[quote]rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He’s too liberal.
What’s your basis for this?
He’s a democrat that recieved a standing ovation at the DNC.
Pretty much ANYONE that gets that type of reception that the National Convention is a liberal (see M. Moore’s reception at the same convention).[/quote]
Please tell me that you’re kidding. Is that seriously your entire basis for saying he is “too liberal”?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Please tell me that you’re kidding.[/quote]
Why?
Look at the political landscape outside the metro areas. The dems have made a decided left turn at the exact same time most of america is turning right.
It is the Party of M. Moore. It is the Party of Barbara Streisand. It is now the Party Howard Dean. And you think I’m jumping to some sort of ill-based conclusion? Prove me wrong.
I think rainjack means “he’s a liberal” when he says “he’s too liberal”…
I mean “he’s too liberal to get elected”
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1!!!
Not sure W. gives much of a shit what his approval rating is right now.
As usual, (love him, or POX him) he’s doing just exactly what he campaigned on.
That was a very clever graphic, my friend!!!
Wanted to tell you that I skipped over the copy of F911 at the local video store in favor of something more enlightening (Porn).
JeffR
[/quote]
Well, at least you admit that bush doesn’t give a shit about americans, that’s why I didn’t vote for him as I mentioned, and actually I think he’s polling bad because he’s not doing what he campaigned on—actually the opposite, again no suprise–the key is piss on the voters for 3 years and then spend 1 year terrifying them with lies and the consequences of their own blundering, insert a dash of gay phobia, and they should keep winning.
Oh wait, your front runner now is Bill “nutjob” Frist? or Rick “mandog” Santorum? oh, then Hillary’s gonna win. But don’t worry Jeff, I’m sure Paris Hilton will get a few more tax breaks from the S.S. trust fund before that happens—I know you’re scared to death of what will happen to America’s hardest workers, the children of the ridiculously wealthy. I can’t wait to work even harder to pay off the loans for all of those taxcuts, because for the 6 million jobs it created it was worth it! What? It didn’t create jobs like Bush said? Damn you Bush! You got me again! One thing’s for sure with Bush’s track record and deft skills at Arbusto Energy and Harken, I’m sure we’ll be fine, I mean he’ll be fine, we’re screwed, but he’ll be fine.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Well, at least you admit that bush doesn’t give a shit about americans, that’s why I didn’t vote for him as I mentioned, and actually I think he’s polling bad because he’s not doing what he campaigned on—actually the opposite, again no suprise–the key is piss on the voters for 3 years and then spend 1 year terrifying them with lies and the consequences of their own blundering, insert a dash of gay phobia, and they should keep winning.[/quote]
I give you yet more proof that the left is still living in the Clinton era of focus groups, and “Wag the Dog”. He’s doing exactly what he campaigned on: WOT, Soc Sec reform, etc. But you want him to kiss the ass of the almighty poll. He didn’t campaign on kissing your ass, or anyone else’s for that matter.
…And it’s only May 2005. What kind of lather will the ABBer’s be in in 3 1/2 years.
Tell me another one 100M - this shit is just too funny. Hilary? President? Let’s make a bet right now - c’mon - I dare you. Stand behind the rhetoric that spews out of your mouth like a bad DNC pamphlet.
I triple-dog-dare you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Please tell me that you’re kidding.
Why?
[/quote]
Because getting an ovation at the DNC is clearly not enough to label someone as being too liberal. Bill Clinton got an ovation at the DNC. He is obviously not too liberal to get elected. To suggest this either means you are kidding, or are willfully ignorant. I hope the former.
So in other words your position is that anyone that is affiliated with the Democratic party is too liberal? Am I getting that right? Clearly that’s not true, because last year more Americans voted for Democrat senators than Republican senators, and a Democrat came within a couple hundred thousand votes of being President of the United States. Those facts alone seem to indicate that your position is wrong.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
So in other words your position is that anyone that is affiliated with the Democratic party is too liberal? Am I getting that right? Clearly that’s not true, because last year more Americans voted for Democrat senators than Republican senators, and a Democrat came within a couple hundred thousand votes of being President of the United States. Those facts alone seem to indicate that your position is wrong.[/quote]
The republicans won the Whitehouse - again. The republicans gained seats in the House - again. If I’m not mistaken, the Republicans gained seats in the Senate - again.
Your point was…?
lumpy/100meters,
Hey, I give you credit for consistency.
Poor guy!!! Lost the election, changed his name. He’s just completely unhinged!!
Anyway, I think the early front-runners for our next President would by Rudy, Condi, JohnMc.
I’d love to see my dream candidate, Arnold!!!
Most everyone knew that Kerry was going to lose. You guys made all sorts of noise, CNN slobbered, the New York Times acted hysterical, and CBS made shit up.
In the end, Kerry got smacked around.
It would be UNBELIEVABLE to see Arnold run!!!
I’d love to see your side’s counter to him!!!
“He’s a womanizer!!!” I’d freakin’ love to see this from the party of Clinton!!!
Or Condi for that matter. What are you twits going to say? She can’t “pronounce nuclear.” HAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!! She has more academic achievements than anyone!!!
Either way. It’s a win.
Have a pleasant four years!!!
JeffR
These political debates are always amusing. People resorting to personal attacks, defending their party or candidate, as if either is different from the other.
Oh, but don’t let me stop you all. These threads are fun to read! 
Dustin
(Knowing exactly who will be the first to respond to my post)
Moore-iarty wrote:
“So in other words your position is that anyone that is affiliated with the Democratic party is too liberal?”
Except Joe Lieberman. That’s why you defeated him.
“Am I getting that right?”
Yep.
“Clearly that’s not true, because last year more Americans voted for Democrat senators than Republican senators,”
That is so lame!!! See Senate Composition.
Anyway, it’s a loser’s refrain. Tell me, is more total votes for Senators equal control of Congress?
“and a Democrat came within a couple hundred thousand votes of being President of the United States.”
THAT IS GREAT!!! What was it? 3,500,000? Couple hundred thousand?
Or are you saying Ohio?
I’d say that a hundred thousand votes are more impressive in one state.
It’s called gameplanning!!! Allocating resources where they are needed to win.
“Those facts alone seem to indicate that your position is wrong.”
I’ll ask the question for you Moore-iarty: How many people here think Moriarity is a moderate Democrat?
JeffR
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
wow, imagine that the guy’s own web page would say postitive things about him.
Imagine that, his website plays up silly things like being editor of the Harvard Law Review. Just like a personal website to try and color such a credential as being something positive.[/quote]
Not at all–there’s nothing wrong with a personal web site playing up anything positive, and editing the HLR is certainly praiseworthy.
I was just musing on the possibility of finding something a little less obvious as the basis for deciding whether to bow before him or not.
As for Obama,
I don’t think he will be viable in 2008. He reminds me a lot of John Edwards and I am afraid he will exposed as a policy lightweight. A term in the Senate can be used against you, as we saw in 04.
I think he is an interesting guy, but I suspect that his time will come later rather than sooner. His resume, while not umimpressive, reads not all that different from any other garden variety Senator. At that level, they are all pretty damn impressive, be they liberal or conservative - they are US Senators, after all.
As for his route - governors get much more respect. I think Obama should run for Illinois governor if he is truly interested in the Presidency. He lacks executive gravitas and he will need to manufacture some with experience.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Clearly that’s not true, because last year more Americans voted for Democrat senators than Republican senators,”
That is so lame!!! See Senate Composition.
[/quote]
It’s not lame at all. You and RainJack are claiming that being a democrat automatically makes one too liberal to win a presidential election. That is clearly not true. The fact that more people voted democrat and republican in the last Senate elections shows there is still a very huge democratic base in this country, on par or larger than the republican base, that could indeed elect a democratic candidate.
Not too hard to follow huh?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The republicans won the Whitehouse - again. The republicans gained seats in the House - again. If I’m not mistaken, the Republicans gained seats in the Senate - again.
Your point was…?[/quote]
My point is that being a democrat does not instantly preclude one from being elected president of the united states for being “too liberal”. All the data supports my claim. None supports yours.
Clear enough for you?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ll ask the question for you Moore-iarty: How many people here think Moriarity is a moderate Democrat?
[/quote]
You should’ve started a seperate thread for this, but let’s do it here.
Ok everyone, no looking back at my posting history.
Everyone who thinks that I:
cast your votes. Then we’ll go back to my posting history and see who’s got it right.
JeffR and RainJack:
Bill Clinton got an ovation at the DNC.
You are proposing that anyone that gets an ovation at the DNC is too liberal to be elected President.
Is Bill Clinton too liberal to be elected President?
They are getting hung up on nitwit talking points Moriarty, might as well call it a day until they bother to actually think about what they are saying…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Obama smells of youth and inexperience. If the dems place him in the national spot light to early he will melt like so much wax under a hot light.
Obama has one of the most impressive resumes to date, especially at the age of, I believe, only 44. Young? Yes. Inexperienced? No. I think the man knows exactly what he is getting into. He wouldn’t have made it that far if he didn’t. You simply haven’t heard any dirt on him…so you discredit him right off? Interesting.[/quote]
Professor:
I take nothing away from the guy. He is agressive and a very good communicator. However, if you take a good look at him physically I think he looks like a kid. That tends to play into the hands of those who say he is to young. I also think he needs more experience. Having a good resume at 44 is not like having a good resume at 55.
Just because John Kennedy was elected to the Presidency at the tender age of 43 with a limited resume, does not mean that it’s easy to do. As previously stated if it were easy to get elected as a Senator at a young age others would have accomplished that by now.
In 10 or 15 years he may be very influential. for now he’s just not ready and pushing him to the national spotlight to soon could have a damaging effect for him in the long run, especially if he shoots from the hip.
Again, I take nothing away from this rising young democrat, but he’s just not ready, sorry Prof!
[quote]Dustin wrote:
These political debates are always amusing. People resorting to personal attacks, defending their party or candidate, as if either is different from the other.
Oh, but don’t let me stop you all. These threads are fun to read!
Dustin
(Knowing exactly who will be the first to respond to my post)[/quote]
Bet you didn’t think it would be me? Hahahahahahaha! ahh well just playin.
V