It’s just a big, freakin, e-Bloom County. And I call dibs on Steve Dallas.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Again, I take nothing away from this rising young democrat, but he’s just not ready, sorry Prof!
[/quote]
Opinions are like assholes. Unless you can predict the future, none of you have said anything that I needed to waste my time reading. Moriarty isn’t even “liberal” and he is noticing the personal attacks that most of you resort to if someone doesn’t fall in line immediately with what many “conservatives” on this site think should be said. Cream’s little “what about him is impressive” wasn’t misunderstood either. If this is the color of “conservative” emotion in this country, society has no choice but to experience a swing in the opposite direction soon enough. It is the nature of society and has nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative”.
Anyone still hung up on Kerry is an idiot. That is all that needs to be said on that. Anyone still yelling out “have a great 4 years!!!” even though half a year has passed and the elections were long enough ago to not be in any headlines also is missing a few things.
All I have gathered from this post and others is that you have many in this country who will excuse Bin Laden escaping capture and will not blame the administration…but as soon as he is caught, they want to give all credit to the administration. Something just doesn’t sound right. There are men and women sleeping in tents tonight that need the focus, love, prayers, admiration, and attention that many fools in this country are throwing at one extremely rich individual who has lived a life devoid of ever knowing the inside of a tent outside of a sleepover. Needless to say, I am amazed. Peace.
My respect goes to the soldiers. 'Nuff said.
[quote]vroom wrote:
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]
careful with the "they"s there vroom…makes you almost sound like you’re taking sides.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Opinions are like assholes.
[/quote]
So are Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
Admit it - you laughed just a little.
I tend to agree that for a Dem to win, it will need to be a gov. particularly if the dems continue their antics in Congress. I don’t mean for this conversation (if you can call it that) to be about the Senate rules or Delay. It is my opinion that we have elected mostly governers (recently) for two reasons :
-
Gov.s control the executive branch of the state so they have experience where it counts. Senators may have staffs but it is not the same.
-
A gov. can run with a party’s backing and claim that they are different. Bush, Clinton, Ronnie, Carter… they all were able to run on the idea that they weren’t “tainted” by the Beltway.
BTW I don’t think that Obama is seen as a heavyweight yet…I don’t think that he can mount a good campaign for the lowest of reasons…money. Hillary, Kerry, etc are already stacking thier coffers.
As for the Republicans, I don’t think Condi will go for it (too many lacking areas, like campaign experience), Mc will be too old (72?), Mitt Romney (sp?) is a prime player (He’s a repub gov. that won in Mass.) but I really have no idea. I do think Cheney would be cool (I just think it would piss so many off the political season would be fun). I would like to see a Condi/Hilary card (go Condi…) or a Condi/Obama card that would guarantee something interesting.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
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[/quote]
When did I change my name? Still don’t get that one? How would the liberal canidates that you mentioned fair in the primary—not well, I would think, since most would be running on ideas that got Kerry un-elected, all pro-choice, pro-gay, etc. Plus Hillary would topple those mentioned. Arnold is now as popular as the gov. before him–not to mention, he can’t run. Condi said she won’t run. I’m sure if she did run liberals would be happy to point out her perjury before the 9/11 commission, her failure as NSA, her constant lies—you know the mushroom cloud, the aluminum tubes.
I think a better strategy is getting unexperienced, unskilled, nobody-- like Bush, somebody with a silver spoon in his mouth, somebody who’ll talk the talk, and be just dumb enough to do the GOP’s bidding, and then get Rove to scare the crap out of the handful of people that are scared about stem-cells (but not about in vitro fert.) and gay’s getting married (still not doing anything to my marriage here in mass.)and you got yourself 4 more years of even bigger GOP government JeffR! If a lifetime loser like W. can beat on ol’ McCain in a primary(with lies of course) why run McCain, or Arnie, or Condi?
"Moriarty wrote:
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?"
Unless of course you have state lines and limits to the number of Senators from each state.
You have California and then there is Alaska. Two senators from each.
In that scenario a deep azure blue state (yours) doesn’t exactly trump a faint pink state (Alaska).
Not too hard to follow, huh?
JeffR
POX wrote:
“Opinions are like assholes. Unless you can predict the future, none of you have said anything that I needed to waste my time reading.”
POX can’t be bothered to read your posts. I’ll bet this guy is fun in person.
“Moriarty isn’t even “liberal” and he is noticing the personal attacks that most of you resort to if someone doesn’t fall in line immediately with what many “conservatives” on this site think should be said. Cream’s little “what about him is impressive” wasn’t misunderstood either. If this is the color of “conservative” emotion in this country, society has no choice but to experience a swing in the opposite direction soon enough. It is the nature of society and has nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative”.”
We’ll see.
“Anyone still hung up on Kerry is an idiot.”
Nice guy.
“That is all that needs to be said on that.”
Thanks.
“Anyone still yelling out “have a great 4 years!!!” even though half a year has passed and the elections were long enough ago to not be in any headlines also is missing a few things.”
No shit!!! Who in the hell would enjoy getting POX riled up?
Wait, that’s me!!!
“All I have gathered from this post and others is that you have many in this country who will excuse Bin Laden escaping capture and will not blame the administration…but as soon as he is caught, they want to give all credit to the administration.”
Has anyone done this?
“Something just doesn’t sound right. There are men and women sleeping in tents tonight that need the focus, love, prayers, admiration, and attention that many fools in this country are throwing at one extremely rich individual who has lived a life devoid of ever knowing the inside of a tent outside of a sleepover. Needless to say, I am amazed. Peace.”
Unbelievable. George W. Bush had no trials and tribulations in his life.
Anyone who suffers and recovers from alcoholism, or who flies fighter planes in the guard, or who steps out of the shadow of a great man, remember POX doesn’t think you have done a damn thing.
Great compassion, doc.
“My respect goes to the soldiers. 'Nuff said.”
Great.
JeffR
[quote]Cream wrote:
Kerry has an approval rating of 0% as president of the United States.
The sun is shining, ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH (in case anybody forgets, rsu pussied out of his vow to Jeff to change his name if W won re-election).
[/quote]
And who might you be? I don’t remember you pre-election either because you didn’t post under the handle “cream” or because you had nothing interesting to say…which is it? If it’s the former, who did you used to be?
To say I pussied out would be false. I simply had no reason or impetus to post any longer after the election…it was a trying time for those of us who were tired of treading in Bushit.
[quote]Cream wrote:
Kerry has an approval rating of 0% as president of the United States.
[/quote]
Oh, and while this is a clever retort, you post it only to avoid actually answering my question. Once you answer, we can then determine how many Americans are kicking themselves for punching his name that day.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
"Moriarty wrote:
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?"
Unless of course you have state lines and limits to the number of Senators from each state.
You have California and then there is Alaska. Two senators from each.
In that scenario a deep azure blue state (yours) doesn’t exactly trump a faint pink state (Alaska).
Not too hard to follow, huh?
JeffR
[/quote]
-
You and RJ have stated that being a democrat automatically makes one “too liberal” to become President. Your argument is that it would be impossible for a Dem to get elected.
-
I’ve shown you that voting trends have show this country has a huge democratic numbers; numbers sufficient to elect a Democrat to POTUS given a good candidate. That was my only point in bringing up the Senate point. Pointing out that Alaska is different from California does nothing to disprove my point. In order to make a claim that a Dem can’t possibly win an election, you need to show me that the republican party is twice as large as the democratic party in this country. The senate numbers prove that wrong.
-
You and RJ have shown nothing to prove your argument, except that a republican won last time.
-
You still haven’t answered my Clinton question. I’m sure that if you did try to answer it, you wouldn’t answer the question asked, but instead attack Clinton for something irrelevant to this discussion.
Got another question for you. You, and other Conservatives, have claimed that John Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate, even more liberal than Kennedy. If that’s true, and America can’t stand liberals, than one would expect John Kerry to get demolished in the election, but instead it was one of the slimmest margins of re-election in history. What’s going on here? I mean, this guy was more liberal than TED KENNEDY for christ’s sake! Thank god the 10th most liberal guy didn’t run.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Cream wrote:
Kerry has an approval rating of 0% as president of the United States.
Oh, and while this is a clever retort, you post it only to avoid actually answering my question. Once you answer, we can then determine how many Americans are kicking themselves for punching his name that day.[/quote]
Not that I amsupporting the left wing here
His approval was at 47% 2 days ago. I know you knew the answer or you wouldn’t have asked the question. You’re not as dumb as OJ’s prosecutors–or are you.
It pains me to back up Jeff–but way to much blame is being put on GW. I believe hiom to be a man of character, I realize this will not be the case of everyone.
Sit and think about this one minute–
Would the President of the U.S. and his administration really take us into a war that they didn’t believe was necessary given the available info at the time? Remember 98 senators agreed–at the time.
I know you want to believe the guy is anidiot, but that is truly a mistake.
I will agree he doesn’t command the stage like Clinton or even Reagan, but he is not stupid, and he doesn’t have the ability to put the U>S> in the position it is in without full congrssional and senate support. Now that it hasn’t gone perfect everyone wants to critique. Not fair I say!
At this point. let’s support the troops and hope everyone gets home safe. For those that haven’t, and for those that won’t–God bless you and Thank you. For you and you alone know the ultimate sacrifice.
[quote]
Sit and think about this one minute–
Would the President of the U.S. and his administration really take us into a war that they didn’t believe was necessary given the available info at the time?[/quote]
Yes I do. I hope you do not trust ‘regular’ people so easily. Naivety is most dangerous my friend.
If you have the chance, watch tony blair speak and you will realize that our president is denser than lead.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
Sit and think about this one minute–
Would the President of the U.S. and his administration really take us into a war that they didn’t believe was necessary given the available info at the time?
Yes I do. I hope you do not trust ‘regular’ people so easily. Naivety is most dangerous my friend.
I know you want to believe the guy is anidiot, but that is truly a mistake.
If you have the chance, watch tony blair speak and you will realize that our president is denser than lead.
[/quote]
But you offer no substance! I’m sorry, but yes he is doesn’t cut it for me.
Naive is not a word often associated with me. Because of your lack of evidence, I throw you in with the rest of the Gw haters for no other reason than someone has talked you into it.
The President can’t pass a bill in his own country without approval from congress, what honestly makes you believe that he and he alone decided–'hey I think I’ll go to war today for all my oil buddies."
You guys are clowns. Wannabe protesters from the 60s with nothing of substance. How old are you? Have you looked at evidence objectively and with an open mind, or do you just want to jump on the peace train?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
oboffill wrote:
Sit and think about this one minute–
Would the President of the U.S. and his administration really take us into a war that they didn’t believe was necessary given the available info at the time?
Yes I do. I hope you do not trust ‘regular’ people so easily. Naivety is most dangerous my friend.
I know you want to believe the guy is anidiot, but that is truly a mistake.
If you have the chance, watch tony blair speak and you will realize that our president is denser than lead.
But you offer no substance! I’m sorry, but yes he is doesn’t cut it for me.
Naive is not a word often associated with me. Because of your lack of evidence, I throw you in with the rest of the Gw haters for no other reason than someone has talked you into it.
The President can’t pass a bill in his own country without approval from congress, what honestly makes you believe that he and he alone decided–'hey I think I’ll go to war today for all my oil buddies."
You guys are clowns. Wannabe protesters from the 60s with nothing of substance. How old are you? Have you looked at evidence objectively and with an open mind, or do you just want to jump on the peace train?[/quote]
Sasquatch, I have no desire what so ever to fit into any group period. My feelings on this administration and this war are from my own deep seated convictions and ability to look at the information and make my own decisions.
If (as you say, I don’t give a damn about him) my beloved Bill Clinton would have drug us into this war, I would feel the same way! Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a wanna be hippy? You won’t concede that we have our own brains to look at the situation and make our own assessment?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
- You and RJ have stated that being a democrat automatically makes one “too liberal” to become President. Your argument is that it would be impossible for a Dem to get elected.[/quote]
No democratic candidate has gotten a straight majority of the vote (50%+1)since - what - Kennedy? Clinton never got above 47 or 48 - even against Bob Dole. Clinton was the master at running from the center.
Did I say impossible? If so, that is my opinion, but I think I just said that a dem won’t win - not impossible, just my firm belief that the country has made a right turn.
There may be ‘huge’ democratic numbers, but look at the concentration of these ‘huge’ numbers. NYC, Miami-Dade, Chicago, and the California coast. They are too concentrated in too small an area to make the statement that the country is evenly divided. On the overall vote - maybe.
But the best that can do is ensure that some congressmen are elected with huge majorities. Because of the electoral college, these concentrations of democrats do little to sway the election.
You are making the same mistake that the dems have made since 1994 - you ignore flyover country. That’s where most of the Senators reside. That’s where the electoral votes reside as well.
There may be ‘huge’ dem numbers, but there are not near as many as there were in the last 30 years.
I guess the true test will come next November. My wager is that the balance of power will be tipped even further to the right.
I think I just did. Voters don’t want a left-winger in the Whitehouse. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis(sp),Kerry. All losers. All proud of their liberalness. Clinton was the only one to run from the center - and he won.
Certainly not Elk.
That is why I quoted Obo. It was for him and those who think like him. He has offered nothing of substance to the argument. Just his opinion.
I respect his right to give his opinion as I respect mine to disagree.
You are a different animal all together. You have offered much insight and thought. It happens to be wrong, but I appreciate the effort. Independant thought seperates us from JeffR and Cream.
I jest, of course, about being wrong. As I’ve stated in previous threads, differing opinions, given the same information is OK. Quite honestly its how it should be. Being able to discuss how we disseminate this info is what seperates adults from the chidish antics of strictly name calling.
I don’t claim to be omnipotent here. I do believe that the war doesn’t fall in one mans’ hands. We went to war as a nation on what most believed to be fact at the time. Has it gone perfect–hell no. Can we stop now–hell no.
We can pray for our brothers in arms and wish them Godspeed. It helps noone and changes nothing to affix blame. To throw out adjectives such as stupid, drug addict, bad businesman does not bolster the argument. If he did something wrong or illegal–prove it. Show me.
I’m on this site to learn, not just give/take opinions. Opinions are like assh****…
Until someone can prove to me this was a one man snowjob, I’ll just continue to believe that it was the consensous at the time and now that it hasn’t gone pefect it has gotten all political
Sasquatch, fair enough. I like your style of discourse. Goodnight, I’ve gotta get some Z’s.
Prof wrote: “Opinions are like assholes.”
Well…I’m sure glad you shed some light on that topic. I thank you for your deep insight 
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Sasquatch, fair enough. I like your style of discourse. Goodnight, I’ve gotta get some Z’s. [/quote]
Yet you fight just like me. C’mon, elk - face it - you are bizarro rainjack.