Depending on who Kerry picks as his running mate, ie. (gender orientation, sex, and underrepresented ethnicities) I might be persuaded to ditch Nader hold my nose and vote for him in November. Kerry has also got to come out for fully for gay marriage.
We'll see.
So Kerry has to pick a lesbian Native American before you even think about changing your vote from Bush to Kerry?
Being neither a republicocrap or a democrapper, I am totally pissed off having to endure another 8 months of this vitriol coming fom ALL of the political pundits from both parties while they maneuver around trying to inflict another hit on the opposition. Both parties are excellent about attacking the other one. Until they can come up with some substansiative concrete proposals with their campaigns and their platforms then all of the drivel coming from BOTH sides is just that DRIVEL. To quote one pundit "when you are young your mind is broad. and your waist is narrow, reverse it when you get older!" The problem with all of the age groups in this country is that they are unable to listen to what the opposing parties are saying because it does not mesh with their supposed beliefs.
Being neither a republicocrap or a democrapper, I am totally pissed off having to endure another 8 months of this vitriol coming fom ALL of the political pundits from both parties while they maneuver around trying to inflict another hit on the opposition. Both parties are excellent about attacking the other one. Until they can come up with some substansiative concrete proposals with their campaigns and their platforms then all of the drivel coming from BOTH sides is just that DRIVEL. To quote one pundit "when you are young your mind is broad. and your waist is narrow, reverse it when you get older!" The problem with all of the age groups in this country is that they are unable to listen to what the opposing parties are saying because it does not mesh with their supposed beliefs.
This is my single biggest gripe with modern politics. Far Far far too much effort is put into why not to vote for someone than why to vote for someone.
too much time, money, and effort is put into making others look bad, when really, if you want to make them look bad, you just have to have a better platform, and really have it together.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't....so bad it's bloody cutthroat, both sides getting hard ones just thinking about the opposing party ****ing up in any minor way, it's bullshit.
Here is a quick question. All of you seem to want to bash bush pretty quickly so it appears you know what he is doing wrong. Now I want you to tell me at-least three plans John Kerry has to fix this. Lets hear em. Raise taxes on the people making over $200,000 Oh wait you mean small business and such? Oh you mean the driving force between the nations growth and raising jobs that you people seem to think bush got rid of. The jobs that 9/11 did not effect in any way, I am sure that will really help the economy that bush ruined and that the dot com burst had NO effect on what so ever.
Well at-least we know what John Kerry will do when future hostilities present themselves based upon his strong voting record for them in the past...
... The White House is demanding an apology, calling the statement "angry rhetoric."
That's exactly what it is is but whining about it is a non-starter. There are times when nasty rhetoric merits a response. And then there are other times when you should just sit back and let your opposition embarrass themselves. This time I'd opt for the latter response.
This is my single biggest gripe with modern politics. Far Far far too much effort is put into why not to vote for someone than why to vote for someone.
too much time, money, and effort is put into making others look bad, when really, if you want to make them look bad, you just have to have a better platform, and really have it together.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't....so bad it's bloody cutthroat, both sides getting hard ones just thinking about the opposing party ****ing up in any minor way, it's bullshit
I think a lot of it comes from the people on either the far right or the far left. When you are so damn liberal or conservative that you think anything that comes out of one an-others mouths is bullshit before the words even hit yours ears it sort of degrades into this sort of thing.
Its these sort of people who don't think for themselves that really do this though the politicians don't help, calling some one an "Asshole" or an entire political party lying and corrupt is crossing the line democrat or republican. Anyway when you have people who are on the far right or left, and don't think for them self and some one on the opposing side does good where they failed, You have to draw attention away from that by pointing out where they failed.
Yes, that's true, I believe the current buzzword is 'partisan politics'
Another problem, in line with what you mentioned, is that a lot of people may register as a republican, and then they always vote republican, they stop reading about the other parties barely at all, and close their mind to any other possibilities.
Not thinking for themselves.
But then again, if *everyone* thought for themselves...I wonder if we'd be any better off. \
Why the animosity towards Kerry, Anders? You certainly wouldn't vote for Bush, would you? You used to be quite a liberal.
If you do indeed support Bush, you seem to be the only European doing so. AFAIK you can't vote either way, though, so I guess it doesn't matter...
Yeah I kind of wondered about that myself. It seemed to me from Anders comments in the past that he was liberal but I've noticed a difference in tone since he became a moderator. Who knows except for Anders himself?
Yeah I kind of wondered about that myself. It seemed to me from Anders comments in the past that he was liberal but I've noticed a difference in tone since he became a moderator. Who knows except for Anders himself?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
While I think Kerry was talking about the coming right wing attacks... there's no way of knowing because no one shows the speech he gave right before he started talking to those guys on the stage... just like no one shows the crowd noise during the Dean speech.
Plus he doesn't say Bush and he doesn't say Republican's... but the republican's play the victim anyway... which they don't do very well.
However, this falls under the lies and crooked department.
Bush administration ordered Medicare plan cost estimates withheld
By Tony Pugh
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.
When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that.
Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who'd vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion. (CONT.)
I am more liberal than you can imagine (just not in the strict american sense of the word)
With a candidate like Kerry it just isn´t the right battle anymore. Him, Gephard, Lieberman and Graham. When your only choice is between one of them and Bush democracy isn´t being served well enough. You either need a candidate that is farther away from his opponent than Kerry is from Bush or the total break up of the electorial system, aka the two party rule.
If you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.
I can´t help seeing the primaries as a big selection machine. A lot of different views on politics are presented to a VERY narrow selection of voters which one by one are being voted out. So in the end you have two political packages and every view that isn´t contained in one of those are being ignored. A few people decides the limits of politics for everybody else.
For me the battle between Kerry and Bush is minor compared to the battle of the voice of diversity. Stuff like "A vote on Nader is a vote for Bush" is totally missing the point. A vote on Kerry is a vote for a political system that needs major reforming IMO and the future of democracy is more important than who is going to be in the white house the next four years.
And no. Nader is not close to my perfect candidate but he is the only major voice of treason towards the two party system right now so I use him as an example here.
What a brilliant ploy for the Bush administration to justify everything it does with its self-named "war on terror." Since terror is a state of mind, there can never be a declared end to this "war." It gives Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants, including the suspension of legal protections and civil rights.
I am more liberal than you can imagine (just not in the strict american sense of the word)
With a candidate like Kerry it just isn´t the right battle anymore. Him, Gephard, Lieberman and Graham. When your only choice is between one of them and Bush democracy isn´t being served well enough. You either need a candidate that is farther away from his opponent than Kerry is from Bush or the total break up of the electorial system, aka the two party rule.
If you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.
I can´t help seeing the primaries as a big selection machine. A lot of different views on politics are presented to a VERY narrow selection of voters which one by one are being voted out. So in the end you have two political packages and every view that isn´t contained in one of those are being ignored. A few people decides the limits of politics for everybody else.
For me the battle between Kerry and Bush is minor compared to the battle of the voice of diversity. Stuff like "A vote on Nader is a vote for Bush" is totally missing the point. A vote on Kerry is a vote for a political system that needs major reforming IMO and the future of democracy is more important than who is going to be in the white house the next four years.
And no. Nader is not close to my perfect candidate but he is the only major voice of treason towards the two party system right now so I use him as an example here.
So reform it after Bush is gone. Right now we have one of the worst possible leaders in office. As evidence I suggest you look at the last 3 and a half years. The longer that guy is in office the more damage he will do.
I agree the system doesn't offer enough choices and needs revamping but for right now america needs to get off the wrong track they took in 2000. We're already in debt up to our ears again. And this is something that our children will have to deal with. Not to mention the other choices he's making having to do with our personal freedoms or the enviroment. So I guess this is where we disagree. Get rid of Bush first.
Comments
Originally posted by Existence
Depending on who Kerry picks as his running mate, ie. (gender orientation, sex, and underrepresented ethnicities) I might be persuaded to ditch Nader hold my nose and vote for him in November. Kerry has also got to come out for fully for gay marriage.
We'll see.
So Kerry has to pick a lesbian Native American before you even think about changing your vote from Bush to Kerry?
Originally posted by HOM
So Kerry has to pick a lesbian Native American before you even think about changing your vote from Bush to Kerry?
Rosanne for VP?
Originally posted by HOM
So Kerry has to pick a lesbian Native American before you even think about changing your vote from Bush to Kerry?
That should read "So Kerry has to pick a lesbian Native American before you even think about changing your vote from Nader to Kerry?"
Originally posted by dbamber
Being neither a republicocrap or a democrapper, I am totally pissed off having to endure another 8 months of this vitriol coming fom ALL of the political pundits from both parties while they maneuver around trying to inflict another hit on the opposition. Both parties are excellent about attacking the other one. Until they can come up with some substansiative concrete proposals with their campaigns and their platforms then all of the drivel coming from BOTH sides is just that DRIVEL. To quote one pundit "when you are young your mind is broad. and your waist is narrow, reverse it when you get older!" The problem with all of the age groups in this country is that they are unable to listen to what the opposing parties are saying because it does not mesh with their supposed beliefs.
This is my single biggest gripe with modern politics. Far Far far too much effort is put into why not to vote for someone than why to vote for someone.
too much time, money, and effort is put into making others look bad, when really, if you want to make them look bad, you just have to have a better platform, and really have it together.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't....so bad
Butpleasepleasepleaselearnhowtousethereturnkey
andspaceyourthoughtsaccordingly.
ThankyouinadvanceandwelcometoAppleInsider.
Well at-least we know what John Kerry will do when future hostilities present themselves based upon his strong voting record for them in the past...
Originally posted by Northgate
... The White House is demanding an apology, calling the statement "angry rhetoric."
That's exactly what it is is but whining about it is a non-starter. There are times when nasty rhetoric merits a response. And then there are other times when you should just sit back and let your opposition embarrass themselves. This time I'd opt for the latter response.
This is my single biggest gripe with modern politics. Far Far far too much effort is put into why not to vote for someone than why to vote for someone.
too much time, money, and effort is put into making others look bad, when really, if you want to make them look bad, you just have to have a better platform, and really have it together.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't....so bad it's bloody cutthroat, both sides getting hard ones just thinking about the opposing party ****ing up in any minor way, it's bullshit
I think a lot of it comes from the people on either the far right or the far left. When you are so damn liberal or conservative that you think anything that comes out of one an-others mouths is bullshit before the words even hit yours ears it sort of degrades into this sort of thing.
Its these sort of people who don't think for themselves that really do this though the politicians don't help, calling some one an "Asshole" or an entire political party lying and corrupt is crossing the line democrat or republican. Anyway when you have people who are on the far right or left, and don't think for them self and some one on the opposing side does good where they failed, You have to draw attention away from that by pointing out where they failed.
Just my theory.
Another problem, in line with what you mentioned, is that a lot of people may register as a republican, and then they always vote republican, they stop reading about the other parties barely at all, and close their mind to any other possibilities.
Not thinking for themselves.
But then again, if *everyone* thought for themselves...I wonder if we'd be any better off.
Originally posted by tonton
Why the animosity towards Kerry, Anders? You certainly wouldn't vote for Bush, would you? You used to be quite a liberal.
If you do indeed support Bush, you seem to be the only European doing so. AFAIK you can't vote either way, though, so I guess it doesn't matter...
Yeah I kind of wondered about that myself. It seemed to me from Anders comments in the past that he was liberal but I've noticed a difference in tone since he became a moderator. Who knows except for Anders himself?
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah I kind of wondered about that myself. It seemed to me from Anders comments in the past that he was liberal but I've noticed a difference in tone since he became a moderator. Who knows except for Anders himself?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Originally posted by pfflam
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So Anders is who Kerry was talking about? Its all a conspiracy I tell you.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
So Anders is who Kerry was talking about? Its all a conspiracy I tell you.
He's part of the current AI admin
Originally posted by pfflam
He's part of the current AI admin
I know.. It was a lame attempt at a joke.
Plus he doesn't say Bush and he doesn't say Republican's... but the republican's play the victim anyway... which they don't do very well.
However, this falls under the lies and crooked department.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm
Bush administration ordered Medicare plan cost estimates withheld
By Tony Pugh
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.
When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that.
Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who'd vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion. (CONT.)
I am more liberal than you can imagine (just not in the strict american sense of the word)
With a candidate like Kerry it just isn´t the right battle anymore. Him, Gephard, Lieberman and Graham. When your only choice is between one of them and Bush democracy isn´t being served well enough. You either need a candidate that is farther away from his opponent than Kerry is from Bush or the total break up of the electorial system, aka the two party rule.
If you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.
I can´t help seeing the primaries as a big selection machine. A lot of different views on politics are presented to a VERY narrow selection of voters which one by one are being voted out. So in the end you have two political packages and every view that isn´t contained in one of those are being ignored. A few people decides the limits of politics for everybody else.
For me the battle between Kerry and Bush is minor compared to the battle of the voice of diversity. Stuff like "A vote on Nader is a vote for Bush" is totally missing the point. A vote on Kerry is a vote for a political system that needs major reforming IMO and the future of democracy is more important than who is going to be in the white house the next four years.
And no. Nader is not close to my perfect candidate but he is the only major voice of treason towards the two party system right now so I use him as an example here.
What a brilliant ploy for the Bush administration to justify everything it does with its self-named "war on terror." Since terror is a state of mind, there can never be a declared end to this "war." It gives Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants, including the suspension of legal protections and civil rights.
Originally posted by Anders
Tonton et al.
I am more liberal than you can imagine (just not in the strict american sense of the word)
With a candidate like Kerry it just isn´t the right battle anymore. Him, Gephard, Lieberman and Graham. When your only choice is between one of them and Bush democracy isn´t being served well enough. You either need a candidate that is farther away from his opponent than Kerry is from Bush or the total break up of the electorial system, aka the two party rule.
If you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.
I can´t help seeing the primaries as a big selection machine. A lot of different views on politics are presented to a VERY narrow selection of voters which one by one are being voted out. So in the end you have two political packages and every view that isn´t contained in one of those are being ignored. A few people decides the limits of politics for everybody else.
For me the battle between Kerry and Bush is minor compared to the battle of the voice of diversity. Stuff like "A vote on Nader is a vote for Bush" is totally missing the point. A vote on Kerry is a vote for a political system that needs major reforming IMO and the future of democracy is more important than who is going to be in the white house the next four years.
And no. Nader is not close to my perfect candidate but he is the only major voice of treason towards the two party system right now so I use him as an example here.
So reform it after Bush is gone. Right now we have one of the worst possible leaders in office. As evidence I suggest you look at the last 3 and a half years. The longer that guy is in office the more damage he will do.
I agree the system doesn't offer enough choices and needs revamping but for right now america needs to get off the wrong track they took in 2000. We're already in debt up to our ears again. And this is something that our children will have to deal with. Not to mention the other choices he's making having to do with our personal freedoms or the enviroment. So I guess this is where we disagree. Get rid of Bush first.
It's important.