Methinks that with all the mud-slinging 7 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, a vote for any of them is a vote for a deceptive, arrogant, out-of-touch career politician.
So it comes down to the least of three evils. Damn.
A lot of those quotes are taken out of their own context and put into the implied context of supporting the war. Look who they're from: all the usual GOP whipping boys (Clinton, Albright, Kennedy... ooo big surprise). While these people made posturing statements a few years ago, that does not mean they would've started a war in the same way and time Bush did (had they been in power). In point of fact I guess we can clearly state that they DIDN'T start a war, even though they had the same power to do so as Bush.
Of course no one is going to say anything good about Saddam Hussein or potential Iraqi weapons when the media asks them about it (almost assuredly the case with every quote), but that's a different ball of wax than falsely justifying and then starting an actual invasion... isn't it?
As for Nadar, if these two start slinging mud everywhere and at the same time keep being made out to be more and more similar, he might actually compete. I wonder if he's biding his time as he tries to get onto the ballots, and then will jump into the fray at the height of their mud-slinging and just flood everyone with a string of quotes and similiarities and say essentially "both of these men are the same problem masquerading under different parties". He may be right. I've never been impressed with Kerry other than for his service in Viet Name (and then subsequent ballsyness in speaking out against the war after his tour), but this is turning into another "they both suck" election.
Maybe we should take a harder look at "Nadar" instead of just assuming him the spoiler.
This is a silly thread. Another desparate attempt by the conservative members here to rationalize their support for Bush.
Nader ( while I like the man ) should run at another time when we don't have a hairless ape in the Whitehouse!
There is only one thing that matters in this next election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
And how is this any different the the clique of diehard dems that constantly rag on Bush to reinforce their position as dems amongst themselves? I don't see how it is. You and everyone else who disagree with Bush have every right to do so, and it's a good thing there are Bush detractors. But "hairless ape" is a playground insult at best, a play to fit in line with the chic mentality of Bush bashing at worst.
"Out the door in '04" is part of a herd mentality. How about supporting someone you believe in, instead of supporting the ouster of someone you do not? I ask rhetorically, because the real answer is it's not about electing someone you (people in general) believe in, it's about beating the guy you don't like. It goes for both sides. It is the failed two party system.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. There is no difference.
there is a difference. perhaps not as profound as the difference nader would bring, and on some level many liberals might prefer nader's politics over kerry's. but we have to be practical. we have a maniac in office now. nader has no real chance of overtaking him. far too many left-leaners don't want to vote that far off to the side. and if he runs his only effect will be to take votes from kerry. by splitting the party, it allows more space for bush to win. kerry may not be all the change we need, but positive changes don't happen overnight. bush has done a lot of damage in his four years, and getting him out should help to stop that.
I understand people wanting to vote with their conscience for the candidate that best represents them, but this is idealism that anyone who cares about the future of this country can ill afford in the 2004 election. Nader is a good guy, but this time around you have to vote with your head not your heart.
Bear in mind that it isn't just the next four years that are at stake. If Bush stays in power until 2008, we will undoubtedly see an ultra-conservative supreme court change the face of this country for the next 10 to 15 years. Perhaps longer.
I understand people wanting to vote with their conscience for the candidate that best represents them, but this is idealism that anyone who cares about the future of this country can ill afford in the 2004 election.
So by implication, if I vote for Nader, I dont care about the future of this country. How are you any different from Republicans that question the patriotism of liberals?
So by implication, if I vote for Nader, I dont care about the future of this country. How are you any different from Republicans that question the patriotism of liberals?
That wasn't intended as an attack...but if you do vote for Nader you are risking more than just four more years of Bush. Nader won't win. Nader's running in this election won't impact the two party system. Sometimes ideals have to be sacrificed to practicality. The best hope we have of everyone who isn't a rich white conservative not being assraped for the next 10 to 15 years is to vote Bush out of office by the end of this year.
And how is this any different the the clique of diehard dems that constantly rag on Bush to reinforce their position as dems amongst themselves? I don't see how it is. You and everyone else who disagree with Bush have every right to do so, and it's a good thing there are Bush detractors. But "hairless ape" is a playground insult at best, a play to fit in line with the chic mentality of Bush bashing at worst.
"Out the door in '04" is part of a herd mentality. How about supporting someone you believe in, instead of supporting the ouster of someone you do not? I ask rhetorically, because the real answer is it's not about electing someone you (people in general) believe in, it's about beating the guy you don't like. It goes for both sides. It is the failed two party system.
I'm sorry but in my 50 plus years Bush is the worst excuse for a president I've seen in my lifetime. Therefore before we can fix anything we have to get rid of the immediate problem.
Also in my opinion " Hairless Ape " is too good for the man.
He's so bad with his policy making you have to mix a little humor with the discription.
While we're sitting here talking Bush is making decisions that IMHO are not in the best interest of this country.
That's why he needs addressing first.
When compared to Bush, Kerry looks pretty darn good.
Nadar has zero chance of beating Bush.
I know it's a lesser of evils but during my life it's been pretty rare when it's been any other way. So this is nothing new.
I really don't want a scenerio where it's a close election and because people vote for Nadar it's just enough distraction for Bush to slip in there for a second term.
How exactly does Nader do damage? When votes go to him, those are people that want Nader. If they wanted Gore, or Kerry, they'd vote that way despite Nader's presence in the race. Including Nader is a good thing, because it gives people a better chance of picking a guy they really want. It more accurately reflects the political breakdown of the country as a whole to have more candidates running in the race.
It's interesting that no one is defending Kerry or the Democrats. Instead, you all are just imposing group-think on me so I fall in line regardless of how aweful, hypocritical and Bush-like Kerry is. It's the same old argument of how Kerry is somewhow the lesser of the two evils.
No wonder 50% of the public doesn't vote.
The system gives the illusion of choice where there is none. In 2000, 69% of people wanted Nader in the debates yet Gore refused to go any debate with Nader. You call yourselves Democrats.
I hate to say my stance on this for the 100th time, but if you think that the way to change the american political system is by shoving a 3rd presidential candidate into office, you are flat out wrong. The only possible way to change the system is from the bottom up, grassroots involvement. Maybe this means radically changing an existing party or starting something new. Sure as hell, it means being involved in politics every step of the way and working hard to institute change. Giving a vote to Nader is not working hard, it is not instituting change, it is merely a symbolic gesture to make people tired of "the system" feel good.
These threads are total flamebait. I don't need to explain to you people what classifies a thread as such because you're all smart enough to know. We're going to start closing down these damn threads as soon as we see them. We're all tired of how degenerate they are. We've asked you to play nicely with the toys we gave you, and you people have shown that you cannot.
If you have a problem with this policy, contact Brad.
Comments
So it comes down to the least of three evils. Damn.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Maybe he should have A platform. How about we start there first.
Vote Bush 04: "It's Not My Fault"
Of course no one is going to say anything good about Saddam Hussein or potential Iraqi weapons when the media asks them about it (almost assuredly the case with every quote), but that's a different ball of wax than falsely justifying and then starting an actual invasion... isn't it?
As for Nadar, if these two start slinging mud everywhere and at the same time keep being made out to be more and more similar, he might actually compete. I wonder if he's biding his time as he tries to get onto the ballots, and then will jump into the fray at the height of their mud-slinging and just flood everyone with a string of quotes and similiarities and say essentially "both of these men are the same problem masquerading under different parties". He may be right. I've never been impressed with Kerry other than for his service in Viet Name (and then subsequent ballsyness in speaking out against the war after his tour), but this is turning into another "they both suck" election.
Maybe we should take a harder look at "Nadar" instead of just assuming him the spoiler.
Nader ( while I like the man ) should run at another time when we don't have a hairless ape in the Whitehouse!
There is only one thing that matters in this next election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by Jubelum
Bush = Kerry?
Let's do some math...
BUSH
Yale Grad
Skull&Bones
KERRY
Yale Grad
Skull&Bones
None of these are a matter of opinion.
I personally don't dig him, but Nadar IS different...
DINGDINGDING! WE'VE GOT A MATCH !
Skull&Bones = Secret Society = Both Liars (& Kerry...the Dupe candidate for the Reps)
Nader (ER dammit) = Chronic complainer = 4 years of complaining...4 years of congress & senate ignorance...not what we need now.
I'm all for anarchy...that on the ballot?
Originally posted by jimmac
This is a silly thread. Another desparate attempt by the conservative members here to rationalize their support for Bush.
Nader ( while I like the man ) should run at another time when we don't have a hairless ape in the Whitehouse!
There is only one thing that matters in this next election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
And how is this any different the the clique of diehard dems that constantly rag on Bush to reinforce their position as dems amongst themselves? I don't see how it is. You and everyone else who disagree with Bush have every right to do so, and it's a good thing there are Bush detractors. But "hairless ape" is a playground insult at best, a play to fit in line with the chic mentality of Bush bashing at worst.
"Out the door in '04" is part of a herd mentality. How about supporting someone you believe in, instead of supporting the ouster of someone you do not? I ask rhetorically, because the real answer is it's not about electing someone you (people in general) believe in, it's about beating the guy you don't like. It goes for both sides. It is the failed two party system.
Originally posted by Existence
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. There is no difference.
there is a difference. perhaps not as profound as the difference nader would bring, and on some level many liberals might prefer nader's politics over kerry's. but we have to be practical. we have a maniac in office now. nader has no real chance of overtaking him. far too many left-leaners don't want to vote that far off to the side. and if he runs his only effect will be to take votes from kerry. by splitting the party, it allows more space for bush to win. kerry may not be all the change we need, but positive changes don't happen overnight. bush has done a lot of damage in his four years, and getting him out should help to stop that.
Even if monkey's flew out of my butt and he became President...
what the hell would he ever get done?
Why would anyone in congress ever stick their neck out for him?
I understand people wanting to vote with their conscience for the candidate that best represents them, but this is idealism that anyone who cares about the future of this country can ill afford in the 2004 election. Nader is a good guy, but this time around you have to vote with your head not your heart.
Bear in mind that it isn't just the next four years that are at stake. If Bush stays in power until 2008, we will undoubtedly see an ultra-conservative supreme court change the face of this country for the next 10 to 15 years. Perhaps longer.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Existence:
I understand people wanting to vote with their conscience for the candidate that best represents them, but this is idealism that anyone who cares about the future of this country can ill afford in the 2004 election.
So by implication, if I vote for Nader, I dont care about the future of this country. How are you any different from Republicans that question the patriotism of liberals?
Originally posted by Existence
So by implication, if I vote for Nader, I dont care about the future of this country. How are you any different from Republicans that question the patriotism of liberals?
That wasn't intended as an attack...but if you do vote for Nader you are risking more than just four more years of Bush. Nader won't win. Nader's running in this election won't impact the two party system. Sometimes ideals have to be sacrificed to practicality. The best hope we have of everyone who isn't a rich white conservative not being assraped for the next 10 to 15 years is to vote Bush out of office by the end of this year.
How about supporting someone you believe in, instead of supporting the ouster of someone you do not?
Simply not tenable in a two party system with marginal candidates (or in a true multi-party system) unless proportional representation is used).
Edit: post didn't even make sense to me when I re-read it.
Originally posted by Existence
So by implication, if I vote for Nader, I dont care about the future of this country.
Clearly you care. But it's also pretty clear that you have no intention of seeing your goals materialize.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Simply not tenable in a two party system with marginal candidates (or in a true multi-party system) unless proportional representation is used).
Edit: post didn't even make sense to me when I re-read it.
Which is what is I said. That is the unfortunate reality of the system.
Originally posted by rageous
And how is this any different the the clique of diehard dems that constantly rag on Bush to reinforce their position as dems amongst themselves? I don't see how it is. You and everyone else who disagree with Bush have every right to do so, and it's a good thing there are Bush detractors. But "hairless ape" is a playground insult at best, a play to fit in line with the chic mentality of Bush bashing at worst.
"Out the door in '04" is part of a herd mentality. How about supporting someone you believe in, instead of supporting the ouster of someone you do not? I ask rhetorically, because the real answer is it's not about electing someone you (people in general) believe in, it's about beating the guy you don't like. It goes for both sides. It is the failed two party system.
I'm sorry but in my 50 plus years Bush is the worst excuse for a president I've seen in my lifetime. Therefore before we can fix anything we have to get rid of the immediate problem.
Also in my opinion " Hairless Ape " is too good for the man.
He's so bad with his policy making you have to mix a little humor with the discription.
While we're sitting here talking Bush is making decisions that IMHO are not in the best interest of this country.
That's why he needs addressing first.
When compared to Bush, Kerry looks pretty darn good.
Nadar has zero chance of beating Bush.
I know it's a lesser of evils but during my life it's been pretty rare when it's been any other way. So this is nothing new.
I really don't want a scenerio where it's a close election and because people vote for Nadar it's just enough distraction for Bush to slip in there for a second term.
He's already done more than enough damage.
Originally posted by Existence
It's interesting that no one is defending Kerry or the Democrats. Instead, you all are just imposing group-think on me so I fall in line regardless of how aweful, hypocritical and Bush-like Kerry is. It's the same old argument of how Kerry is somewhow the lesser of the two evils.
No wonder 50% of the public doesn't vote.
The system gives the illusion of choice where there is none. In 2000, 69% of people wanted Nader in the debates yet Gore refused to go any debate with Nader. You call yourselves Democrats.
I hate to say my stance on this for the 100th time, but if you think that the way to change the american political system is by shoving a 3rd presidential candidate into office, you are flat out wrong. The only possible way to change the system is from the bottom up, grassroots involvement. Maybe this means radically changing an existing party or starting something new. Sure as hell, it means being involved in politics every step of the way and working hard to institute change. Giving a vote to Nader is not working hard, it is not instituting change, it is merely a symbolic gesture to make people tired of "the system" feel good.
These threads are total flamebait. I don't need to explain to you people what classifies a thread as such because you're all smart enough to know. We're going to start closing down these damn threads as soon as we see them. We're all tired of how degenerate they are. We've asked you to play nicely with the toys we gave you, and you people have shown that you cannot.
If you have a problem with this policy, contact Brad.