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!
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.
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?
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!"
Comments
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
Nick
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Over the line. Congratulations on getting your post reported
What does he mean by this? Are post being reported to mod? Huh?
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
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!"