vroom:
Exactly what line in the above post seems immature to you?
Whereas, I think calling people “retards” as you have done on another thread places you perhaps only several rungs over RSU. Not good my friend!
RSU,
Nader is out-of-step with the American populace - that’s why he’s always looking through the window where the party is without an invite.
He is a fringe candidate, and always will be.
American isn’t interested in his ‘socialism-lite’ message. You can see how Kerry clings to the middle, knowing if he drifts into the 'abolish the electoral college/living wage, etc." message, it costs him votes.
Nader brings a few interesting things to the table, but no one can seriously consider a man like Nader to sit in the Oval Office and make decisions on war and peace.
He might have a shot at a city council position in San Francisco - occupying a seat one held by Washington, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts? The scenario shouldn’t even enter a reasonable man’s head.
Would Nader clobber Bush in a debate? Doubtful. Nader didn’t even look great against Howard Dean. Nader is an effeminate whiner - he has no gravitas. Bush’s bluntspeak would be quite a contrast to Nader’s postmodern apologism. Face facts, America wants a man with at least some hint of testosterone in office.
There is not a more unqualified man in the race to lead the American people than hippie-dippie Ralph Nader.
RSU,
“Seriously ZEB? Your tax cut was SO BIG that you could actually allocate A PORTION of it to put toward “yet another” business? If so, must be nice. Who will you hire in your new business, though? Will they be someone who is currently poor and received jack shit from the Bush tax cuts? Cause that’s the only way your point comes close to holding water.”
Can’t speak for Zeb, but a new business spends new money on all sort of new stuff that new employees will have to make. Every person you lament as being ‘poor’ needs a person like Zeb to keep starting and growing businesses - where else are they gonna work?
And if Zeb hires qualified white-collar types instead of low-skilled employees, shouldn’t you be thanking Zeb for starting a domestic business when all these ‘good jobs’ are being outsourced?
And RSU - you’re in school, right? You should thank Zeb - college graduates have had a hard time finding jobs in the past several years. A guy like Zeb might give a guy like you a job.
Zeb may hire one other person - but that’s one person who nows has a job and will spend money, creating velocity in the economy. And consider Zeb is not the only one.
Trust me when I say a small-business owner who gives a few people a job does more for their community and nation’s welfare than hours and hours of coffee-house rhetoric whining about how tax cuts are unfair to the proletarians.
I actually have mixed opinions about tax cuts during wartime, but more money in the hands of consumers and business owners is rarely a bad thing.
Zeb, I don’t have to limit an analysis to one post in order to determine whether or not you have been acting like a child. Where do you come up with these cockamamy rules?
You are acting like a schoolyard bully, except that instead of trying to bully via strength you are using age and supposed wordly wisdom. Why don’t you simply use all that wisdom to make sound arguments that all of us can be the judge of ourselves?
I’m saying that when people fly off the handle, which we all do at times, myself included certainly, the whole forum sees it pretty clearly.
You are painting yourself with the same brush you are trying paint RSU. Now, from my point of view, I’ve had my say on the matter, so I won’t bother you about it anymore. Paint away with any brush in your arsenal.
Gentlemen, I’d like to take up a question that was raised earlier but apparently dropped: The terms on which the debate was conducted. Let’s talk about this.
It seems to me that a good leader is one who knows how to rule, and that if one knows how to rule, one has to be able to give an account of what it means to be a good leader in a particular practical context.
It seems to me that Bush has demonstrated, by refusing the Kerry campaign’s request to have an open-floor debate, that he is not able to give an account of why he is a good leader for our nation - that he is not a good leader.
At this point, I do not see how any thinking man who thinks that our nation should be led by a man who knows how to lead could vote for anyone but John Kerry.
vroom:
By your own logic then you are acting like a child by commenting on my post, which was originally not even addressed to you!
If you think that I am acting childish, as you claim, then why not take the advice that you gave me about RSU, or do you get to operate under a different set of rules?
You are commenting on my posts because you think they are immature. I am commenting on RSU’s posts because I think they are immature, (among other things). If you think that I am acting childish, then why not take your own advice?
Then again, calling people "retards,"as you have done, while at the same time attempting to pass yourself off as mature, seems a bit hypocrytical.
Ross,
Thanks for your input.
Maybe W. should challenge Kerry to a mile race.
W. would win by about 2 minutes.
When Kerry refused, then he would be disqualified from running for President.
Great thinking (Your debate format determines your fitness to be a President)!!!
Sorry, man, but someone who calls the Iraq War “the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place” and calls our coalition “The coalition of the bribed and coerced” cannot be given control over the conflict.
Can’t wait to hear your excuses on November 2nd!!!
JeffR
This quote deserves more attention.
“the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place”
If you truly thought so, Mr. Kerry, then you shouldn’t have voted for it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This quote deserves more attention.
“the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place”
If you truly thought so, Mr. Kerry, then you shouldn’t have voted for it.[/quote]
Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al. had us all convinced, though, didn’t they?
They promised he had and would use WMDs and they were wrong.
Pic: Another grimace from Slouchy.
There is absolutely zero proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest members of society will result in job creation… zero proof.
As far as Nader being a “fringe” candidate, remember that only about 30% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans… hardly a majority. Nader should run for the Senate or another office. If he wants to run for president, he shouldn’t wait until a few months before the election, he should have started campaigning and building a coalition 2 years ago. The way he is running, he comes across as a spoiler.
Back to the debates… anybody notice that Bush said “Let me finish!” during the middle of one of his answers?
Kind of weird considering that
- Nobody else had said anything to interrupt him.
- He still had a “green light” ands plenty of time left.
Maybe he had a bug in his ear, feeding him answers? Who knows, stranger things have happened!
Maybe that explains Dubya’s shitty performance? It’s gotta be hard to talk and listen at the same time.
Bush embarrassed himself. Someone described Bush as having 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate.
Or, as George Bush would say, “uhh”.
Lets see how Cheney does on Tuesday with the vice-presidential debates. Will Cheney do better than Bush, and manage to stand up straight? Will he have another heart attack? Cheney is a notorius scowler and grumpus who scares children and old ladies. Will he wear the Darth Vader helmet? How will Cheney’s perpetually bad mood compare with Edwards’ sunny disposition? Will Edwards drop the H-Bomb (Halliburton)?
“Will he wear the Darth Vader helmet?”
That was cute, lumpy. Maybe they’ll make his podium out of human skulls, too? It’ll be easier for him to stand up straight that way, I’m sure.
I’ve been lurking in the various threads on the Political Forum for a few days now, and I have to admit that y’all are some vitriolic mofos. It’s like crips vs. bloods or something… I feel like I’ve landed in the middle of gangland warfare! I had no idea that everybody got so fired up about this stuff. It’s funny, because I thought that only religious threads got so ugly, but I guess that politics does it, too.
Maybe I’m so amazed because American politics seems so obvious. It’s like an old bit by the late great Bill Hicks:
“Ya know, the puppet on the right hand really seems to speak my language.”
“No way man, I can really identify more with the puppet on the left hand.”
“Waitaminute! The same guy is holding both puppets!”
And really, who thinks that adding another puppet like Ralph Nader is going to do any good? It’ll still be the same bowl of ice cream with a different topping.
Is anybody besides me wondering when we’re just gonna drop the pretenses and declare dominion over the entire world? Let’s call it Manifest Destiny and just annex the rest of all the land masses. I mean, we invaded another country to “free” it from tyranny, right? I say we go the rest of the way, man! Seriously now, how long are we going to suffer other nations to have a different form of government from our own? And I don’t think we need a good reason like terrorism or whatever. I say just do it. Hell, I’ll make a deal with the military right now: if you promise me that we are going to take over the world, then I will gladly lay down my life in the pursuit of our common goal. Where do I sign? And no, this is not sarcasm. I think that’s the only way I would ever want to join the military. Armies are supposed to conquer, not to protect. I think that’s why that Kerry guy is talking about the Iraq situation being a “quagmire”. We declared victory too soon, and made ourselves unwelcome “peacekeepers”. What a crappy job to have! I completely feel for anybody in our armed forces over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Anyway, there was no point to my ramblings, I guess, because I think that both parties are full of sh!t, and maybe somehow that’s a good thing. It has to be, because it’s working, whether or not any of y’all think we could be doing better as a nation, it still doesn’t change the fact that we are the biggest badasses on the planet, and it wasn’t luck that it turned out that way.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Pic: Another grimace from Slouchy.
There is absolutely zero proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest members of society will result in job creation… zero proof.
As far as Nader being a “fringe” candidate, remember that only about 30% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans… hardly a majority. Nader should run for the Senate or another office. If he wants to run for president, he shouldn’t wait until a few months before the election, he should have started campaigning and building a coalition 2 years ago. The way he is running, he comes across as a spoiler.
Back to the debates… anybody notice that Bush said “Let me finish!” during the middle of one of his answers?
Kind of weird considering that
- Nobody else had said anything to interrupt him.
- He still had a “green light” ands plenty of time left.
Maybe he had a bug in his ear, feeding him answers? Who knows, stranger things have happened!
Maybe that explains Dubya’s shitty performance? It’s gotta be hard to talk and listen at the same time.
Bush embarrassed himself. Someone described Bush as having 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate.
Or, as George Bush would say, “uhh”.
Lets see how Cheney does on Tuesday with the vice-presidential debates. Will Cheney do better than Bush, and manage to stand up straight? Will he have another heart attack? Cheney is a notorius scowler and grumpus who scares children and old ladies. Will he wear the Darth Vader helmet? How will Cheney’s perpetually bad mood compare with Edwards’ sunny disposition? Will Edwards drop the H-Bomb (Halliburton)?[/quote]
Lumpy:
First of all everyone got a tax cut! You forgot that huh? If one person made 10 times more in one year than another person his tax cut should be larger. Fair enough?
Secondly, I hate to use an old cliche, but I have never seen a poor person hire anyone! Does this make sense to you? If there is more money in the hands of people (all people) there is a better opportunity for business growth. There is also more opportunity for a larger tax base!
How is fleecing the citizens by over taxation good for the economy. Perhaps in the short run you can pay down the deficit (which I agree with you is to high) but in the long run it harms the economy!
Three things you can do with tax rebates (cuts):
- Save it
- Spend it
- Invest it
All of them are good!
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
There is absolutely zero proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest members of society will result in job creation… zero proof.
[/quote]
I guess Alan Greenspan is just a right-wing lacky. He couldn’t possibly know a damn thing about the economy. Nope. Not dumb-ass Alan. How can anyone take him seriously after he said that this recovery was fueled, in large part, by the Bush tax cuts.
BTW Lumpy -
Is it just a coinky-dinky that you come out of hiding at the same time the first debate is finished?
We haven’t head peep one out of you or Roy in weeks. Now, all of a sudden, ya’ll are back with a vengence.
RSU,
"Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al. had us all convinced, though, didn’t they?
They promised he had and would use WMDs and they were wrong."
Don’t forget every Congressperson who voted for the war resolution. They had us convinced. They based their vote on the same intelligence the administration.
Joe Lieberman was saying for years to anyone who would listen that Saddam had rearmed and had WMDs. You think he just served this up on a hunch?
John Edwards, when asked on Hardball during the Democratic primaries, announced he would done the exact same thing based on the exact same intelligence even if our allies - well, not really allies, more like other kids on the ‘cool group’ in high school - refused to join in.
In contrast, Keebler Elf Kucinich flatly stated that he would not vote for the war resolution because he would not authorize a use of force under the circumstances - he believed there was doubt and the inspectors needed to go in and get the truth.
Good for Kucinich. At least he is consistent.
Intelligence is always incomplete. Not everyone was convinced by it - witness Kucinich. Now, Mr. Kerry wants it both ways.
Oh, and one more thing, something that I can’t quite figure out.
What does it say about a person if they get duped by someone as ridiculously stupid as George W. Bush?
That’s not good news for Kerry, aye?
I think you missed the corner that happened. Kerry was talking about the fact that Bush rushed to war. The process followed wasn’t very well thought out and planning for the aftermath was poorly done.
There is no need for Kerry to have it both ways in this regard. Sure, people had to go on the intelligence they had, but how they “went on it” also speaks volumes.
Trying to claim that everyone felt that a reckless rush to war was necessary based on claiming that Saddam was a danger to the world is very suspect indeed. Think a little wider, you are missing the current message.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Ross,
Thanks for your input.
Maybe W. should challenge Kerry to a mile race.
W. would win by about 2 minutes.
When Kerry refused, then he would be disqualified from running for President.
Great thinking (Your debate format determines your fitness to be a President)!!!
JeffR[/quote]
JeffR,
Your reply confuses me. Was your comparison of an open-floor presidential debate to a road race intended to suggest that these competitions would be equally bad ways of determining which is the better candidate for president of the United States? This does not make much sense. A road race challenges cardiovascular capacity, which is not very important in a president. An open-floor debate challenges the candidates' knowledge of how to run a nation, which is the characteristic on the basis of which the American people should make their decision.
I will repeat my question:
A prepared question is not a question: It is a prompt for a rehearsed answer. What can George W. Bush's unwillingness to answer questions about presidency and politics indicate but that he does not know how to be a president and that he has no knowledge of politics?
Any takers? Don’t we want a leader who can think, rather than simply recite?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
RSU,
"Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al. had us all convinced, though, didn’t they?
They promised he had and would use WMDs and they were wrong."
Don’t forget every Congressperson who voted for the war resolution. They had us convinced. They based their vote on the same intelligence the administration.[/quote]
This is Bush’s latest argument, and I agree – it sounds great. Unfortunately, however, I believe it’s false.
Congress doesn’t get the same briefings or access to the same intelligence that the President receives. For example, did congress see the 8/6 briefing entitled “something like ‘Al Qaeda determined to attack within the US’”?
[quote]
Joe Lieberman was saying for years to anyone who would listen that Saddam had rearmed and had WMDs. You think he just served this up on a hunch?[/quote]
I don’t know.
[quote]
John Edwards, when asked on Hardball during the Democratic primaries, announced he would done the exact same thing based on the exact same intelligence even if our allies - well, not really allies, more like other kids on the ‘cool group’ in high school - refused to join in.
In contrast, Keebler Elf Kucinich flatly stated that he would not vote for the war resolution because he would not authorize a use of force under the circumstances - he believed there was doubt and the inspectors needed to go in and get the truth.
Good for Kucinich. At least he is consistent.[/quote]
I agree, Kucinich is the man.
[quote]
Intelligence is always incomplete. Not everyone was convinced by it - witness Kucinich. Now, Mr. Kerry wants it both ways.[/quote]
I think he cleared his position up in the debates. He said Sadaam was/could have been a threat, but he wouldn’t have dealth with him the way Bush has. He also thought the timing was bad – he essentially said that resources should not have been diverted from the real threat - terrorists.
[quote]
Oh, and one more thing, something that I can’t quite figure out.
What does it say about a person if they get duped by someone as ridiculously stupid as George W. Bush?
That’s not good news for Kerry, aye? [/quote]
This is clearly a rhetorical question that is more of an attempt to use opinions about Bush like my own against supporters of Kerry. It’s fallacious.
Ross,
I apologize. I thought I clearly stated your criteria for the “fitness” to be President (aka engaging in an “open” floor debate) was silly.
Kerry has the clear advantage in a situation like this. He has been blowing smoke on the Senate floor for twenty years. If Bush was as ignorant as you think he is, he would have accepted the Kerry campaign’s original debate format.
That would have played to Kerry’s strengths.
Here was my analogy: It would be like Bush challenging Kerry to a mile run. Bush excells in this activity. He is in the top 1% of his age group for cardiovascular fitness. He would smoke the windsurfer without breaking a sweat.
Now think for yourself here. Bush is under far more scrutiny from the print/T.V. press than Kerry is. What was it? Over 85% of the media is liberal voting.
Now think this through. Why would Bush want to voluntarily walk into these snake-pits? Especially given the overt hostility of the media. Do you really think these “questioners” wouldn’t have been carefully selected by the liberal media to inflict maximum political damage?
Think it through for yourself.
Media not biased? Think CBS.
I don’t give two farts and a shit about how many “ums” and “oh’s” a candidate has. It’s what he/she says that really matters.
Our finest President ever, Lincoln, was said to have a high-pitched voice. He was also uncouth in his appearance and body habits. I’ll bet a 2004 Lincoln, would have been very hesitant to make many T.V. appearances.
Would that have disqualified him in your mind?
Would a “thinking man” willingly put his weak side forward? Think about it.
I’m looking forward to hearing your excuses on November 2nd!!!
JeffR
Hehehe. I love it. Jeff, you are now arguing that Bush should chicken out and not participate, because he isn’t very good at it. That would sell well.
Actually, Jeff makes a very good point. It’s one that I made the day after the debate. That is: Just because one candidate is not as articulate as his opponent does not automatically make his points invalid! One logically has nothing to do with the other. There are plenty of people on this forum who always make great points, but perhaps make spelling errors. Shoul that disqualify them?
There are two different things going on here. The first is presentation, which Kerry won hands down. the second is factual information which I think the President won hands down. Because he was not as polished his view points were not taken as seriously, by the liberal media.