Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on May 14, 2004, 08:21:53 PM
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135796/posts
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.kerry/index.html
Support for Bush plummets over Iraq (Zogby Poll: Iraq approval 36%, job approval 42%)
Poll: Support for Bush, Iraq war dropping
Kerry leads Bush in matchups
-
Hey, you can look at the bright spot though.
At least he isn't John Kerry.
Oh, I forgot, you like that joker. Sorry, hope your party finds someone better.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hey, you can look at the bright spot though.
At least he isn't John Kerry.
Oh, I forgot, you like that joker. Sorry, hope your party finds someone better.
the feeling is mutual. and soon
-
posting links without commenting on them is pointless. The only meaning I saw in the first post was : "hey, let me parrot some news that I was happy about"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
posting links without commenting on them is pointless. The only meaning I saw in the first post was : "hey, let me parrot some news that I was happy about"
the point is in the header. Do you need a wall of text to get the message?
-
Originally posted by strk
the point is in the header. Do you need a wall of text to get the message?
If you post a link, make a comment on it and give an opinion so someone like me can come and debate with you about whatever point you are trying to make. Otherwise it's just parroting news and does not communicate anything unique, that's all.
-
Why did the dems not like Lieberman? He seemed the most centered of all the candidates.
Note: Please, this is not a troll, but an honest question.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If you post a link, make a comment on it and give an opinion so someone like me can come and debate with you about whatever point you are trying to make. Otherwise it's just parroting news and does not communicate anything unique, that's all.
ok
-
I think it's because the Dems naturally want to win.
If Lieberman came out fresh in this campaign, then maybe.
But Lieberman = Gore.
Superficial? Welcome to the world of professional politics. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it's because the Dems naturally want to win.
If Lieberman came out fresh in this campaign, then maybe.
But Lieberman = Gore.
Superficial? Welcome to the world of professional politics. :)
Lieberman is a sanctimonious bore. He is also pretty far to the right for a connecticut senator. He is most like Zell Miller imo
I think the dems need to go their progressive base, and not try to pander to the middle. Excite the base and Nader would not be peeling off 5% and Kerry would have been 5-7 points ahead weeks ago.
THe GOP showed that this worked - they play to their base and they take care of their base - they dont give them everything they want but will throw em a bone. Dems practically ignore the progressives which is the heart of the party imo
and Lieberman ain't no progressive
-
Hmm... I think the Dems appeal is that they are centrist. If you get both parties flying way out on a tangent, what's left for the regular, sane, normal people? You know, the majority of Americans.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm... I think the Dems appeal is that they are centrist. If you get both parties flying way out on a tangent, what's left for the regular, sane, normal people? You know, the majority of Americans.
Centrist?
You are aware of course that your own political viewpoints impart a bias when considering what is centrist... So as a liberal, I think you are far too generous in describing the current Democratic party as centrist.
In fact it is not and neither is the republican party.
Most Americans are in between and most reject the extreme and unrepresentative special intrest groups that drive both parties.
-
I still think that if Edwards had won the primary, the republicans would have lost the election without blinking an eye.
But then again, people felt catchup was more important.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm... I think the Dems appeal is that they are centrist. If you get both parties flying way out on a tangent, what's left for the regular, sane, normal people? You know, the majority of Americans.
roughly you could split up the US po into thirds, with a third on the left and right and the third in the middle. The middle third ends up deciding things but the reasons they vote the way they do is imo for more selfish, as opposed to ideological reasons.
RWers of course, consider selfishness to be an idealogy, but I digress.
Im thinking its better to turn out 100% of your base, and this is something that the dems are not doing - evidence of this is Nader running to the left of everything, taking 5%
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm... I think the Dems appeal is that they are centrist. If you get both parties flying way out on a tangent, what's left for the regular, sane, normal people? You know, the majority of Americans.
I don't think they are centrists at all Nash.
For me, I could care less about any party as a whole, I focus on the person in question and their convictions.
It would be interesting if there were no parties to label people with.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
posting links without commenting on them is pointless. The only meaning I saw in the first post was : "hey, let me parrot some news that I was happy about"
Ah you mean like Ripsnorts endless cut n pastes?
...-Gixer
-
yeah, any links or cut and pastes without an opinion or view. Why else post it? If someone thinks a link is interesting enough to post it, they must have at least an opion worth mentioning which could then be open for debate.
-
Originally posted by strk
roughly you could split up the US po into thirds, with a third on the left and right and the third in the middle. The middle third ends up deciding things but the reasons they vote the way they do is imo for more selfish, as opposed to ideological reasons.
RWers of course, consider selfishness to be an idealogy, but I digress.
Im thinking its better to turn out 100% of your base, and this is something that the dems are not doing - evidence of this is Nader running to the left of everything, taking 5%
Hey strk, Nader might turn out to be Kerry's "Perot"
Nader knows he hqas no chance, he's just a spoiler and wants attention IMO
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So as a liberal, I think you are far too generous in describing the current Democratic party as centrist.
Yer a librahl now? Damn, and I didn't even get an invite to the coming out party.
Clinton basically spent eight years furthing his own democratic agenda while co-opting every single idea the Republicans had and pushing those through as well. Did you actually think the right wing was pissed off because of the sale of some swamp in Arkansas?
That reads as pretty centrist to me. YMMV.
-
John Kerry is going to get his chance to fight the Iraqi War. If his war policy is anything like the heroics he showed on the day he killed 20 vietcong, our troops will be home before christmas.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer a librahl now? Damn, and I didn't even get an invite to the coming out party.
Clinton basically spent eight years furthing his own democratic agenda while co-opting every single idea the Republicans had and pushing those through as well. Did you actually think the right wing was pissed off because of the sale of some swamp in Arkansas?
That reads as pretty centrist to me. YMMV.
I was reffering to you, and you know that... But of course you are in your smart bellybutton mood again.... Whatever dude...
-
Okeee dokeee doood!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey strk, Nader might turn out to be Kerry's "Perot"
Perot did not change the outcome of the 1992 presidential election. Analyses by political scientists following the election concluded that Perot drew nearly equally from Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives.
That is not to say that Nader will not influence the outcome of the upcoming election. However, given his difficulties in obtaining the necessary votes to even appear on the ballot in key states, he probably won't play much of a spoiler role this time around.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it's because the Dems naturally want to win.
If Lieberman came out fresh in this campaign, then maybe.
But Lieberman = Gore.
Superficial? Welcome to the world of professional politics. :)
This along w/ Zel Miller is one of the few dems I really Like...>THE GUY IS HONEST.
Nash I really hate to state this cause I dont want to start a flamage but I HONESTLY think Lieberman didnt get the vote cause he is a Jew. That's just what I feel and I dont want to state my reasons cause I dont want this thread to drift off to somthing it wasnt intended for. EVEN THOUGH ITS A TROLL TO BEGIN WITH.
Joe Lieberman seems to me like a Genuin guy....just like Edwars (except for the trial lawyer thing)
Bush may have his haters but the Democrats are idiots for putting its eggs all in Kerry's basket. The only chance I see for Kerry is if Mcain decides to be his VP. That would be the end of bush.
-
Dubya's only in troubya's if the Floridiya's learn to how voteya.
-
hehe :)
I kinda bet that Edwards is gonna be Prez someday.
But it's a perfect example here. Look at Gore/Lieberman's fate.
I think it's in his best interests to refuse any ticket and stick it out until 2008/12.
-
Originally posted by Nash
hehe :)
I kinda bet that Edwards is gonna be Prez someday.
But it's a perfect example here. Look at Gore/Lieberman's fate.
I think it's in his best interests to refuse any ticket and stick it out until 2008/12.
Edwards is a trial lawyer. That's what he built his WEALTH off of and most people dont like that.
Q: What do you call all the lawyers at the bottom of the ocean
A: A Good start
(sorry dune)
That's just how people feel lawyers are scum.
-
(pssst.... politicians are lawyers. They pass laws. I'm willing to bet 9/10 of them have law degrees).
And by capitalizing "WEALTH" or you saying wealth is a bad thing?
-
No, don't worry, the world will not exist in 2013, so politics don't matter much.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(pssst.... politicians are lawyers. They pass laws. I'm willing to bet 9/10 of them have law degrees).
And by capitalizing "WEALTH" or you saying wealth is a bad thing?
No nash, I'm saying he made his wealth from sueing people and companys.
YES alot of politicians probably have law degrees and they write the laws wich is probably why there is "loop holes" and most people cant understand them.
I'm also saying if anyone has ever hired a lawyer for whatever reason besides felony conviction they have probably dispised their lawyer. Even if they "won" their case they probably were disgusted at the amount of money they had to pay.
-
Who ran against Bush to win the republican nomination?
-
John McCain
-
Polls are fun, but they dont mean all that much until the 'final poll' it taken.
4 more years. :)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Who ran against Bush to win the republican nomination?
Q: Who ran against clinton in 96
A: NOBODY
same thing with Bush. The incumbant usually has no competition within his own party if he's done a good job.
GO DUBYA :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Q: Who ran against clinton in 96
A: NOBODY
same thing with Bush. The incumbant usually has no competition within his own party if he's done a good job.
I was asking because I never bothered to pay attention to it because I thought Bush was a lock for that. I was wondering what the alternative would have been, but I don't think McCain would have been a good one. I think the democrats would rather have Bush, he's spending like one.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I was asking because I never bothered to pay attention to it because I thought Bush was a lock for that. I was wondering what the alternative would have been, but I don't think McCain would have been a good one. I think the democrats would rather have Bush, he's spending like one.
Not gonna comment on the troll spending comment
But
Most incumbents dont have to campaign within there own party.
I have to seriously wonder WHY the dems WHO SO BADLY WANT TO BEAT BUSH THEY FROTH AT THE MOUTH Why would they elect Kerry as their choice. He's a Hardcore libral who says he's not. Maybe that's it. Because he can be on BOTH sides of every issue they think he's electable.
I"M NOT SAYING BUSH IS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.
I'm just saying that he's (kerry) not that better canidate than Bush and I've yet to hear an argument against that. All the librals do is say Bush has got to go and I guess Kerry is our man. WHY?
-
did skerry kerry have a face lift or just several needles of botox thrust into his face?
please don't tell me he hasn't had either...
(http://www.botoxkerry.com/images/november-2003.jpg)(http://www.botoxkerry.com/images/january-2004_small.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Not gonna comment on the troll spending comment
That's not a troll, that's the truth, I can give you all kinds of conservative links to show you if you want, I have posted them in another thread. Even your buddy Rush Limbaugh is fed up with it. I have no problems with Bush's decisions except with spending and our debt, those are my biggest issues.
-
I cant resist
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_botox.jpg)
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_wafflehouse.jpg)
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_munster_separated.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
That's not a troll, that's the truth, I can give you all kinds of conservative links to show you if you want, I have posted them in another thread. Even your buddy Rush Limbaugh is fed up with it. I have no problems with Bush's decisions except with spending and our debt, those are my biggest issues.
Alot of conservatives dont like bush for this. What's the alternative.......RAISING TAXES. Lets see how well that one plays out in the economy.
there's also a war going on. Myself, I prefer every available dolor being spent so that a nuke doesnt blow up in my home town. That's just me though. Alot of librals would rather see it being spent on social concerns. My advice to them is if we dont spend this money now there wont be in social concerns in societ cause there will be no society.
Cmon tell me how great kerry is
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Alot of conservatives dont like bush for this. What's the alternative.......RAISING TAXES. Lets see how well that one plays out in the economy.
The alternative is to cut spending, put the war aside and he is still spending too much and government has grown
there's also a war going on. Myself, I prefer every available dolor being spent so that a nuke doesnt blow up in my home town. That's just me though.
Look, that "Bush must be pres or we will be nuked and commie muslims are going to invade us" I don't buy into, that's a bunch of hogwash. Russia concerns me more because that's where any weapons like that are bound to fall into the wrong hands, but that's another story.
Alot of librals would rather see it being spent on social concerns.
Alot of liberals just want to spend, but we are not talking about them, we are talking about Bush, who is spending like a democrat.
My advice to them is if we dont spend this money now there wont be in social concerns in societ cause there will be no society.
And if we keep spending money like we are and the debt keeps growing, the same thing is gonna happen
Cmon tell me how great kerry is
I can't, I know more about Bush, and Kerry lives in this state. All I know is he lives in a part of downtown Boston where a parking space just sold for a 166k(Beacon hill I believe). You always see Ted Kennedy in the news doing something, and I know many don't like him, but if he represents you, he is well connected and fights hard to get everything he can for you, that's why he gets reelected. But you never really saw Kerry doing much, which, to me, means he wasn't doing much.
I'm not here to promote Kerry, i'm here to counter your thinking that Bush's only spending increase has been the military, far from it. He is doing exactly what a democrat would do and it is driving conservatives crazy. Look, everyone wants a tax cut, but you must cut spending to balance it out or we will borrow more money and increase our tax burden. You are just avoiding paying now and will have to pay more later. Look, I don't want my kids to grow up to inherit a 20 trillion dollar debt. And that is where it is headed.