Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on January 12, 2004, 11:13:12 AM
-
The feeding frenzy begins.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040112-9999_1n12debate.html
-
Everything is proceeding as foretold.
-
Scary stuff!
Dean is too yuppie for me... at least he can spell potatoe!
Lieberman... whines too much.
Kerry - he's a vet, but just doesn't have that verve.
Brown and Sharpton are poster children searching for a cause.
Damn it... where is Jessie!
We want Jessie to color our parades
with his rhyming tirades
To tell us the truth
with a sparkling gold tooth
to bring us the revelation
and praise in almighty jubilation
the destiny which is ours
a new colony on mars
not a another trip to the moon
as suggested by Haliburton's White House goon
Jessie! Jessie! Jessie! Jessie!
Four more years!
Four more years!
-
I listened to a radio show with Wes Clark as guest that was broadcast on cable tv CSPAN yesterday. Lasted for about an hour I think but I was impressed with his developing grasp on a very very broad spectrum of issues affecting americans and the larger world...at large (Austen Powers moment).
Im becoming more impressed with the man. He is someone who could actually attract my vote away from Bush if things carry on the way they are.
One thing is for sure, Nader announced his candidacy for the green party and if the democrats elect Dean Ill vote for Bush with a militant fervor. Dean is the anti-bush and that just sounds rancid in my opinion.
Plus I saw the video of Dean at a town hall meeting when some guy in the audience suggested that he (Dean) is playing dirty politics. You could see the blood rush to Deans face as he became so infuriated that he started skipping over words in a diatribe. Lost control. Dean is a no go.
-
Wes Clark indeed seems damn smart and straight forward.
-
Clark is doable...
I really wanted McCain in the last election. Any chance he'll run against McBush.
Wouldn't that be a first, the incumbent not getting the nodd from the party.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Clark is doable...
I really wanted McCain in the last election. Any chance he'll run against McBush.
Wouldn't that be a first, the incumbent not getting the nodd from the party.
0% chance. McCain is young enough to go again in '08 if he doesn't blow it jumping in at the wrong time.
-
Wes? He isnt even sure what his own stance is on half the issues.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I listened to a radio show with Wes Clark as guest that was broadcast on cable tv CSPAN yesterday.
Im becoming more impressed with the man. He is someone who could actually attract my vote...
Dean is a no go.
OK, Jupiter HAS collided with Mars!
(http://gallery.clark04.com/images/logo.gif)(http://gallery.clark04.com/images/hd_main.jpg)
-
Wes Clark is a phoney Democrat, shortly before his sudden transformation and the opportunity to run for the democratic nod he was publicly praising bush and even cheney at republican fundraisers.
This on top of his reputation in the military as a self intrested madly driven selfish shameless self promoter makes me doubt his sincerity in a somewhat similar way that made me uncomfortable with Al Gore.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wes Clark indeed seems damn smart and straight forward.
If he'd renounce his devotion to Sata...er....Clinton the foul stench might recede a bit.
-
This cant be happening.....DEAN NEEDS TO WIN THE NOMINATION! He would truely be the EASIEST canidate for GWB to beat! Either way.
Of all the demo canidates I like Leiberman the most. Yes he's a little whiney at times and lacks major carisma to win but I think he is a decen honest man so far.
-
Potato
Capital pee, oh, tee, ay, tee, oh.
Potato
Now, what do I win?
Cheers,
RTR
Capital ar, capital tee, capital ar.
RTR
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I listened to a radio show with Wes Clark as guest that was broadcast on cable tv CSPAN yesterday. Lasted for about an hour I think but I was impressed with his developing grasp on a very very broad spectrum of issues affecting americans and the larger world...at large (Austen Powers moment).
Im becoming more impressed with the man. He is someone who could actually attract my vote away from Bush if things carry on the way they are.
One thing is for sure, Nader announced his candidacy for the green party and if the democrats elect Dean Ill vote for Bush with a militant fervor. Dean is the anti-bush and that just sounds rancid in my opinion.
Plus I saw the video of Dean at a town hall meeting when some guy in the audience suggested that he (Dean) is playing dirty politics. You could see the blood rush to Deans face as he became so infuriated that he started skipping over words in a diatribe. Lost control. Dean is a no go.
Holy crap, the sky is falling. I agree with Yeager. :)
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Wes? He isnt even sure what his own stance is on half the issues.
That's great in my book. Better than having a strong stance (possibly due to special interests) and not ever pausing to consider the alternatives.
-
clarks only there to give Hillary a choice to run as VP.
-
I just hope that in 04 we have an election where the voters are using their intelligence.
:)
-
clark is a Kook with a capital "K"
would be funny for the dems to nominate a general though ...
Dean is their man, he represents the current state of the dumbacrats ... total confusion with only one clear messsage, Bush must be defeated at all costs, country & common sense be damned
(http://www.georgewbushstore.com/scstore/images/600_7010.gif)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Dean is their man, he represents the current state of the dumbacrats ... total confusion with only one clear messsage, Bush must be defeated at all costs, country & common sense be damned
And then there are those that have only one clear message: that Bush must be re-elected at all costs, country and common sense be damned.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
This cant be happening.....DEAN NEEDS TO WIN THE NOMINATION! He would truely be the EASIEST canidate for GWB to beat! Either way.
Of all the demo canidates I like Leiberman the most. Yes he's a little whiney at times and lacks major carisma to win but I think he is a decen honest man so far.
Gun I agree with you Joe is the best choice IMO, but I don't think the Middle East is ready for him. He is the most consersative of the lot and would be my choice.
Clark is to shallow and not ready for prime time, he is a Rep. if you dig down about a half inch and the Dems know it.
Dean, well his true colors are really showing, stick a fork in him he's done.
I wish McCane was in he would have my vote (gun to my head, and all)
-
Kerry gets the democratic nod, he can compete with Bush. Kerry is the best democratic nom they have.
-
Im just saying Clark sounded better yesterday, alot better and had interesting things to say and said them better then he has yet. If he gets his campaign legs and really starts making a buzz he could push Dean out of the way and really give Bush a race.
I will study up on him.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I listened to a radio show with Wes Clark as guest that was broadcast on cable tv CSPAN yesterday. Lasted for about an hour I think but I was impressed with his developing grasp on a very very broad spectrum of issues affecting americans and the larger world...at large (Austen Powers moment).
More than a few are hoping that Wes gets the nomination. Now isn't the time to elect someone who is or could be seen as 'soft' on terrorisim. Muslims don't respect weakness, we need someone strong on defense and has the respect of foreign leaders so we can work more closely together in the years ahead.
I hope he will capture the swing vote, we need something to bring this country together again...GWB has shown that he isn't the one to do it despite his claim of being a 'uniter', IMO.
-
Agreed about Dean's stance on our world politics. We don't need him running back to the UN asking for forgiveness.
-
im just hopin 410,000 majority is enough this time.
and heres to mickey freakin mouse if george "me in the military naaa i quit" bush is the other option.
-
I might vote Clark for President, but If Im not sure to vote for him then I probably either Bush nor Kerry and I will not vote Howard Dean for President.
-
I heard ealier this morning that Ralph Nader has decided to run for President with the Green Party. I havent heard any more about it so Im not even sure if its true, but I wouldnt be surprised, Nader is about as egomaniacal as they make them.
If Nader does run then that has got to concern the DNC. Nader threw the election to GW last time around beyond doubt. He knew he would not win yet he denied Gore an immense number of votes (18 million or some number along those lines?.....if I recall)
Seems some people are still so devoted to their personal beliefs that they will vote for someone with NO CHANCE, even if it threatens to put someone else in office who is much farther away from their beliefs than if they just supported the most electable person closest to their views.
Its just plain rediculous....but I am happy when it puts the person closest to my ideals in office.
Run Ralph...Run :eek:
-
Dean is something different altogether. I dont think even he understands how he ignited his followers. I think it is because he comes across as a straight shooter, and people like that even if they dont agree with everything he says.
At first the right ridiculed him, now the shrill denunciations and character attacks have started. Methinks the right is starting to worry about ol Howie.
strk
-
Screw Republicans and Democrats all of the same.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
im just hopin 410,000 majority is enough this time.
What, another Florida voter?
:D
Here, obviously time for another refresher course.
How the Electoral College Works (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm)
-
na a gerymanderd texan.
they split my district into 6 parts to break up the democrats.
there will be hell to pay.
-
Who are you kidding LDV? The Dems have been doing it in Texas for over a hundred years! Darn right there's hell to pay, and you're paying it right now! :D
-
dorf vader... I would agree with a majority vote if women and non land owners were not allowed to vote.
lazs
-
Well, I guess there's Floridians AND Texans that still don't understand that "nationwide overall popular vote" and "Presidential Election" don't have an absolute connection on who wins the prize.
That Electoral College thing, you know.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wes Clark indeed seems damn smart and straight forward.
I agree.
[size=10]Go Westley Clark[/size]
:D
-
Laz I still dont get this whole land owners thing. Not to create a side topic in this thread but just becaue I'm not wealthy enough to own land makes me less of a citizen than anyone else. I do agree woman should be tested or somthing be being able to vote. The dumb ones lose their right! lol :lol
-
Bush's win in 2000 has less to do with the Electoral College than it does with the Supreme Court. There are very well placed legal minds in this Country who are convinced that the SC illegally handed the election to Bush. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book.
-
very well placed legal minds in this Country who are convinced that the SC illegally handed the election to Bush
I thought that too but on the other hand, who do you complain to? The Supremes arent last because they are right, they are right because they are last. Noone can mess with their authority. When there are political partisans on the bench, crap happens!
strk
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush's win in 2000 has less to do with the Electoral College than it does with the Supreme Court. There are very well placed legal minds in this Country who are convinced that the SC illegally handed the election to Bush. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book.
I've seen reports that Bush won every recount conducted, even long after the Supreme Court ruling that upheld Florida's ruling. So, how can you say anything would be different even if they were still counting today as so many would have had it?
-
considering what has happened to this country since 12/2000, can you honestly say you would rather have had goron & his merry band of misfits at the controls???
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush's win in 2000 has less to do with the Electoral College than it does with the Supreme Court. There are very well placed legal minds in this Country who are convinced that the SC illegally handed the election to Bush. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book.
Transverse is true, too. There are very well placed legal minds in this country who are convinced that the SC legally handled the case.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I've seen reports that Bush won every recount conducted, even long after the Supreme Court ruling that upheld Florida's ruling. So, how can you say anything would be different even if they were still counting today as so many would have had it?
That is irrelevent to the legality of their decision.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That is irrelevent to the legality of their decision.
Except that you tied it to Bush's win.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bush's win in 2000 has less to do with the Electoral College than it does with the Supreme Court.
Agreed.
However, the continually touted "but Gore won the popular vote" whine is simply that. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with who won that election. Because Popular Vote has no independent standing in a Presidential election that is decided by a Constitutionally mandated Electoral College.
As for the Supremes, I'll defer partially to Strk
The Supremes arent last because they are right, they are right because they are last. Noone can mess with their authority.
The rest of his commentary is just that, personal opinion with a whiff of sour grapes. ;)
All the brilliant legal minds in the country can say this or that or the other thing. However, our Constitution mandates that what the Supremes decide is the "correct" interpretation.
Note that I didn't say they are incapable of being wrong, just that when they decide, that's it, game/set/match. Until and unless a similar case reaches the Supremes and a change is made.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
considering what has happened to this country since 12/2000, can you honestly say you would rather have had goron & his merry band of misfits at the controls???
This is an unanswerable question. Despite the obvious bias you hold we can treat this question as if it were asked by an undecided voter. In this situation, no one knows what would have happened if Gore had been elected instead. We cannot say with 100% certainty that the exact same courses of action that Bush has taken, would not have been taken by Gore. It's a rediculous assumption to say that you would be adamantly against Gore in office based upon his performance during the crisises after 12/2000.
Therefore, the past is in the past and cannot be changed. You can't ask someone if they would have rather, because I think everyone would have rather had gore in office, had everything play out.. then get to choose which history we live through. Otherwise, questions such as the one you pose is simply unanswerable, unless you are so deep in party rhetoric it ceases to become a question, and instead becomes the slogan for re-election. Vote Bush in '04 because he is a Republican and Democrats are smelly wusses. :rolleyes:
-
Vote for me I'm on the prettythanghole ticket:(
-
Originally posted by Munkii
This is an unanswerable question. Despite the obvious bias you hold we can treat this question as if it were asked by an undecided voter. In this situation, no one knows what would have happened if Gore had been elected instead. We cannot say with 100% certainty that the exact same courses of action that Bush has taken, would not have been taken by Gore. It's a rediculous assumption to say that you would be adamantly against Gore in office based upon his performance during the crisises after 12/2000.
Therefore, the past is in the past and cannot be changed. You can't ask someone if they would have rather, because I think everyone would have rather had gore in office, had everything play out.. then get to choose which history we live through. Otherwise, questions such as the one you pose is simply unanswerable, unless you are so deep in party rhetoric it ceases to become a question, and instead becomes the slogan for re-election. Vote Bush in '04 because he is a Republican and Democrats are smelly wusses. :rolleyes:
sounds like a good slogan to me ... thanks I'll make some yard signs & bumper stickers with it.. :)
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
na a gerymanderd texan.
they split my district into 6 parts to break up the democrats.
there will be hell to pay.
Yeah, that is some **** ain't it?
culero (disgusted Texan)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Who are you kidding LDV? The Dems have been doing it in Texas for over a hundred years! Darn right there's hell to pay, and you're paying it right now! :D
So, two wrongs make a right? GWB ran a pretty upright operation here as governor, and I had hopes his successor would as well. Now it turns out that he's as much of a potato as any past potato, so how is that good?
culero
-
Are you suggesting it's better to let only the Democrats control gerrymandering? Pretty selective outrage there, isn't it?
LDV in typical politically blind fashion sees this as a brand new evil that only the Republican party would pull... neglecting to mention the last century of history in the state's districting. You have to admit, when you look at it that way LDV's sentiment is funny as hell.
-
dude you are gettin so use to talkin out of your bellybutton its geting painfull to read.
when you have read up on the situation and dont make blatently incorrect (and ignorantly partisan) statements i will consider a debate. here are two important questions to get you started.
now who made the present map?
why are texans upset about the precident this dasterdly slap in the face to democracy the carpetbaging republicans did makes.
"poor man voting for the republicans is a cow voting for the butcher."
said by my great great grandady shot by one at vicksburg not **** has changed.
-
LDV
If did not know you where from the US I would think english was your second language.
Can you even understand the tripe you post?
I am bad, but jeez you make me look like a english major.
-
LDV
Admittedly all I have are the opinions almost every other Texan on this and other boards, plus media coverage of the matter. Are you suggesting the Dems didn't gerrymander? Really?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The feeding frenzy begins.
Maybe you don't recall all the not-so-nice things that McCain, Dole, and the rest had to say about Bush during the primary 4 years ago.
-
Montezuma, don't mistake the intent.
Dean is going to have clarify his positions in several areas; he isn't going to win as the Anti-Bush. Bush has ignored him, so it has fallen to the Democrats who fear his frontrunner status to force Dean to get specific about issues. I don't really take this as a "yeah! Dean is going down!" thread (though I wish it were true), I take it more of a "wow, look at the feeding frenzy!". I guess I have to admit I am enjoying the show because it lessens the likelihood that nutbag will make the Whitehouse. They have better men in the fight. Not by much, but a little better. In the end I still want to hear where they stand on the issues, and I want those viewpoints pressed a bit.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Maybe you don't recall all the not-so-nice things that McCain, Dole, and the rest had to say about Bush during the primary 4 years ago.
Sure I do.
However, this time around the Republican party won't be beating itself up. I'm sure there are many Democrats that wish only Democrats were watching their internal struggle for power.
-
It's the Iowa caucuses for pete's sake!
There's going to be A LOT more politics in much larger states before we get the Demo horserace down to two out in front of the pack.
Relax and enjoy.
-
LDV
"Admittedly all I have are the opinions almost every other Texan on this and other boards, plus media coverage of the matter. Are you suggesting the Dems didn't gerrymander? Really?"
you dont even bother to look up the most basic of facts about somthing you talk about? i asked you who made the map and you ask me another question? back up and find out where you were dead wrong and then possibley i will discuss my fellow texans oppinions. till then you are a moron who answers questions with questions.
ps they cut my district into 6 parts im thinkin there are more than a few democratic texans :) all armed. and conservative as hell just not idiots like you neocons.
-
Now why would I bother to "discuss" anything with YOU in particular, Towd?
Did I say the gerrymandering wasn't done in a way to strengthen the Republican hold on Texas? No.
Specific answer to your question, and more:
The Legislature failed to draw a map in 2001, and the current districts were created by a federal court. The Democrats claimed that was the state's "one bite at the apple."
Abbott said the court made the right decision that there is nothing in state or federal law that limits redistricting.
Houston Chronicle
Here's another one for you:
Republicans next year will assume control of: the Texas House for the first time since 1870...
Foxnews
Well? How reasonable can you be now? I've never once heard you speak of the inequities of gerrymandering under Democratic leadership, yet it is undoubtedly true the Democrats were just as partisan about their redistricting. Is that factually based enough for your sensibilities?
-
Dean scares me. He should scare the Democratic party. He should scare the whole country. The worst thing that can happen would be that this dolt is elected to office.
Kerry is the only sound democratic choice. He’s about the only one I would consider. Bush still has my vote until Kerry makes the nomination. If he gets it, I may actually decide to vote democrat.
Damn, did I just write that? I feel kind of dirty. Actually considering voting for a democrat instead of a republican.
-
Yes, let's all pretend the gerrymandering is a brand new suprising political tactic that only one party uses in one particular state.
Or may we shouldn't do that.
Gerrymander (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568985/Gerrymander.html)
Gerrymander
Gerrymander, apportionment of electoral districts in such a way as to give the political party in power an advantage in electing its representatives. Gerrymandering is usually accomplished by so dividing electoral districts as to mass the voters for opposing parties into a small number of districts, while the favored party's electorate is spread out in order to win by a light majority in many districts.
One result of this device is to have electoral districts of curious shapes. The term gerrymander originated in 1812, when Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed a bill giving his own Republican Party, which had temporarily come into power, such an advantage over the Federalists. One electoral district was shaped so fantastically that it was compared by one Federalist to a salamander. “No,” said another, “better call it a Gerrymander.”
The first known instance in America of gerrymandering took place in 1709, when various counties in Pennsylvania tried to deprive Philadelphia of due representation....
So, now, do you want to discuss this old and dishonorable US Political Practice in light of the last 15 years or so in Texas?
Here's a good place to start, pretty unbiased overview. It's three pages though.
Texas Grows by Two But Not Without Controversy (http://www.ithaca.edu/students/sbrandm1/journalismfinal.htm)
Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats significantly, yet the Republican Party will not have the chance to take the lead for at least another two years. This discrepancy results from the fact that: “legislative redistricting in the 1990s was a magnificent work of partisan gerrymandering,” says Masset.
Masset believes the Democratic Party, the majority party at the time, created the new districts by using a process called “packing.” Essentially, packing is just a form of gerrymander, where the minority group is concentrated, or packed, into the fewest number of districts possible.
The Democrats accomplished packing by using a sophisticated computer program referred to as the Computer Curtain. The Computer Curtain successfully arranged the districts so that as many Republicans as possible fit into the least number of districts. The Republican Party found it impossible to win any sort of a majority. The effects of this process are still existent even as the new plan for 2002 comes into shape.
Now, talk amongst yourselves...... without the gratuitous insults, of course.
;)
-
Al Sharpton is the best the demos have...
At the most recent debate, in an exchange about civil rights positions:
Dean: "I have more endorsments from the black caucus and the hispanic caucus than any other candidate up here!"
Sharpton: "You only need co-signers when your credit is bad."
Al is terrific....
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Are you suggesting it's better to let only the Democrats control gerrymandering? Pretty selective outrage there, isn't it?
snip
No, absolutely not. My point is that if any party accuses the other of having gained influence by gerrymandering, and then proceeds to do the same themselves at the first opportunity, they've condemned themselves to being equally as much of the problem.
I'm not against redistricting, I'm against gerrymandering. My current outrage is directed at the current culprits.
culero
-
I am not saying it is right or wrong. It just is. Towd is pretending the Republicans are the only party doing it, and I am pointing out his error. He started his remarks with a suggesting "all hell will break loose". I suggest it already is around his ears. Democrats have had Texas since 1870- wanna guess who's probably had more to do with the districts than anyone else? ;)
Of course he has elaborated many of his Democrat friends are armed, as if that meant something. Laughable really.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
snip
Democrats have had Texas since 1870- wanna guess who's probably had more to do with the districts than anyone else? ;)
Actually, not quite true. Majority in the legislature, OK. But, the Republican party has had a big influence in state politics for a long time now.
Don't forget that GWB was governor here before becoming President. One of the reasons I was happy with him as governor was that he accomplished having >80% of the agendas he cited in his campaign platform passed into law during his term of office, stuff not necessarily "Democrat-friendly". He couldn't have done that without significant cooperation from members of the Democrat majority.
As to the main point of discussion, yeah the Democrats had controlled the gerrymandering for some time, and to their advantage. I'm all for correcting the errors. I just don't appreciate the current Republican majority treating their new-found power as an opportunity to do the same *wrong* thing that their opponents have done for so long. I'd like to see someone play fair, for a change.
culero