West Coasts?

Good points. I agree, except...the government's role in my life should be to protect the borders and enforce laws. That's it.
Enforce laws? That's so vague, and could be used to justify any government action. BTW, in your description of your ideal government you forgot to mention "keep down teh gays" or something along those lines.

The reason why I posted the name calling post was that we all call each other names and labels. I read the entire thread and that just what you liberals were doing and I wanted to call attention to it. Look, Kerry had no clear message period. The Hate Bush speech just got really old to the electorite. Plus, a many people were insulted at the Michael Moore love fest at the Dem's convention.

Flip-flopping was just the tip of the iceburg.

If the Dems want to gain any ground in the House and Senate, they need to stop obstructing and drop the far-left progressive agenda.

Kerry had no clear message period.
what issue specifically was he unclear on? every media outlet has repeated this message over and over and over, but for some reason i payed attention to what he said and it was perfectly clear to me...

p.s. whats wrong with name calling?

If the Dems want to gain any ground in the House and Senate, they need to stop obstructing and drop the far-left progressive agenda.
What far-left agenda? The Democratic agenda is centrist.

What far-left agenda? The Democratic agenda is centrist.

Not in the minds of the American electorate. You and I know there is no Left in the US (not since the 1920s), but Americans don't know that.

Banning guns is considered far-left in the US.
Gay marriage is considered far-left.
Banning the Ten Commandments is considered far-left.

In general, if you are against something that the Republican Party is for, you are taking a far-left stance. In much the same way that if you oppose anything the Democratic Party is for, you are a right-wing nut job.

You could blame Alger Hiss. He was the poster boy for Democratic Party intellectualism who really turned out to be a Communist agent (final proof came in the mid-1990s).

It made it SOOOOO easy to throw shit on any Democrat idea by just saying it was a "far-left Commie idea".

Thats not the way Americans see it. Thats the way Republicans see it.

Not in the minds of the American electorate. You and I know there is no Left in the US (not since the 1920s), but Americans don't know that.

Banning guns is considered far-left in the US.
Gay marriage is considered far-left.
Banning the Ten Commandments is considered far-left.

In general, if you are against something that the Republican Party is for, you are taking a far-left stance. In much the same way that if you oppose anything the Democratic Party is for, you are a right-wing nut job.

You could blame Alger Hiss. He was the poster boy for Democratic Party intellectualism who really turned out to be a Communist agent (final proof came in the mid-1990s).

It made it SOOOOO easy to throw shit on any Democrat idea by just saying it was a "far-left Commie idea".
1. its not apart of the democratic agenda to ban guns
2. its not apart of the demorcatic agenda to ban the ten commandments
some democrats dont believe that government officials should be spending money in order to put a religous icon on public property (you know, the property that all tax payers spent money on which includes buddhists, atheists, etc.)
3. when i say right wing nut job im only taking about the right wing nut job sector of the republican party

p.s. if equal rights for homosexuals is considered far-left then i guess im far-left

1. its not apart of the democratic agenda to ban guns
2. its not apart of the demorcatic agenda to ban the ten commandments
some democrats dont believe that government officials should be spending money in order to put a religous icon on public property (you know, the property that all tax payers spent money on which includes buddhists, atheists, etc.)
3. when i say right wing nut job im only taking about the right wing nut job sector of the republican party

p.s. if equal rights for homosexuals is considered far-left then i guess im far-left

you crazy ass pinko commie

A gun for every crib is my motto. Other mottos: A man for every woman. A Bible for every belt.

1. its not apart of the democratic agenda to ban guns

Yes, it most certainly is. In fact, until recently, it was a cornerstone of Democratic Party thinking. And still is. There may be Democrats who own guns, but the majority of Democrats would ban all guns if they could - right now, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in (Senator Feinstein).

2. its not apart of the demorcatic agenda to ban the ten commandments
some democrats dont believe that government officials should be spending money in order to put a religous icon on public property (you know, the property that all tax payers spent money on which includes buddhists, atheists, etc.)
Unfortunately, the Democrats have made a bad PR job about this, and look like Biible-burners to most rural folk.

3. when i say right wing nut job im only taking about the right wing nut job sector of the republican party

p.s. if equal rights for homosexuals is considered far-left then i guess im far-left

Yes, by Republican standards, you are. You may wonder why then, are there homosexuals who vote Republican. By your logic, 100 percent of homosexuals would vote Democrat. But that didn't happen.

Because people don't always vote for their own special interest group.

You can't form a party out of myriad special interests, and hope they all go vote as a block on election day. You need blocks with wider coverage who are more angry - and you need to make them angry.

Repeated attempts to ban guns made me angry.
Repeated court decisions made other people angry.


But, I think the biggest problem:

Americans don't like to lose wars. They may not like to get into them, but we don't want a repeat of the Vietnam loss. Where without a military defeat, we just got tired and went home, and spent 20 years hating ourselves.

So we don't want to lose in Iraq, even if we went for the wrong reasons, or it sucks to be there. But all that Kerry managed to squeak out was "timetable" which equals "full scale withdrawal and we fucking lose", and it matched right up with his testimony during Vietnam - and many Americans don't want to be the loser.

America is all about "winning". It pays to be a winner. And Kerry wasn't selling that, especially when he hangs out with Michael Moore.

I firmly believe that the Democrats have no real idea of what motivates people to vote for Bush. Until they figure that one out, they're going to lose the next election.

I think you have found precisely the problem Democrats are facing in the West: Why the freaking hell are people voting for Republicans, when doing so is BLATANTLY against their economic interests and general well-being?

It's pretty simple, really. The Republicans, especially the neocon wing, have learned that they can pick half a dozen extremely volatile issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, and affirmative action, harp about how evil they are, and get an incredibly large number of people who otherwise wouldn't take anything the Republicans have to offer will vote for them just because of that one or those few issues. The greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing poor people to vote for a larger share to taxes to be passed onto them and like it, because, thank goodness, all that radical evil those crazy liberals believe in so fervently could now be fought.

As for the remarks about Bush winning due to a perception of masculinity, I think you are dead right. I researched and wrote a paper on that very subject and will gladly dig it out if anyone is interrested; suffice to say that the perception of superior masculinity and better personality in general has been a cornerstone of Republican powerbroking since Nixon. Was Ronald Reagan successful because of his brilliant political ideas, or his ability to captivate and charm people, even when he was illegally using government money to fund the slaughter of democratic Sandanistas, or insisting that trees caused more air pollution than factories and cars? Consider for a moment all the bad stuff you heard about Kerry, Gore, and Clinton.

Now, no matter how hard I tried, despite watching the debates, seeing too many political ads for my taste, and hearing speeches aplenty, I cannot remember a single, solitary thing that Bush claimed was bad with Kerry's policy, except some rather roundabout stuff about Kerry's plan to raise taxes and some ridiculous hyperbole about how he would botch the war in Iraq. Everything else, every single solitary thing, was an attack against Kerry's persona, either directly or through his record. Flip-flopper, traitor, absent Senate seat, crazy liberal maniac (I guess when he did bother to show up for work, he acted in an utterly left-wing way), exaggerator, so on and so forth. Nothing about how Kerry's healthcare plan wouldn't work, nothing about why raising taxes was bad, nothing about his plan to raise more troops for Iraq, just a pile of insults against who he was and every cause he could possible represent.

Consider Gore, and you see the exact same pattern. "He said he created the Internet!" "He said a novel character was based on him!" And of course a healthy dose of pointing out his association with Clinton, the mother of all bad morality. Nothing about Gore's tax plan, because, as it turns out, nobody except the top 5% would do better under Bush's, nothing about how Gore's environmental policy would decimate industry (at least nothing backed by research or facts), pretty much nothing against any of his policies, except to blindly reject them and offer "compassionate conservatism" as a superior alternative, with no explanation.

I won't even go into Dukakis, who remains the archetype of how to get absolutely raped by ad hominem attacks and vague but powerful accusations. Clinton put George Stephanopolos in charge of a war room group designed to counter just those sort of attacks, as soon as they happened, a strategy that would have done Kerry such a large amount of good it isn't even funny, considering how much ground he lost to the Swift Boat Veterans "For Truth", but I digress.

For the Republicans, it's simple: boil the argument down to personal issues and maybe 3 political issues, of your choice, and you will win every time. The Democrats either have no yet figured out what's going on, or, in my opinion more likely, refuse to do the same out of some sense of intellectual integrity and a belief that, sooner or later, the American people will wise up to the shell game and realize that the Republicans aren't really promising that much, just ripping down whatever their opponent created (at least in presidential elections).

As a final word, just consider the simple fact that, over the past 30 years, "liberal" has become a word with negative connotation, and you understand the Republican strategy and the startling depth of its success.

"It may 'blow your mind' " no propoganda there
"Many will answer, "About 10% to 20%" who is many people? he has taken his own view and said many people will answer. id like to see some sort of actual scientific poll before i make such claims.
if you actually look at his word choice alone you can instantly tell its propoganda, he attempts to provide new economic information for people and then draws the conclusion that the government is "like cancer" just actually pay attention to what hes saying

I'm not letting you win. God damn it.

1: Have you ever heard of inductive reasoning? You don't need to have a scientific poll to figure out what percentage of Americans shower at least once a week with a margin of error of 10%.

2: It's not 'new' information. It's all data directly from government reports. It's only 'new' in the sense that you've never heard it before.

3: I don't see any place on the web site where he comes to the conclusion that the government is "like cancer". Point it out and I'll look at it.

I'm not letting you win. God damn it.

1: Have you ever heard of inductive reasoning? You don't need to have a scientific poll to figure out what percentage of Americans shower at least once a week with a margin of error of 10%.

2: It's not 'new' information. It's all data directly from government reports. It's only 'new' in the sense that you've never heard it before.

3: I don't see any place on the web site where he comes to the conclusion that the government is "like cancer". Point it out and I'll look at it.
1. i have heard of inductive reasoning, the problem is he just made something up and you cant just say whatever you want and randomly slap a margin of error of 10% on it. until he provides a poll with that specific question i have no reason to believe him
2. its not new information because the average person already knows it
3. its on the link next to the "1."

Yes, it most certainly is. In fact, until recently, it was a cornerstone of Democratic Party thinking. And still is. There may be Democrats who own guns, but the majority of Democrats would ban all guns if they could - right now, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in (Senator Feinstein).


Unfortunately, the Democrats have made a bad PR job about this, and look like Biible-burners to most rural folk.



Yes, by Republican standards, you are. You may wonder why then, are there homosexuals who vote Republican. By your logic, 100 percent of homosexuals would vote Democrat. But that didn't happen.

Because people don't always vote for their own special interest group.

You can't form a party out of myriad special interests, and hope they all go vote as a block on election day. You need blocks with wider coverage who are more angry - and you need to make them angry.

Repeated attempts to ban guns made me angry.
Repeated court decisions made other people angry.


But, I think the biggest problem:

Americans don't like to lose wars. They may not like to get into them, but we don't want a repeat of the Vietnam loss. Where without a military defeat, we just got tired and went home, and spent 20 years hating ourselves.

So we don't want to lose in Iraq, even if we went for the wrong reasons, or it sucks to be there. But all that Kerry managed to squeak out was "timetable" which equals "full scale withdrawal and we fucking lose", and it matched right up with his testimony during Vietnam - and many Americans don't want to be the loser.

America is all about "winning". It pays to be a winner. And Kerry wasn't selling that, especially when he hangs out with Michael Moore.
1. show me where in the party platform it says the democratic parties stance is that guns should be banned? just because some democrats want guns banned doesnt mean that all democrats want guns banned. similarly in the republican party not all republicans want to ban gay marriage, not all republicans are pro-life, and not all republicans beleive that the government shouldnt place religous icons on public property
2. i am what?
3. where in my logic does it argue that 100% of homosexuals should vote democratic
4. who was even talking about the Iraq war
5. why are you lecturing me on what the american people want?

1. show me where in the party platform it says the democratic parties stance is that guns should be banned? just because some democrats want guns banned doesnt mean that all democrats want guns banned. similarly in the republican party not all republicans want to ban gay marriage, not all republicans are pro-life, and not all republicans beleive that the government shouldnt place religous icons on public property

Just look at the bills proposed (all by Democrats) and the voting records. They don't put it in the platform because that would be political suicide.
Show me one gun control bill proposed by a Republican. There aren't any. Why did Kerry do the duck hunt? Because although he is consistently anti-gun on his voting record, he wants to lie and say he's for hunting.

2. i am what? Technically, far-left.

3. where in my logic does it argue that 100% of homosexuals should vote democratic If Republicans are anti-gay rights, surely a homosexual would never vote Republican.
4. who was even talking about the Iraq war It's the main reason Bush was elected, that's why I brought it up. Right or wrong, the American people don't want to lose a war. And Kerry sounded like he wanted to cut and run - it's what he advised during Vietnam, and he sure didn't sound any different.
5. why are you lecturing me on what the american people want?

Just trying to enlighten you.

1. i have heard of inductive reasoning, the problem is he just made something up and you cant just say whatever you want and randomly slap a margin of error of 10% on it. until he provides a poll with that specific question i have no reason to believe him
2. its not new information because the average person already knows it
3. its on the link next to the "1."

1: My suggestion of inductive reasoning still stands. If you're going to dismiss it then do it.

2: Oh, so it's not new anymore. Ok. You had me confused for a minute. I thought when you said it was new, it was actually new. So if the average person knows it then what's the big deal again?

3: There's a lot of 1's. Which?

1: My suggestion of inductive reasoning still stands. If you're going to dismiss it then do it.

2: Oh, so it's not new anymore. Ok. You had me confused for a minute. I thought when you said it was new, it was actually new. So if the average person knows it then what's the big deal again?

3: There's a lot of 1's. Which?
1.if i say 70% of americans beleive that abortion should be legal within a 10% margin of error does that make it true? maybe i live in a very liberal area where this is true and ive somehow gotten the idea that its true everywhere then i can confidently say it based on inductive reasoning. the reason your shower example works is because people talk about how often the take showers and you can tell by looking at someone (usually) when they havent taken a shower in a week.
how can this possibly apply to his random, ass-pulling out of, example of 10-20% of government dependance
2. the big deal is that he claims this is new and shocking and that the american people dont know this when in fact its quite obvious
3.the one about government size, you notice he puts "like cancer" in bold for dramatic effect (propoganda alert)

Just look at the bills proposed (all by Democrats) and the voting records. They don't put it in the platform because that would be political suicide.
Show me one gun control bill proposed by a Republican. There aren't any. Why did Kerry do the duck hunt? Because although he is consistently anti-gun on his voting record, he wants to lie and say he's for hunting.

Technically, far-left.

If Republicans are anti-gay rights, surely a homosexual would never vote Republican.
It's the main reason Bush was elected, that's why I brought it up. Right or wrong, the American people don't want to lose a war. And Kerry sounded like he wanted to cut and run - it's what he advised during Vietnam, and he sure didn't sound any different.


Just trying to enlighten you.
1. its like i said in when you quoted me, look at the bills to ban gay marriage and supporters of those bills (overwhelmingly republican), same with the average pro-lifer, and the average supporter of the whole ten commandment fiasco
2. good
3. why wouldnt they vote republican? in my opinion anyone who voted for bush was wrong, why are homosexuals all of the sudden infallible?
4. strange, didnt sound like it to me... but your right kerry's campaign managers should be excommunicated by the democratic party. if i remember correctly his head campaign manager is now something like 0-8

1.if i say 70% of americans beleive that abortion should be legal within a 10% margin of error does that make it true? maybe i live in a very liberal area where this is true and ive somehow gotten the idea that its true everywhere then i can confidently say it based on inductive reasoning. the reason your shower example works is because people talk about how often the take showers and you can tell by looking at someone (usually) when they havent taken a shower in a week.
how can this possibly apply to his random, ass-pulling out of, example of 10-20% of government dependance
2. the big deal is that he claims this is new and shocking and that the american people dont know this when in fact its quite obvious
3.the one about government size, you notice he puts "like cancer" in bold for dramatic effect (propoganda alert)

1: Ok, I read it. He's referring to people who know something about economics and can make an estimate as to what the lowest share of the economy that the government could have while still being effective. Just try and find statistics on people's opinions on that issue. They're too busy asking people if they agree that Bush should be holding a cookout at his ranch this weekend instead of killing terrorists. Again, inductive reasoning.

2: He's not claiming it's new. The problem has been around for years. And I think you overestimate people. I sure as hell didn't know quite a few of the things on his web site. In any case I didn't have the actual data from congressional reports to look at. Maybe I knew "There is a problem", but if you had asked me to expand on that then I'd have been hard pressed to give you a truely convincing argument. Again, if you're not learning anything from it then don't read it. But don't assume that no one is. That could be construed as making an assumption much like the author's 10% or 20% remark, and according to you that's bad.

3: Ok, fine, it's his opinion. He's trying to write a convincing argument because these things do matter and apparently Americans can stomach reading an essay on economics for all of ten seconds. Does this invalidate any of his facts?

1: Ok, I read it. He's referring to people who know something about economics and can make an estimate as to what the lowest share of the economy that the government could have while still being effective. Just try and find statistics on people's opinions on that issue. They're too busy asking people if they agree that Bush should be holding a cookout at his ranch this weekend instead of killing terrorists. Again, inductive reasoning.

2: He's not claiming it's new. The problem has been around for years. And I think you overestimate people. I sure as hell didn't know quite a few of the things on his web site. In any case I didn't have the actual data from congressional reports to look at. Maybe I knew "There is a problem", but if you had asked me to expand on that then I'd have been hard pressed to give you a truely convincing argument. Again, if you're not learning anything from it then don't read it. But don't assume that no one is. That could be construed as making an assumption much like the author's 10% or 20% remark, and according to you that's bad.

3: Ok, fine, it's his opinion. He's trying to write a convincing argument because these things do matter and apparently Americans can stomach reading an essay on economics for all of ten seconds. Does this invalidate any of his facts?
1. im sorry he pulled it out of his ass, theres no other way to look at it, i dont know why you persist in saying he didn't
2. i read it because you asked me to and i stopped a few minutes in because i didnt want to read it
3. im sorry its hard to respect someone who likens government spending to disease and anyway i didnt say his facts are invalid, its just that his opinions have yet to impress upon me in any way

Snip.I just want to say this: I am startled and amazed at the depth of your political analysis and thought. By far, the best thing to come of this thread is what you've written here. ;)

I hate Clinton too but to me the things I hate about him, I also see in Bush and Republicans in general.


Hold on. Saying that it's wrong is not opposite to saying it should be legal. The law is not a rubber-stamp of approval for everything that is legal. A politician can be personally opposed to something but legally in favour.


As far as I know the only thing positive I have ever said about Bush was going to bed so I could work well enough to make money and make the economy boom to make him look better than the Democrats already are doing. I am a conservative now, actually always have been just never knew it till Clinton, I part ways with Bush on many issues, and will bash him when in the company of other Americans. However I am an old timer and believe no matter what an American should defend his country and President from outsiders. Just something I was instilled with and have carried since I was a small boy.

I was pointing out that on the campaign trail Kerry would tailor his speech to whatever crowd he was speaking to at the time. Bush however kept his speeches pretty much the same and on message. Hence why Kerry had a hard time getting traction. I listened to both sides of the debate due to the fact I really had a hard time voting for Bush this time around. 2000 was so damn easy as I hated Gore, Clinton and the whole bunch. This time though my beleifs counteracted with that of Bush's policies. Which is why I ended up voting for Libertarian party. Anyway..

The average lead Bush had was 1.5% over the whole year of 2004. That is taking into account every poll taken from every place. Check this site out it actually gives a much clearer picture to the polling data that everyone seems to love to talk about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

You will see that towards the end Bush had an running average of 1.5% more than Kerry, hence the 51%- 49% kinda of scary really if you think about it. I never put much faith in polling but running it out over a year gives a semi accurate picture apperently.