A theory about how Dean could beat Bush

[trumptman]

Dean beats Bush (http://www.amconmag.com/07_28_03/feature.html)

American Conservative is a magazine run by Pat Buchanan. In this article they argue that Bush could be defeated because in some manners he has definately left more traditional conservative ideas behind. George Will makes a strong case for what conservative values Bush has ignored with regard to core conservative values.

George Will (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/7080251p-8028158c.html)

Buchana suggests that Dean could topple Bush and reshape the national debate by suggesting what is essentually a liberal idea if you can free it from race/ethicity and that is fair trade couple with new and enforced immigration limitations.

Fair trade and immigration work right into the union support of the Democratic party however right now it doesn't work. How can you get latino immigrants to vote in a union when they know there is a line of freshly immigrated folks (both legal and illegal) who will gladly take their place. This thinking, even outside of the unionization issue holds down the wages of working class folks attempting to get off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Likewise it is hard to vote for a union when you know that they could just close up shop, move the whole operation south and have the wages they want to pay.

Buchanan also theorizes that this would energize and turn out the black vote even more because blacks are most in competition with these recent immigrants. If they are as they believe, last hired, first fired, then they have been most vulnerable to the wage stagnation that occurs due to record levels of immigration.

Finally you have the folks that the Democrats have just about lost. The endangered species in Democratic circles known as the white male voter. Buchanan contends that white males who work in skilled or semi-skilled industries (truck driving, construction, low level computer tech, etc.) have already left most high immigration states due to not being able to earn enough to get by or for being unwilling to lower their standard of living to accomodate immigration. However this high level of immigration has been going on for so long that now many interior states are finally seeing large numbers of immigrants as well. Buchanan contends that if Dean supported fair trade in conjunction with lowered immigration it would win back these voters who could then also sweep him to victory.

What do you think?

Nick

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by trumptman

What do you think?
It's a fair enough criticism to argue that Bush hasn't been all that conservative although it's odd to hear coming from Buchanan. I don't consider him to be the keeper of the conservative flame. There's nothing particularly conservative about Buchanan's isolationist foreign policy or his never-ending war against free trade.

And it's not high immigration that's the problem. It's high illegal immigration that's the concern. At any rate, with Hispanics overtaking African-Americans as the largest minority I just don't see Dean embracing Buchanan's prescription. Immigration is a big issue with Hispanics.

[LiquidR]

Interesting article, but I still don't see how he'd beat Bush. Bush has had the highest approval ratings since FDR.

If ask me though, our country is handling the illegal immigrant (I prefer alien ;)) issue incorrectly. When INS locates an illegal instead of deporting them immediately INS should begin a process to make that illegal a part of the citizenry, beginning with a background check, and registration for taxes and public services. Of course it the immigrant failed the background check then they would be deported. The company that has the illegal immigrant should pay all back taxes from the 1st day they were hired and increase pay to minimum (at least)and help with other processes or be fined. Of course there are probably other details that I am missing.

[BR]

Originally posted by LiquidR
Interesting article, but I still don't see how he'd beat Bush. Bush has had the highest approval ratings since FDR.

If ask me though, our country is handling the illegal immigrant (I prefer alien ;)) issue incorrectly. When INS locates an illegal instead of deporting them immediately INS should begin a process to make that illegal a part of the citizenry, beginning with a background check, and registration for taxes and public services. Of course it the immigrant failed the background check then they would be deported. The company that has the illegal immigrant should pay all back taxes from the 1st day they were hired and increase pay to minimum (at least)and help with other processes or be fined. Of course there are probably other details that I am missing.

No, anyone caught illegally entering the country is deported and NEVER allowed back. Legal immigration should be eased but entering the country illegally should have some real repercussions.

Trumpet knows this, but do the rest of you know that you can't even ask for a green card if someone wants to go to public school? That is utter crap. So much money is wasted because we're afraid of offending someone. To go to public school, legal residence in the United States MUST be established.

[LiquidR]

I'll have to disagree with you BR. I have nothing back up my arguments here being that it is just what I see. My question to you is how much tax revenue is lost each year to taxes not being paid to illegals? I'm thinking billions. We now also see that often these illegals aren't random groups coming over by the twos threes or the dozens, they are coming here in tractor trailers, cargo containers by the hundreds. The illegal immigrants are not orgnizing this, they are just taking advantage of this. Who is in charge of these ventures, sometimes they are deals that amount to slavery? American business. So who should bear the brunt of the punitive damages? American business.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It's a fair enough criticism to argue that Bush hasn't been all that conservative although it's odd to hear coming from Buchanan. I don't consider him to be the keeper of the conservative flame. There's nothing particularly conservative about Buchanan's isolationist foreign policy or his never-ending war against free trade.

And it's not high immigration that's the problem. It's high illegal immigration that's the concern. At any rate, with Hispanics overtaking African-Americans as the largest minority I just don't see Dean embracing Buchanan's prescription. Immigration is a big issue with Hispanics.

It is high immigration that is also the problem. I have no problem with the people immigrating and have no doubt that if I was in their position, I would do exactly what they do, be it legal or illegal.

However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.

Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by LiquidR
Interesting article, but I still don't see how he'd beat Bush. Bush has had the highest approval ratings since FDR.It's actually quite stunning how low is approval rating is. Bush's approval rating immediately after the incredible victory in Iraq was still lower than Clinton's in the middle of his impeachment. Bush's dad's approval was much higher after his Iraq war, and look what happened to him.

According to this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030722.asp) from a few days ago, more people disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy than approve.

Check this out:
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030722v.gif
Basically, immediately after 9/11 and immediately after going into Baghdad, Bush got a nice bounce, and then it was back to virtually even. I don't think Bush has much of a reservoir of good will from the US at all. People just don't particularly like him, or they don't trust him, or something. I've said this many times in SDW's 2004 election fantasy threads, but 2004 will be a close one, mainly because the country is so split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans.

[CDonG4]

Originally posted by trumptman
It is high immigration that is also the problem. I have no problem with the people immigrating and have no doubt that if I was in their position, I would do exactly what they do, be it legal or illegal.

However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.

Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.

Nick

best words i've read in regard to this issue... the hispanic population of this country have long been ignored, and I don't see how it will stand much longer, they will soon be the majority in California, and soon the largest minority in the United States. Their issues must be heard, and they must be accomidated in the nations long term plans, and no longer the gardener or field worker with no benefits, no work safety or insurance... the problem needs to be solved, not ignored.

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by trumptman
It is high immigration that is also the problem...
Why is legal immigration a problem? Legal immigrants often have similar chracter traits as do entrepreneurs. And every census from 1880 to 1990 has shown immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. They also have had a salutory effect on some of our poorest urban neighborhoods.
However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.
Controlling illegal immigration would certainly help to address this problem.
Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.
Keeping the same levels from Mexico, etc. puts the same pressure on the woman in your example. Why is this a solution? Okay, maybe it's a solution to Dean's political problem with Hispanics should he call for a rollback of immigration but now he'd have a big problem with Poles, Russians, Indians, etc.

Different immigrant groups bring with them different sources of economic strength. Favoring Mexicans, etc. at the expense of Russians, etc. may be politically shrewd (although the jury is still out on that) but it may not be economically wise.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Why is legal immigration a problem? Legal immigrants often have similar chracter traits as do entrepreneurs. And every census from 1880 to 1990 has shown immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. They also have had a salutory effect on some of our poorest urban neighborhoods.

Controlling illegal immigration would certainly help to address this problem.

Keeping the same levels from Mexico, etc. puts the same pressure on the woman in your example. Why is this a solution? Okay, maybe it's a solution to Dean's political problem with Hispanics should he call for a rollback of immigration but now he'd have a big problem with Poles, Russians, Indians, etc.

Different immigrant groups bring with them different sources of economic strength. Favoring Mexicans, etc. at the expense of Russians, etc. may be politically shrewd (although the jury is still out on that) but it may not be economically wise.

Legal immigration is not a problem per se. I tried to make that clear. It is a simple supply and demand issue. If you have loads of people, be they immigrants or whatever willing to do what you do, it makes it hard to raise wages, etc.

As I have mentioned I find nothing wrong with immigration. I consider it literally the us skimming the cream of the world most of the time. The point is that with all good things there can be too much. If certain immigrants can't get loans to start businesses because the program that helped them serves 5,000 and we have 25,000, that means folks are losing opportunities. Like the mother I mentioned. She wanted classes but there was no way. Even if she could get the time, imagine trying to find an open class at a community college. They are all overstuffed. Immigration is a good trait when we have the resources to take full advantage of the folks doing it. When we don't it can just become a muddle of people stuck on the bottom rung of the ladder, climbing over each other in an attempt to get at limited resources. To few winners and to many losers. That is not an advantage.

I must have assumed you know a bit with regard to what Buchanan would propose regarding illegal immigration. In exchange for lowering legal immigration overall there would be clear efforts to control and stop illegal immigration at both borders. (Stop those pesky Canadians as well:lol: )

It doesn't become a racial issue in my book when you still allow immigration from Mexico and other latin countries, reduce it from the rest of the world, and in exchange you heavily police both borders. With the example of the mother I gave I bet this would still positively benefit her because as you mentioned most legal immigrants are more skilled, educated, capable of starting businesses. She is more likely fighting with illegal immigrants who have little education and skill.

Dean's position, if this were it, could give him so problems with other groups, you are corrent in that matter. However it would win him back white males which no Democrat has had in eons, turn out the black vote favorably, and perhaps net him a large percentage of the hispanic vote as well if it were handled well. All those would easily elect him.

Nick

[Anders]

Dean can´t win over Bush.
America don´t need another New Democrat.

So. That should make everybody disagree with me ;)

[Artman @_@]

Theory? I have a theory...

Presenter:
You have a new theory about the brontosaurus.

Miss Elk:
Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?

Presenter:
Er... exactly.
(he gestures but she does not say anything)
What is it?

Miss Elk:
Where? (looks round)

Presenter:
No, no. Your new theory.

Miss Elk:
Oh, what is my theory?

Presenter:
Yes.

Miss Elk:
Oh what is my theory that it is.
Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.

Presenter:
I am asking.

Miss Elk:
Good for you. My word yes.
Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine

Presenter:
(beginning to show signs of exasperation)
Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?

Miss Elk:
Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it.
(clears throat at some length)
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
(clears throat at great length)
This is how it goes.
The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?

Presenter:
Yes!

Miss Elk:
My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets.
This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

Presenter:
That's it, is it?

Miss Elk:
Stop on, Chris.

Presenter:
Well, er, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head.

Miss Elk:
And it's mine.

Presenter:
Yes, thank you very much for coming along to the studio. Thank you.

Miss Elk:
My pleasure, Chris ....

Presenter:
Next week Britain's newist wasp farm ...

Miss Elk:
It's been a lot of fun.

Presenter:
Yes, thank you very much.

Miss Elk:
Saying what my theory is.

Presenter:
Yes, thank you.

Miss Elk:
And whose it is.

Presenter:
Yes, thank you - that's all - thank you... opens next week.

Miss Elk:
I have another theory.

Presenter:
Yes.

Miss Elk:
Called my second theory, or my theory number two.

Presenter:
Thank you. Britian's newest wasp farm...

Miss Elk:
This second theory which was the one that I had said...

Presenter:
(the phone rings; he answers)
Yes, no I'm trying...

Miss Elk:
Which I could expound without doubt.This second theory which, with the one which I just said, forms the brace of theories which I own and which belong to me, goes like this...

Presenter:
(looking at his shoe)
9 and a half, wide fitting... Balleys of Bond Street.
What? No, sort of brogue.

Miss Elk:
This is what it is.
(clears throat)

Presenter:
8 and a half.

Miss Elk:
This is it...
(lots of noisy throat clearing)



The Presenter rises and leaves the set to go next door to the travel agents set, leaving Miss Elk behind for a moment.

Bounder is still on the phone.
His other phone rings; he answers it.


Bounder:
Hello, yes ... yes ...


The presenter enters the travel set. The tourist is still droning on from a previous sketch and Bounder is still on the phone.


Tourist:
(carrying on all through the scene below)
...and the Spanish Tourist Board promises you that the raging choloera epidemic is mearly a case of mild Spanish tummy, like the last outbreak of Spanish tummy in 1660 which killed half London and descimated Europe, and meanwhile the bloody Guardia are busy arresting 16-year-olds for kissing in the streets and shooting anyone under 19 who doesn't like Franco...

The Presenter approaches Bounder.


Presenter:
The Fire Brigade are here. They're coming!

Bounder:
Hello! No, no, no I think they are all part of the British Shoe Corporation now.


Miss Elk follows the Presenter in.


Miss Elk:
Chris, this other theory of mine which is mine like
the other one I also own. The second theory...


The Fire Brigade enter and the secretary goes to greet them. They speak to her and she takes off her shoe to check the size.


_Meanwhile...


Miss Elk:
My second theory states that Fire Brigade choirs
seldom sing songs about Marcel Proust.


With only a half-beat pause the Fire Brigade starts singing the Proust song. After the usual number of lines we hear the gong.


Voice Over (Eric):
Start again.


The looney looks into the scene on overlay and waves at the camera just as we fade to black. We hold black for a few seconds and then the looney leans in to the black and waves again before fading away.

:smokey:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Anders
Dean can´t win over Bush.
America don´t need another New Democrat.

So. That should make everybody disagree with me ;)

I don't disagree with you. I just want you to explain how fair trade, unionization, and helping minorities are "new" ideas for the Democratic party?

Nick

[Anders]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't disagree with you. I just want you to explain how fair trade, unionization, and helping minorities are "new" ideas for the Democratic party?

Nick

With new democrat I certainly didn´t mean Dean but those who try to do "a Blair": www.ndol.org

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's actually quite stunning how low is approval rating is. Bush's approval rating immediately after the incredible victory in Iraq was still lower than Clinton's in the middle of his impeachment. Bush's dad's approval was much higher after his Iraq war, and look what happened to him.

According to this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030722.asp) from a few days ago, more people disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy than approve.

Check this out:
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030722v.gif
Basically, immediately after 9/11 and immediately after going into Baghdad, Bush got a nice bounce, and then it was back to virtually even. I don't think Bush has much of a reservoir of good will from the US at all. People just don't particularly like him, or they don't trust him, or something. I've said this many times in SDW's 2004 election fantasy threads, but 2004 will be a close one, mainly because the country is so split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans.

You are aboslutely dreaming. Bush has an approximate 60% rating with a bad economy. Isn't that interesting.

[SDW2001]

Interesting theories, but immigration will not win the race for Dean. It's going to come down to the economyand the war on terror, with secondary focus on Medicare and Social Security.

It's academic anyway, because the Dems would be crazy to nominate Dean. He will drag the party to the left and destroy any chance it has in 2004.

Kerry is the man. (aka: "The French-looking Guy").

:lol:

[rok]

is it impossible to ask for a well-spoken person with good ideas, a proven track record, with an ability to listen but make tough decisions when necessary and be strong enough in their convictions to stand by those decisions?

i don't really care which party that person comes from, but i have not seen anyone that resembles my above criteria since i heard several mccain speeches in '98 & '99. i mean, i loved the fact that, when asked what we should do when we find out who was responsible for those "16 words" int he state of the union address, he said (before anyone knew -- and i paraphrase somewhat here) "we fire them. that's what you do when there's a serious failure like this. but it doesn't undo the justification of the war, either." wow. common-f'n-sense, well-put and with conviction.

anyway, no one on the dem side floats my boat, but i like dean's attempt to leverage the internet in a serious way. that's a bit interesting.

[Anders]

Originally posted by SDW2001

Kerry is the man. (aka: "The French-looking Guy").


Funny. I call Kerry "The-man-that-can´t-say-anything-without-talking-about-his-military-carriere". I would have called him the J.F.K-clone if the spot wasn´t taken by John Edwards.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Anders
Funny. I call Kerry "The-man-that-can´t-say-anything-without-talking-about-his-military-carriere". I would have called him the J.F.K-clone if the spot wasn´t taken by John Edwards.

Apparently, Limbaugh calls him what I posted above.

Funniest insult...EVAR. (apologies to Powerdoc).

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
is it impossible to ask for a well-spoken person with good ideas, a proven track record, with an ability to listen but make tough decisions when necessary and be strong enough in their convictions to stand by those decisions?

i don't really care which party that person comes from, but i have not seen anyone that resembles my above criteria since i heard several mccain speeches in '98 & '99. i mean, i loved the fact that, when asked what we should do when we find out who was responsible for those "16 words" int he state of the union address, he said (before anyone knew -- and i paraphrase somewhat here) "we fire them. that's what you do when there's a serious failure like this. but it doesn't undo the justification of the war, either." wow. common-f'n-sense, well-put and with conviction.

anyway, no one on the dem side floats my boat, but i like dean's attempt to leverage the internet in a serious way. that's a bit interesting.

Bush is not very well-spoken. But the other qualities? He absolutely has them. Take this in contrast to Clinton, who had the speaking ability (though I didn;t like his public speaking style) and none of the other qualities...at all.

I was noticing your signature. With all due respect, it is very telling of your liberal mindset. Some of the most successful and intelligent people I know have a very strong sense of right and wrong. To label someone ignorant or underdeveloped because he knows right and wrong is nothing but an excuse for immoral behavior.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You are aboslutely dreaming. Bush has an approximate 60% rating with a bad economy. Isn't that interesting.
Yes, it shows how stupid, apathetic, and blind Joe Public really is. Sad more than interesting, really.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush is not very well-spoken. But the other qualities? He absolutely has them. Take this in contrast to Clinton, who had the speaking ability (though I didn;t like his public speaking style) and none of the other qualities...at all.
Yes, I love Bush's qualities. Claims service in the military but really partied in the reserves flying obsolete aircraft. Business failure multiple times over. Frat-boy. Alcoholic. Rides on coat-tales of father. Found Jesus. Was hiding under the couch next to his stash of cocaine. HOORAY! HE HAS CONVICTION NOW! EVILDOERS EVILDOERS! YAY BUSH!

Bah.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
Yes, I love Bush's qualities. Claims service in the military but really partied in the reserves flying obsolete aircraft. Business failure multiple times over. Frat-boy. Alcoholic. Rides on coat-tales of father. Found Jesus. Was hiding under the couch next to his stash of cocaine. HOORAY! HE HAS CONVICTION NOW! EVILDOERS EVILDOERS! YAY BUSH!

Bah.

BR

Not to be overly political, but are you seriously telling me that if he were liberal, had recovered from being an alcoholic, hadn't been the greatest student, and had managed to finally do well in business after multiple failure, this would all be seen as a bad thing?

You know people point at failures and say see these folks can really never be anything. They must have gotten somewhere by some other means. They could never have changed. Then they point with the other hand telling us we have to support programs that help people improve themselves and change.

Don't be a hypocrite. You've probably had failures in your life and I know I have had them in mine. I found another way to be successful. Hopefully so did you. The fact that Bush did and people throw it up in others faces is nothing but pure hate and spite. Get over it, if those actions were associated with someone you cared for, you would point at them as virtues.

Nick

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
BR

Not to be overly political, but are you seriously telling me that if he were liberal, had recovered from being an alcoholic, hadn't been the greatest student, and had managed to finally do well in business after multiple failure, this would all be seen as a bad thing?

You know people point at failures and say see these folks can really never be anything. They must have gotten somewhere by some other means. They could never have changed. Then they point with the other hand telling us we have to support programs that help people improve themselves and change.

Don't be a hypocrite. You've probably had failures in your life and I know I have had them in mine. I found another way to be successful. Hopefully so did you. The fact that Bush did and people throw it up in others faces is nothing but pure hate and spite. Get over it, if those actions were associated with someone you cared for, you would point at them as virtues.

Nick

Bush never got over his addiction. He simply replaced beer and cocaine with jesus. I don't respect that.

The man can barely put together a sentence and he lies about important issues, not just blowjobs. It's all in the name. If he was named Frederick McMally he would never have gone to Yale, never been given the monetary breaks he was given, never made it to the Governor's mansion in Texas, and most certainly would not have made it to the US Presidency. No way no how.

Hell, a decent chunk of voting Americans thought he was his freaking daddy. Give me a break. Be honest with yourself. Remove the name and look at the person. Do you really want that bastard as president?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
Bush never got over his addiction. He simply replaced beer and cocaine with jesus. I don't respect that.

The man can barely put together a sentence and he lies about important issues, not just blowjobs. It's all in the name. If he was named Frederick McMally he would never have gone to Yale, never been given the monetary breaks he was given, never made it to the Governor's mansion in Texas, and most certainly would not have made it to the US Presidency. No way no how.

Hell, a decent chunk of voting Americans thought he was his freaking daddy. Give me a break. Be honest with yourself. Remove the name and look at the person. Do you really want that bastard as president?

So I suppose I should support the son of a Senator, who smoked tons of pot, had his wife campaign against artists and their lyrics, who couldn't even win his home state, worked as a reporter (but there is no media bias) and then entered lifelong into politics where he accomplished pretty much nothing but spending other people's money?!?

Again apply the same standard there buddy. I'll take someone who overcame problems, even with a name, over someone who constantly thinks I am the problem. (Gore)

Nick

[Anders]

Ahh great two party system you people have.

Aren´t any of you worried when the election of a president is based on arguments like the above?

"Yeah candidate A may not be exatly suitable for president. But candidate B is even worse"

BTW: BR is gonna come hard down on you for that post

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Anders
Ahh great two party system you people have.

Aren´t any of you worried when the election of a president is based on arguments like the above?

"Yeah candidate A may not be exatly suitable for president. But candidate B is even worse"

BTW: BR is gonna come hard down on you for that post

Look I made it quite clear what I was speaking about. I don't like it when anyone says that someone can't become something because of their past. Achievement is achievement. Life is a marathon, not a sprint. If I had a penny for every nobody that thought they were somebody just because they could lift a beer, get a certain grade from a certain teacher or other such bullcrap in my life which makes you "somebody" I'd have Bill Gates wiping my ass.

The real issue with BR is I know he doesn't buy into that bullcrap to begin with. If I told him that Bush was a better person than XYZ because he graduated from Yale he would tell me to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. I just had to call him on the fact that there are plenty of people out there, BR included who don't confer crap to someone because of where they went to school, what their last name is etc. People overcoming failures in life is good in my book regardless of party. I know in BR's book it is good too.

I just don't want him cheering certain people overcoming failings and not others because they happen to be on a certain "team." Because we all know we should apply the same standard all the way around, no cheer for teams, right BR? :p

Nick

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I was noticing your signature. With all due respect, it is very telling of your liberal mindset. Some of the most successful and intelligent people I know have a very strong sense of right and wrong. To label someone ignorant or underdeveloped because he knows right and wrong is nothing but an excuse for immoral behavior.

well, i am SO glad you made that comment "with all due respect." makes me feel all better. listen, it isn't indicative of my "liberal mindset," whatever that means (and when the hell did we start making comments about people's signatures???). gosh, i guess since i have associated myself with such a quote, that you think i am trying to give myself "an excuse for immoral behavior." how about it's more indicative of i am more than willing to continue a dialog with someone who seems to have an open mind about the issues, and is willing to see the right and wrong within them. unlike you.

you know, sdw, i was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and in fact avoid or ignore getting into a post.vs.post with you like everyone else eventually gets sucked into, and figure that you're nice enough, with your heart in the right place, with opinions that differ from my own. but (edit: i guess it is just impossible to even have an opinion AROUND you without you sticking your nose in and trying to cause trouble. if you have something to say about me personally, then i think the mods and everyone would agree, and save it for PM and save everyone your flame-bait. i mean, geez, i have been more-or-less AGREEING with things you have been saying recently, or I could at least see your side of the matter). now i am pretty sure that you're just a d*ck, regardless of your party, your political leanings, or anything else.

'course now you'll probably go crying to the mods to protect you from those people who personally attack you. well, up until now, i didn't care much about your existence. you posted, i read, rolled my eyes and moved along. but when you implicitly attack ME in such an ignorant but self-important style (and without any direct personal provocation from me), you get on my bad side.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush is not very well-spoken. But the other qualities? He absolutely has them. Take this in contrast to Clinton, who had the speaking ability (though I didn;t like his public speaking style) and none of the other qualities...at all.

I was noticing your signature. With all due respect, it is very telling of your liberal mindset. Some of the most successful and intelligent people I know have a very strong sense of right and wrong. To label someone ignorant or underdeveloped because he knows right and wrong is nothing but an excuse for immoral behavior.

And I suppose you don't have a conservative mindset?:lol:

You've really gotten on this kick lately. You talk about it as if you were noticing he comes from a certain religious or ethnic background and therefore we shouldn't take him as seriously. Not that those are things to discredit ideas ether.

Of course if a president was to earn the most awards for immoral behavior it would be Nixon. There is simply no defense for this man. Anything else is a rationalization. He actually believed the president was above the law and stated so.

The jury's still out on Bush jr.

[trumptman]

Shifting jobs overseas (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030804-471198,00.html?cnn=yes)

A very relevent article about what initially brought. You don't think these folks in this article would vote for someone who advocates lowering immigration limits, taxing those offshore salaries with tariffs when the services come back here?

Check this out from the article...

As these average-salary figures show, outsourcing lowers costs

SOFTWARE PROGRAMMER
U.S. $66,100
INDIA $10,000

Mechanical Engineer
U.S. $55,600
INDIA $5,900

IT Manager
U.S. $55,000
INDIA $8,500

Accountant
U.S. $41,000
INDIA $5,000

Financial Operations
U.S. $37,625
INDIA $5,500

You think a kids going to give a damn that the government will give him a student loan when he has to pay it back competing with folks who make less than he would make working at McDonalds?

Nick

[BR]

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
Stop being so polarized like that bastard SDW. I'm not saying you should support Gore. I don't like either of those fools.

Well come on BR, don't leave me guessing. You tell me I shouldn't like Bush. Now you tell me I shouldn't like Gore. If you going to go through all the trouble to tell me who I SHOULDN'T like, at least tell me who I should.

Likewise I am sitting in a thread arguing fair trade and essentually protectionism of jobs. Does that sound like pure Republican rhetoric?

Nick

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well come on BR, don't leave me guessing. You tell me I shouldn't like Bush. Now you tell me I shouldn't like Gore. If you going to go through all the trouble to tell me who I SHOULDN'T like, at least tell me who I should.

Nick

All efforts should be concentrated on getting a third party, ANY THIRD PARTY, ANY THIRD VOICE, into the national debates. That requires enough votes next year to qualify for federal matching funds and then come 2008 they might be able to make a run at the required percentage to get onto the corrupt two-party controlled debates.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Bush never got over his addiction. He simply replaced beer and cocaine with jesus. I don't respect that.

The man can barely put together a sentence and he lies about important issues, not just blowjobs. It's all in the name. If he was named Frederick McMally he would never have gone to Yale, never been given the monetary breaks he was given, never made it to the Governor's mansion in Texas, and most certainly would not have made it to the US Presidency. No way no how.

Hell, a decent chunk of voting Americans thought he was his freaking daddy. Give me a break. Be honest with yourself. Remove the name and look at the person. Do you really want that bastard as president?

Wow.

Some points: Bush gave up drinking, but it is debtable whether or not he actually was an alcoholic. I've read accounts on this, and it seems he "drank too much" at times. He wasn't addicted alcohol per se. In any case, he got over it. I also believe he used cocaine a few times. He gave that up too. And your point is.....? Trumptman is right: If liberal did this, he would be celebrated.

As far as "not being able to put together a sentence": That's not true. Bush's public speaking has improved. He's not a natural public speaker, and everyone knows that. He knows how to listen to experts and then make decisions. He knows ow to delegate. He knows how to lead, despite what the polls say. He is, by all accounts, an excellent President.

His Daddy: He can't change who his father is. Again, I don't see your point. You imply that someone like Clinton got there on his own merits..which is dubious at best. Bush had more privledges...true. His father may have gotten him into Yale and Harvard...but he didn't get him out. Any liberal with the credentials Bush has would be hailed as an intellectual hero.

As far as the American people: You just can't accept him as a legitmate President, can you? There always has to be some unique "element of chance" reason he got elected in your mind. There is always some obscure justification that caused a fluke. This time, it's that people didn;t know the difference between he and his father. There may have been some who thought this way...but how many people on election day thought they were voting for GHWB?

Jesus: "[Replaced his other addictions with this one]".

Sometimes I sit back and honestly wonder how people can think as you do. If you are an atheist, I can accept that. But calling Jesus an addiction? That's unbelievable. Bush turned his life around and found God. I cannot believe that you would actually try and turn this into a bad thing, no matter what your faith or lack thereof. Again, when a Democrat and/or Liberal (take Lieberman for example) talks about his faith in strong terms, he is hailed and featured on 60 minutes. When a conservative does it, he's a fascist on a religious crusade to dominate the world.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
All efforts should be concentrated on getting a third party, ANY THIRD PARTY, ANY THIRD VOICE, into the national debates. That requires enough votes next year to qualify for federal matching funds and then come 2008 they might be able to make a run at the required percentage to get onto the corrupt two-party controlled debates.

Can't disagree with that.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Stop being so polarized like that bastard SDW. I'm not saying you should support Gore. I don't like either of those fools.

Over the line. Congratulations on getting your post reported. I get pretty strong, but I don't call people what you just did.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Over the line. Congratulations on getting your post reported. I get pretty strong, but I don't call people what you just did.

Yes, please go crying to the mods because you are one who would silence those that disagree with you using any underhanded tactics available. You are no better than the democrats breaking quorom. If you were really hurt by my words, you need to grow some skin as your flesh is probably oozing around on the surface becoming infected and rather smelly.

This is mock outrage. Stop trying to be a victim.

[keyboardf12]

I believe that like BR was saying, most people who are addicted never stop being addicts, just switch addictions. smoking>>coffee alcohol to jesus. jesus can be an addiction. anything can be an addiction.


and as for Dean. Yes i think he has a very good chance at beating this bush. If nominated, he will win. is nomitaded and has welsley clark as his VP then we are looking at the most one sided victory in 30 years.

I like him. he's the only one out there that is seems like he is telling you his thoughts from his gut and not political polls which bush jr. derided clinton on but we know now that karl rove depends on them just as much.

number one quality of dean?

takes on the president head on and actaully argues and will openly call him on issues. the rest of the democrats could learn a lesson from him.

[keyboardf12]

Over the line. Congratulations on getting your post reported

What does he mean by this? Are post being reported to mod? Huh?

[applenut]

One more personal attack and the thread gets locked.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
And as for Dean, yes i think he has a very good chance at beating Bush. If nominated, he will win. If nominated and has Welsley Clark as his VP then we are looking at the most one-sided victory in 30 years.

I like him. He's the only one out there that seems like he is telling you his thoughts from his gut and not political polls which Bush jr. derided Clinton on (But we know now that Karl Rove depends on them just as much).

number one quality of dean?

takes on the president head on and actaully argues and will openly call him on issues. the rest of the democrats could learn a lesson from him.

I completely agree with you about Dean. Personally, I think the DNC will destroy him much like the RNC killed McCain. Which is a real shame, because he has the best grass-roots campaign right now.

I think that Dean is getting hit from both sides right now. Everyone's trying very hard to label him a "lefttist liberal" which is absolutely unfair (I actually don't think there's anything wrong with being a liberal, but if you're running for President....that's another story).

"Over 11 years, he restrained spending growth to turn a large budget deficit into a surplus, cut taxes, forced many on welfare to go to work, abandoned a sweeping approach to health-care reform in favor of more incremental measures, antagonized environmentalists, won the top rating from the National Rifle Association and consistently embraced business interests." from New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/campaigns/30DEAN.html?pagewanted=1&hp)

However, considering that the vast conservative majority is desperately marketing Dean as "another leftist liberal", I love that Dean is beginning to take the gloves off. At a recent campaign rally he stated "it's time that we stop apologiziing and making excuses for being what we are!"

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
I believe that like BR was saying, most people who are addicted never stop being addicts, just switch addictions. smoking>>coffee alcohol to jesus. jesus can be an addiction. anything can be an addiction.


and as for Dean. Yes i think he has a very good chance at beating this bush. If nominated, he will win. is nomitaded and has welsley clark as his VP then we are looking at the most one sided victory in 30 years.

I like him. he's the only one out there that is seems like he is telling you his thoughts from his gut and not political polls which bush jr. derided clinton on but we know now that karl rove depends on them just as much.

number one quality of dean?

takes on the president head on and actaully argues and will openly call him on issues. the rest of the democrats could learn a lesson from him.

Get real, please. I love the second paragraph. What's your support for that statement. Funny, there was a study released yesterday that showed 69% of Democrats believe Bush will be reelected. As for Dean, the rest of the Dems are doing exactly what he is doing with Bush: Attacking. I have heard very little on an actual agenda from any of them, other than rolling back tax cuts (ha...that'll go over big), "the wrong war at the wrong time", blah, blah, blah.....

The Dems are ****ed and they know it. Their own internal predictions show them losing more seats in the house and senate next November.

[keyboardf12]

Get Real

Don't tell me to "get real" I take that as a personal insult to my politcal beliefs. That's "over the line", If you don't apologize, I'm going to run crying like a baby to a Mod. :rolleyes:

BR is banned. Happy?

If allowed, I'll still go on reading in "Future hardware" but as for this section, I won't comment in it much. Its not worth it as I now fear being turned in by the "katie couric hating, ann coulter is not full of it stating, fox news watching, head in the sand, let's blame everything on the liberal media," type of people running around here.

regards,

keyf12


Mods: I've taken my chill pill. Hope this does not get me banned.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by keyboardf12
Don't tell me to "get real" I take that as a personal insult to my politcal beliefs. That's "over the line", If you don't apologize, I'm going to run crying like a baby to a Mod. :rolleyes:

BR is banned. Happy?

If allowed, I'll still go on reading in "Future hardware" but as for this section, I won't comment in it much. Its not worth it as I now fear being turned in by the "katie couric hating, ann coulter is not full of it stating, fox news watching, head in the sand, let's blame everything on the liberal media," type of people running around here.

regards,

keyf12


Mods: I've taken my chill pill. Hope this does not get me banned.

Yes, I wonder why SDW wasn't banned for calling me a certain male body part? I guess it's because I didn't complain to somebody about it.

[SDW2001]

BR had multiple offenses. I didn't suggest him being banned. Apparently the mods/admins felt differently. I think it was thr ight move...in hindsight.

Jimmac, I apologize for calling you what I did a few weeks ago. I was angry at an attack you made on me earlier. Truce?

On the attacks: Telling someone to "get real" or the like is not what I am talking about. Most people here don't go running around calling people bastards and "stupid". That's the problem.

Keyboard: Go ahead. Keep trying to paint me as an extremist. Perceptions like that are easy to hold on to.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
BR had multiple offenses. I didn't suggest him being banned. Apparently the mods/admins felt differently. I think it was thr ight move...in hindsight.

Jimmac, I apologize for calling you what I did a few weeks ago. I was angry at an attack you made on me earlier. Truce?

On the attacks: Telling someone to "get real" or the like is not what I am talking about. Most people here don't go running around calling people bastards and "stupid". That's the problem.

Keyboard: Go ahead. Keep trying to paint me as an extremist. Perceptions like that are easy to hold on to.

But, you are an extremist. If I didn't know better just looking at your posts ( and their wild titles ) I'd think you were trying to be provocative and foment trouble.

BR probably let his feelings about this get out of hand.

About your offense. My attack was prodding you continually about a question you couldn't answer. You like to be taken seriously and my prodding was poking holes in that idea. It hardly warrented calling me a name. However apology accepted.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
But, you are an extremist. If I didn't know better just looking at your posts ( and their wild titles ) I'd think you were trying to be provocative and foment trouble.

BR probably let his feelings about this get out of hand.

About your offense. My attack was prodding you continually about a question you couldn't answer. You like to be taken seriously and my prodding was poking holes in that idea. It hardly warrented calling me a name. However apology accepted.

Fair enough, but that wasn't the entire thing. I've answered that question literally ten times over.

I am not an extremeist at all. I am not trying to troll or delibrately piss people off. I post what I think, for the most part. I am conservative, though there are osme issues i disagree with Republicans on. It's just easier to paint my views as exteme rather than debate on merit.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I am not an extremeist at all.

When you say it's OK for the government to break the law because it's fighting communism, you are extremist.

[applenut]

Some people need to grow up.

This thread is done.