PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush will win re-election in 04.



Wayne L.
01-24-2004, 11:17 AM
George W. Bush will win re-election easily in the presidential election this coming November even though it will be a close race but unlike 2000 because it's " more " about the war on terrorism after 9/11 & national security than economic policy while I think Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean " will " be the Democratic Party's nominee against Bush despite his ranting & raving after losing in Iowa because the " hardcore " activists want a real Democrat instead of a Democrat in name only but Dean will become the next McGovern & Dukakis of his party against President Bush.

FORD
01-24-2004, 12:00 PM
Junior's losing his base piece by piece every time he opens his mouth, spends more money, or kills more soldiers. Dean is not only bringing back the Democratic base, but also interesting others from the left leaning Dems and Greens to various conservative factions from the fiscal conservatives to the anti -globalist Buchanan types (see the Sierra Times endorsement thread).

More to the point, Dean is speaking of power to the people, not the corporations, and that resonates with sane people on both sides of the political spectrum. And that's why the DLC is out to get him as much as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are.

Sarge
01-24-2004, 04:33 PM
I think GW will win
I would rather Edwards get it.. or even Kerry..
I think that he can scare enough people into voting for him
Sarge

lucky wilbury
01-24-2004, 05:30 PM
kerry won't win. just on the fact that he's voted to cut intelligence spending throughout the 90's will do him in.

John Ashcroft
01-24-2004, 11:44 PM
Zachary.

Guys, liberalism has been rejected by this country (for now at least). Their policies have failed for generations. I mean, listen to them. The same bitches and promises for at least 50 years. We kept electing them, and they kept spending, yet the same "problems" exist. How much capital do you invest in a loser before you cut and run? That's what the country is doing right now. That's why Kerry will lose. That's why Edwards will lose. I'm not much ov a fan of Dubya (on domestic policy issues), but he takes national defense seriously. Something none of the other dwarves do. That'll be their downfall.

Pink Spider
01-25-2004, 03:04 AM
What's up with blaming everything on Liberals? Sure the Dems up the spending every time one takes office, but Shrub has created the largest federal government expansion of the past few generations. You acknowledge that and defend him at the same time. You make no sense with your contradictions.

Oh, and we spend more on "defense", which should properly be called offense spending than any other country in the world. Has it made us safer? I suppose terrorists want to hit because of our "freedom". :rolleyes: Anyone that bites into that hook of propaganda, doesn't understand the way things work.

The only way to truly regain our freedom and bring safety is to ditch the imperial ambitions and restore democracy, economically and in government. If you don't trust the government with domestic issues, then why would you trust them to send human lives to the other side of the world to get shot at? Again, you contradict yourself.

In reality, the "fear of freedom" is precisely what our current government has. Why else would the bother passing more laws to spy on it's citizens, curb the right to protest the government(see the document formerly known as The Bill Of Rights) and so on? How can the country with the largest prison population really call itself free? Soviet propaganda wasn't even that effective...

This country has serious problems, instead of placing blame (there's enough to go around for everyone) what are you doing to help it?

Wayne L.
01-26-2004, 11:46 AM
It doesn't matter whether you're a liberal or a conservative because politicians from both political parties are bought & paid for by the " evil " special interests as they say which is the mother's milk of politics " regardless " of their political rhetoric to the American people while George W. Bush will win re-election easily in November despite it being a close race against his Democratic challenger possibly Howard Dean or John Kerry no matter what the media polls say right now due to the war on terrorism after 9/11 but the Republicans & the Democrats are " already " bought & paid for by corporations & special interest groups which is why when Democratic presidential candidate Howard DEan " pretends " to be holier than thou about special interest money it's ridiculous.

Guitar Shark
01-26-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by FORD
More to the point, Dean is speaking of power to the people, not the corporations, and that resonates with sane people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Since when do you speak for sane people? ;)

FORD
01-26-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Since when do you speak for sane people? ;)

I'm reasonably sane most of the time. I'm just living in a world that's become bizarro-land in the last 3 years.

diamondD
01-26-2004, 08:45 PM
Have you thought about seeing a therapist for that? ;)

FORD
01-26-2004, 08:54 PM
I'll get all the therapy I need on November 2, watching the BCE crumble.

diamondD
01-26-2004, 09:18 PM
And Nov 3rd, a straitjacket will probably be in order.

FORD
01-26-2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
And Nov 3rd, a straitjacket will probably be in order.

Nope. If Junior is elected (God forbid) the only thing in order then will be either a passport or a civil war. Haven't decided which one yet, because it's not going to come to that.

Lincoln
01-27-2004, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by FORD
I'll get all the therapy I need on November 2, watching the BCE crumble.
How can you say that? I thought Diebold already guaranteed Bush victory.

Seshmeister
01-27-2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
kerry won't win. just on the fact that he's voted to cut intelligence spending throughout the 90's will do him in.

Bush increased intelligence spending...

Oh the irony...:D

Cheers!

:gulp:

ELVIS
01-27-2004, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Nope. If Junior is elected (God forbid) the only thing in order then will be either a passport or a civil war. Haven't decided which one yet, because it's not going to come to that.

You are full of crap... passport...:rolleyes:

John Ashcroft
01-27-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
What's up with blaming everything on Liberals? Sure the Dems up the spending every time one takes office, but Shrub has created the largest federal government expansion of the past few generations. You acknowledge that and defend him at the same time. You make no sense with your contradictions.

Oh, and we spend more on "defense", which should properly be called offense spending than any other country in the world. Has it made us safer? I suppose terrorists want to hit because of our "freedom". :rolleyes: Anyone that bites into that hook of propaganda, doesn't understand the way things work.

The only way to truly regain our freedom and bring safety is to ditch the imperial ambitions and restore democracy, economically and in government. If you don't trust the government with domestic issues, then why would you trust them to send human lives to the other side of the world to get shot at? Again, you contradict yourself.

In reality, the "fear of freedom" is precisely what our current government has. Why else would the bother passing more laws to spy on it's citizens, curb the right to protest the government(see the document formerly known as The Bill Of Rights) and so on? How can the country with the largest prison population really call itself free? Soviet propaganda wasn't even that effective...

This country has serious problems, instead of placing blame (there's enough to go around for everyone) what are you doing to help it?

Oh Sweetcheeks..., back for more?

Where to start, where to start...

OK, let's start with domestic spending. I'm absolutely no fan of Dubya's domestic spending. That's clear enough. I personally think that the less Government "helps" in domestic affairs, the better off the country is. And that goes for Democrat and Republican alike. I haven't defended Bush at all on domestic spending, and I'd ask you to show me where I have to support your "contradiction" argument.

Now, about blaming liberals. You keep bringing this silly little phrase up as some sort of "catch-all" trump. One liners certainly won't give whatever points you're trying to make any credence. In fact they do just the opposite. It illustrates just how devoid you are of valid arguments for your ideology.

But if I'm gonna take the rap, I might as well break it down for ya. 9/11 was most certainly a liberal's fault. If you choose to ignore all of the support for this argument that's your perogative. But serious people acknowledge that the Clinton administration did nothing to extinguish the building terrorist threat across the middle and far east. Osama himself said he was emboldened by our withdrawal from Somalia. Nothing was done after the first trade center bombing, the Kobar towers bombing, the embasy bombings, and the Cole bombing. Clinton gutted and nudered our intelligence gathering capability, and did his (or should I say "her") damndest to nuder the military. This is fact, which is not up for debate. This inaction when action was required, (and visa-versa) directly led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Now on to domestic policy. What exactly does our Constitution require of Federal government? If you don't know, you have no business arguing the role of government. It really doesn't matter what you "feel" the government should be doing in regards to social matters. Federal government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution. Anything not specified by the Constitution is to be left up to the states. If N.Y. wants to create unemployment benefits, and give them to New Yorkers for an indefinite period, that's New York's business! If Oklahoma want's to invest in local businesses through "corporate-welfare", so be it. The federal government is here to provide national defense (and we are the safest country on the planet, you sound incredibly foolish by implying otherwise), and to settle squabbles between states on trade issues. The Federal Judiciary is there simply to check the Constitutionality of any laws passed in any of the legislatures. If deemed unconstitutional, the law is stricken (not changed to their liking).

So, obviously neither of our parties have stuck to the Constitutional path in the role of federal government. However, some vote buying schemes passed in our wonderful Congress have been nothing short of cancerous to our society. Welfare for instance. A liberal staple. It "feels" so good to help these poor people with a gub'ment check, right? All the woes of society would be healed if there was just enough money to throw at it, right? Wrong. Welfare has a disasterous effect on people. All it's done has been to build a dependent class who will never see the fruits of hard work, and will never ever enjoy the benefits of being an American. They will be relegated to being in the lower class of our society forever (Oh.... That's right! You're a commie. There are no classes in a socialist society, and that's what your hoping to build here, right? :rolleyes: ).

And how about Social Security? We've had a little talk about this subject in the past. Have you forgotten? Remember that little Texas town that had the opportunity to manage their own retirement funds instead of letting the government do it? How'd that all work out? Oh, and where's our social security "trust fund"? And if social security's so damn great, how come our distinguished Congressmen and Senators don't partake?

In fact, I challenge you to offer a federal social program that has actually improved the situation of it's intended recipients. You libs (socialist, that is) always look to the government for all the answers, yet I'll bet you can't answer my question (honestly anyway...) But go ahead, give it a shot honey.

This is why I consider liberalism a failed ideology (or at least part of the reason. I don't really have time to go into all of it, but I'd be glad to respond to anything you have to bring to the table). I understand your angst (or is it panic?) here. Your ideology is being rejected by the American public, being relegated a back chapter of the history books (you know, back there with the other tenants of the Democratic party like segregation). No one takes your kind serious anymore, and it doesn't make you "feel" good. Not to mention that your ideology is based on a negative theme, jealousy. Didn't your joga instructor mention that basing your life on "negative energy" is a bad thing? Wishing the rich weren't rich won't improve your situation in life.

Pink Spider
01-28-2004, 02:29 AM
I'll make this short as to not give you the pleasure of wasting my time.

Your arguments are just silly and incredibly weak. You've proved yourself a fool once again. I have spoken out against socialism/corporate socialism through government several times in the past few months. You're either not very attentive or, perhaps you live in your own hateful misguided little world and somehow you missed my earlier comments on libertarianism.

When you're such a sheep to the system yourself, I would venture to gain that you're more of a socialist than I am. What is a forced dependence on military? Capitalism? Nope, more of your "big government" programs. I suppose the populace are incapable of defending themselves from foreign "threats"? Now, that your Republicans government is trying to take away our AK's...

Seriously, when you talk about socialism you don't really understand the meaning of the term. Instead you go into spasms of GOP propaganda. If you can't keep up, why bother?


[i]John Ashcroft
Oh Sweetcheeks..., back for more?

Where to start, where to start...

OK, let's start with domestic spending. I'm absolutely no fan of Dubya's domestic spending. That's clear enough. I personally think that the less Government "helps" in domestic affairs, the better off the country is. And that goes for Democrat and Republican alike. I haven't defended Bush at all on domestic spending, and I'd ask you to show me where I have to support your "contradiction" argument.

Now, about blaming liberals. You keep bringing this silly little phrase up as some sort of "catch-all" trump. One liners certainly won't give whatever points you're trying to make any credence. In fact they do just the opposite. It illustrates just how devoid you are of valid arguments for your ideology.


Now on to domestic policy. What exactly does our Constitution require of Federal government? If you don't know, you have no business arguing the role of government. It really doesn't matter what you "feel" the government should be doing in regards to social matters. Federal government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution. Anything not specified by the Constitution is to be left up to the states. If N.Y. wants to create unemployment benefits, and give them to New Yorkers for an indefinite period, that's New York's business! If Oklahoma want's to invest in local businesses through "corporate-welfare", so be it. The federal government is here to provide national defense (and we are the safest country on the planet, you sound incredibly foolish by implying otherwise), and to settle squabbles between states on trade issues. The Federal Judiciary is there simply to check the Constitutionality of any laws passed in any of the legislatures. If deemed unconstitutional, the law is stricken (not changed to their liking).

So, obviously neither of our parties have stuck to the Constitutional path in the role of federal government. However, some vote buying schemes passed in our wonderful Congress have been nothing short of cancerous to our society. Welfare for instance. A liberal staple. It "feels" so good to help these poor people with a gub'ment check, right? All the woes of society would be healed if there was just enough money to throw at it, right? Wrong. Welfare has a disasterous effect on people. All it's done has been to build a dependent class who will never see the fruits of hard work, and will never ever enjoy the benefits of being an American. They will be relegated to being in the lower class of our society forever (Oh.... That's right! You're a commie. There are no classes in a socialist society, and that's what your hoping to build here, right? ).

And how about Social Security? We've had a little talk about this subject in the past. Have you forgotten? Remember that little Texas town that had the opportunity to manage their own retirement funds instead of letting the government do it? How'd that all work out? Oh, and where's our social security "trust fund"? And if social security's so damn great, how come our distinguished Congressmen and Senators don't partake?

In fact, I challenge you to offer a federal social program that has actually improved the situation of it's intended recipients. You libs (socialist, that is) always look to the government for all the answers, yet I'll bet you can't answer my question (honestly anyway...) But go ahead, give it a shot honey.

This is why I consider liberalism a failed ideology (or at least part of the reason. I don't really have time to go into all of it, but I'd be glad to respond to anything you have to bring to the table). I understand your angst (or is it panic?) here. Your ideology is being rejected by the American public, being relegated a back chapter of the history books (you know, back there with the other tenants of the Democratic party like segregation). No one takes your kind serious anymore, and it doesn't make you "feel" good. Not to mention that your ideology is based on a negative theme, jealousy. Didn't your joga instructor mention that basing your life on "negative energy" is a bad thing? Wishing the rich weren't rich won't improve your situation in life.[/B]

ELVIS
01-28-2004, 03:49 AM
Pink.. are you related to FORD ??

John Ashcroft
01-28-2004, 09:13 AM
Heh heh heh... I misspelled Yoga in my typing tyrade. Maybe I am the fool!

Notice she never really refutes my points? She just resorts to the name calling (I.E. hateful sheep), and considers that an intelligent rebuttal. Maybe it's Ford's sister?

BigBadBrian
01-28-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
I'll make this short as to not give you the pleasure of wasting my time.



That never stopped your incoherent babbling before. :gulp:

Dr. Love
01-28-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh... I misspelled Yoga in my typing tyrade. Maybe I am the fool!

Don't feel bad, man... it's really nothing compared to the number of times you misspelled "neutered". ;)

John Ashcroft
01-28-2004, 02:02 PM
I prefer "nutered"... Or is that "denutered" :confused:

FORD
01-28-2004, 03:09 PM
You messed up "tirade" too.

John Ashcroft
01-28-2004, 03:34 PM
Man I suck...

Pink Spider
01-28-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Notice she never really refutes my points

What points?

John Ashcroft
01-28-2004, 09:27 PM
OK then honey, back to the kitchen with you... Move along now...

Dr. Love
01-28-2004, 09:57 PM
heh

Pink Spider
01-29-2004, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
OK then honey, back to the kitchen with you... Move along now...

Yeah, back to your cave.

The sad thing is that I probably make more than you. :D

diamondD
01-29-2004, 08:53 AM
And you base that statement on what?

John Ashcroft
01-29-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
Yeah, back to your cave.

The sad thing is that I probably make more than you. :D

Make more pie? ;)

Figs
11-03-2004, 02:54 PM
All right, I'll make it easy for you. God knows you're fucking trying. Are you gonna do the job? It's not a difficult question, are you gonna do the job, yes or no?