's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

ok, back to your posts: is Dean going to get the nomination?(113 posts)

ok, back to your posts: is Dean going to get the nomination?gtx
Dec 2, 2003 10:15 AM
And if he does, then what?
Barring disaster (always possible -- he's volatile), yes.OldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 10:28 AM
At that point, he will be at the mercy of economic and world events. If the economy's cooking along and Iraq is at least stablized, he'll have a near-impossible row to hoe. Not an especially comfortable position for a candidate to be in.

If either of those things go to shyt, though, he's in a VERY strong position vis a vis Bush, because he's so clearly the anti-Bush.

It's a roll-the-dice year for Dems. Had to read tea leaves and decide early if the odds favor a run or a pass. Hillary so far has tried to punt, but I think she's about to pass too. So Dean it is, for good or ill.
Nomination, yes Win in Nov 2004, doubtfulDave Hickey
Dec 2, 2003 10:40 AM
Unless the economy really goes south(doubtful), I don't think Dean has a chance to win in November 2004. Bush has no Republican challengers that might split off and run as an independent. In order for either Bush or Dean to win, they need to win their own party and gain crossover voters.
It's unlikely that many republicans will cross over and vote for Dean.
That's the common wisdom, butOldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 10:52 AM
if you crunch the numbers there don't have to be a lot of crossovers either way. The 'natural' split in presidential politics (likely voting trend including last election and recent polling data) is about 50-50 -- and in point of strict fact, tends slightly Democratic, given Hispanic population gains the last three years.)

Still, there's no doubt Bush is the favorite, as ANY incumbent would be in a 50-50 situation, and would have to have some problems to lose.
Ed--any truth to the rumor that....Cory
Dec 2, 2003 11:17 AM
I have a couple of friends who are reporters in D.C., as well as several acquaintances at USA Today (same company owns my paper). They keep saying Bush is just praying for Dean, because it would be so easy to paint him as a liberal. He's not, of course, but when did truth ever get in the way of a Republican campaign? Any thoughts on that?
I think we're getting a double reverse with a bootlegOldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 11:32 AM
on this play.

I think the Bushies (the political ones anyway) are scared of Dean more than any other Democrat, and 'quietly' say they prefer Dean to put Dems off him.

Here's what scares them: He can raise more money than any other Dem, and he's a 'new' face and therefore has a vast potential reservoir of voters who haven't made up their minds about him yet. Remember the 50-50 split I mentioned earlier -- Karl Rove well aware of that too. It's the thousand-pound gorilla in the race.

Now, combine lots of money with the possibility of momentum caused by voters suddenly 'meeting' Dean for the first time and liking him. If that wind blows just right, it could blow Dean right into the White House. That cannot be said about any other Democrat candidate. Edwards is a new face that people like, but he can't raise money like Dean. Clark is a new face but -- well, to put it kindly, people like him more later rather than sooner. The timing is wrong for him to be a winner in the manner I'm describing.

If the Dems are going to win next year, Dean's IT. The party (apparatus, I mean) recognizes that. I think you'll see it quietly but steadily lining up behind him as the winter progresses, even before New Hampshire.
With voters 50-50 split, that could push Dean...Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 11:58 AM
into the White House.

Yuk it up over that, proto-Nazis!!
I guess we'll find out...No_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 12:01 PM
You can talk it up all you want. Don't matter.
Barring disaster (always possible -- he's volatile), yes.gtx
Dec 2, 2003 10:47 AM
Will the Dem machinery get behind him, though? Seems like he'll get more of the more lefty-type Nader votes, but what about the middle of the road Dems?

Ok, and assuming the economy is "strong" and Iraq is stabilized, what can Dean use against Bush? I don't think the environment is gonna do it. Unemployment might be a good one. Enron? What about trying to hang 9/11 on Bush--Clark has made some noise to that effect, but I haven't seen anything like that come from Dean.
Clark can get away with that. It's less clear thatOldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 11:04 AM
Dean can, although he's been pretty ballsy about staking out risky positions and getting away with it. Mark of a strong candidate: He gets away with stuff that would sink lesser candidates.

Yes, the Dem 'machinery,' such as it is, will get behind him. You have to work a presidential race -- it's your big national showcase. That's where party building begins.

As far as what will stick -- who knows? There's nothing obvious at this point.

Dean will actually have a fairly easy time picking up the middle of the raod Dems. That's really what he is. I suspect the Nader types will be more problematic, as Dean's essential centrism becomes more obvious and as he emphasizes it more (post-primaries).
Nader typesgtx
Dec 2, 2003 11:13 AM
I live in a very heavy Nader zone and there are tons of Dean signs now--have been for many many months. These signs are in the windows of houses which had Nader signs the last time around. After the last election I'd say most of the Nader types will vote Democrat, and I'd say they consider Dean easier to stomach than Gore.
You think these folks know how conservativeOldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 11:16 AM
Dean is? He's WAY more conservative than Gore.

I suspect they've liked him early on simply because he seemed like an outsider and insurgent, and sounded like a lefty on some high profile issues.

Where do you live? Just in general?
You think these folks know how conservativegtx
Dec 2, 2003 11:40 AM
I live in a fairly working class neighborhood in Seattle. Used to live in San Francisco. So I went from being surrounded by extremely radical and young hand-to-mouth lefties and rich East Coast college educated trust fund and/or dot com lefties to the more "working family" type lefties.

Where is Dean more conservative than Gore? I obviously haven't been paying very good attention. He seems slightly more left on the death penalty. And I think many people find the gun control issue kind of boring--and many far lefties have a slight libertarian bent there (myself included).

I think they like Dean simply because he's been very good at slamming Bush and I'd say many feel a bit sheepish about the last election.
I think your last sentence is right on.OldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 12:02 PM
Which is fine, and helpful in the primaries.

From the Washington Post profile:

"His being called a liberal is one of the great white lies of the campaign," said Tom Salmon, a fellow Democrat and governor of Vermont for two terms during the Nixon-Ford era. "He's a rock-solid fiscal conservative," Salmon said, "and a liberal on key social issues. But we're talking key issues."

Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont and a frequent Dean critic, says the Different Dean has been fascinating to watch. "Howard Dean pounding the podium taking back America is a new Howard," he says. "Now, whether the new Howard is the real Howard is a matter for speculation. Is he taking the left as a campaign strategy?"

Dean says he doesn't mind being called a liberal and welcomes progressives to the campaign. ("I'd be delighted if the Greens supported me!") But he chuckles at the liberal label, considering that "I am probably the most conservative of the candidates when it comes to gun control." It's a states issue, he says, and his state, with its low crime rate, doesn't need it.

"I think it's pathetic that I'm considered the left-wing liberal," Dean said. "It shows just how far to the right this country has lurched."

Over and over on the campaign trail, he tells audiences that he is a fiscal conservative who believes balanced budgets serve the cause of social justice. "Here's why," he'll say. "When you balance the budget, you have money in hard times to pay for the things you need." Yet if he generally sounds more like a Paul Wellstone progressive than a Bill Clinton centrist on the stump, even borrowing the late Minnesota senator's line about representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," well. . . .

"I distrust ideologues," Dean said, "and that's being played out now at anger at the right. It played out in college at mistrust of the left. . . . I was against the war, but I wasn't a protester."
everyone likes a balanced budget, right?gtx
Dec 2, 2003 12:22 PM
Regarding being fiscally conservative, I don't think the specifics of Dean's economic positions will really register with many lefties. Most lefties eyes glaze over if you talk economics.

One thing is that Gore SUCKED at was slamming Bush. Granted, it's easier now that Bush has been president for three years, but Gore seemed way too scared of coming off as the "elitist" the right liked to paint him as. And debating Bush is like debating the nice cute kid who rides the short bus, and you don't want to seem like a bully. But I don't think Dean minds coming off as a bully, and I don't think he'll mind going for some laughs at Bush's expense (mind you I never watch TV so this is an impression I get from reading stuff--I'm going to make sure to get cable though next year so I can watch some of this stuff).
Dec 2, 2003 12:28 PM
a balanced budget at all times is not the sign of a thriving economy. if my budget was balanced, i wouldnt have a house (had to borrow money) or a car (same). how about loans for school? people wouldnt be in college if some couldnt borrow money. is that good that receipts always equal disbursements? same for business to a different degree.
Why do politicians talk about the "budget" and "deficit" ...Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 12:31 PM
like it's a retirement account or something? "...have money in hard times to pay for things you need." What a crock. That is dumbing down the issue and talking down to the electorate.

Many economists argue that deficit-spending should help stimulate the economy, leading to far stronger growth and ultimately bringing down the unemployment rate. So he's not only bad in World History and civics, but economics too! :O)
Dec 2, 2003 12:38 PM
stupid people think that the fact that some other country sold us more goods than we sold them is unfair and always a bad thing. democrats love to scare people with it while they arent scaring the old people with catfood stories. it tells me we have enogh resources to consume which is what a growing economy does. i dont want to rely on someplace else to supply the whole nation with everything we need but we deal in a global economy now not a national one. dean doesnt get that either. (or maybe he does but just needs it to scare people, see above)
right and left..Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 1:09 PM
Why is it that the ones who espouse reigning in government spending are the ones who drive the deficit to record heights, the ones who cluck at the unwashed masses lack of morality and economic drive, are the ones who get pumped up by greedily going after money, and then cheat on their wives, the ones who decry the drug epidemic have to go to the treatment centers to get off opiates?

Talk about belief? Who ya gonna trust? Those bunch of hypocrits symbolized by Newt Gingrich, or the liberals, symbolized by Bill Clinton?
right and left..bill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:14 PM
you have such a set of built in prejudices by your post, that i can tell we dont have the time to start on you today. could you come back later?
I just look at the evidence..Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 1:25 PM
Talk about presumptions. What are these set of built in prejudices?

I've been trying to stir the pot, and nobody's picking up the bait.
no you dontbill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:28 PM
if you want to give specific examples of what the he77 youre talking about it might be worth it to give you an opinion, which is about all you get here.
Not for you, 105,Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 2:24 PM
but to those who may be lurking here:

Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit in three years.

Enron executives cheated millions out of investors and cooked the books to cover it up.

Gingrich, and the Hyde guy who was speaker of the House, led the effort to impeach Clinton for having sex with the intern, as they were cheating on their wives.

Rush Limbaugh derides weak liberals, while he surrenders his will to opiate painkillers.

I could go on.
Clinton was not impeached for having sex with an intern...No_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 2:35 PM
If you're still, after so long, so ignorant to this issue, it is logical to assume you're equally ignorant to the other issues in your post.
You can spout off all of the by lines, but ...Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 3:06 PM
your facts and timeline are conveniently way off. Enron, for example, happened under Bubba's watch. However, they weren't caught until the GWB administration took office.

Please go on and display your wisdom for us all to see and admire! :O)
and Ricobill105
Dec 3, 2003 6:05 AM
the economy was showing every single sign of a bobsled ride to the basement when bush took over. please concentrate. its very important for me personally to argue with someone who has knowlege of the facts. not just what they are fed.
We just haven't found out..Fredrico
Dec 3, 2003 8:12 AM
about all the billions being pumped into companies like Halliburton for rebuilding Iraq. That's what wars are for, diverting national treasure into defense industries, so all the fat cats in tight with Republican administrations can enrich themselves, and be ever richer and more powerful.
There is so much bullsh!t here, that it's no surpriseNo_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 8:55 AM
you can't see your way out of it.

Do you know what Clinton was impeached for yet? LOL! nmNo_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 9:56 AM
Talk about ignorant and childish...Fredrico
Dec 3, 2003 8:35 AM
You guys ought to forget about politics and go ride your bikes. You make fun by innuendo, afraid to confront and debate the real issues. Y'all just hide behind yer prejudices.
Talk about ignorant and childish...bill105
Dec 3, 2003 9:10 AM
as i said, you have so many built in preconceived ideas that youre physically and mentally incapable of entertaing a rational thought. goodbye.
the real question is, "does anyone care?" (nm)ColnagoFE
Dec 2, 2003 10:34 AM
we can only pray he gets it...teehee (nm)bill105
Dec 2, 2003 11:04 AM
The Clintons do. Jeb Bush does. That'sOldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 11:08 AM
just for starters.

A second-term presidental election defines the next eight to twelve years of American politics at the highest level, and, on balance, winning and losing are only partial components of that.
re: is Dean going to get the nomination?Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 11:26 AM
One vote here.

Dean is a clear, decisive thinker, has an excellent track record as an administrator, and stands on the right ground, politically, to get the most votes, Dems. or cross-overs from the left (Nader) and from the right (moderate Republicans).

All Dean needs is a good campaign effort showing what a lightweight Bush is, how he foolishly went into Iraq and is now stuck, just like Vietnam, strung along by greedy capitalists, while hypocritcally espousing the right wing Christian mantra; is given a balanced budget by a Democrat, then turns it on its head into a record deficit.

Dean also looks and acts presidential. The voting public always votes the best looking guy into office. If Bush wins, that'll be why. The economy was fine when he went into office. All he did was retard its developement with his Iraq caper. Now its getting back to where it was in 2000.
I would have written this yesterdayContinental
Dec 2, 2003 11:37 AM
But it's much funnier today. The greedy capitalists are stringing Bush along in Iraq. Damn, that's funny. The economy was fine when he went into office. Hilarious! I've got to remember this stuff for next month.
Maybe he forgot to turn his calendar today :O) nmLive Steam
Dec 2, 2003 11:42 AM
Dec 2, 2003 11:38 AM
hes a liberal all right. he told chris matthews that he would break up fox and gm if he was president. problem is he cant break up fox tv because its CABLE. hes pro choice except for your choice to hear information from any source you want to. sounds like hes trying to suppress information and opinions. thats not very inclusive or open. thats more like a nazi regime mentality.

the idiot also said we needed help in iran from the soviet union. hey howie, the early 90's are on the phone, they say there is no soviet union anymore. can you imagine the crucifiction bush would have gotten from the 3 liberal channels or cnn or msnbc if he had referred to russia as the soviet union? but you didnt hear any criticism at all, did you.
Yeah he is an idiot caught inLive Steam
Dec 2, 2003 11:54 AM
a time warp! He wants to buy equipment from the "Soviet Union" to deter them from selling to Iran. Great plan. Why not use leverage instead, like place an embargo on imports from the "Soviet Union"? LOL!!

"DEAN: Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let's act now so we don't have to have a confrontation which may result in force, which would be very disastrous in the case of North Korea and might be disastrous in the case of Iran."

Mathews didn't even try to correct him. Chris Mathews is showing his true colors again, but what can you expect from a Carter lackey? Carter's strong suit certainly wasn't international affairs! LOL! :O)
Yeah he is an idiot caught inbill105
Dec 2, 2003 11:59 AM
and no disrespect to the east and west coasters, but he cant win with cali and ny. there is no way in hell he's going to get the flyover states. hes getting traction from the coasts and from a bunch of 18 and 19 year old stoners who will be too hung over on election day to vote.
well, okay,Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 12:32 PM
Dean didn't do too well with that one. He should have said, "The former Soviet Union," because that's who he was talking about, not just Russia, but the other former Soviet Republics now holding nuclear weapons, built up during the Cold War, to protect against the huge US arsenals, should the US ever decide on pre-emptive strikes against nations they don't like. Pre-emptive strikes? Would the US have done that to Russia if they hadn't sworn to nuke us if we tried? After what Bush did, it is understandible the question might have been open among Soviet strategists.

So here's the inventor of the A bomb, having let the Genie out of the box, now frantically trying to put it back. Dropping bombs in Iraq is not the way to get the rest of the world to disarm. The only way to get respect is leading by example, not by force.

We have absolutely no business intervening in Iran, despite the very real possibility that the next government of Iraq is likely to be friendly to Iran. The Iranians are getting their act together, through no efforts by the US government.
What the heck are you smoking?Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 1:18 PM
When compared to the former Soviet Union, you believe we were the agressors? What do the former Soviet States have to fear from us? We are letting them into our borders in droves. They come here and collect SSI from Social Security. Native born Americans who worked their entire lives generally don't qualify, yet they come here and start collecting it within months.

Iran is getting their act together? In what way? You would feel comfortable with Iran having nukes?

Lead by example?
What did we do to warrant having our own domestic airliners flown into civilian targets? Hey pal go wave your Red Flag somewhere else!
He's smoking hardonic. LOL! nmNo_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 1:23 PM
i know what he hasbill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:24 PM
he's got a simple case of blameamericafirst. the patients guilt and lack of rational thought build up until he spouts up what dan rather and peter jennings feed him. he has no true ideas, just those loaned to him. the owners will take them back and give him new ones when they have finished with him and he is firmly on the liberal plantation.
better stuff than you have.Fredrico
Dec 2, 2003 2:50 PM
We were the aggressors in the Congo, Cuba, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Panama, not to mention Somalia, Grenada, and Iraq II.

Iran is tolerating dissent, which it wasn't doing five years ago. There is a sizeable number of voters who are getting behind the idea of a secular government. If the US doesn't make the Iranian government paranoid so they try to arm, they'll be democratic in five or ten years. They've repeatedly said the're trying to develope nuclear power, because of finite oil reserves and global warming, a distincly intelligent idea the US government should get behind.

Many in the rest of the world believe Americans are arrogant with their roving military, pre-emptive strikes, and political intimidation of nations they call "evil." It is fitting that four hillbilly Arabs could bring down both towers of the WTC by hijacking two jets with box cutters. Who needs laser guided bombs?

I love America as much as you do, fool, but don't have to wave the flag or bend the truth to prove it.
Man who brainwashed you?Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 3:30 PM
You must have been their worst subject. Read some history and then tell us we were the aggressors. Vietnam? Ha! I always thought the communists of NV were the aggressors who were supported by Red China.

Most of Europe is desperately trying to do away with nuclear power and you think we should be developing more power plants? No one wants it in their back yard. Do you? What do you do with all of the nuclear waste?

Global warming? OK Greenpeace. Show me data that supports your position and I'll show you data that refutes it.

Grow up sonny. You sound like a someone who grew up watching "The 70s Show" and thinks it's cool to be a flower child again. The rest of the World, as you put it, can go fly a kite. They all have their own self interests at stake. It's all about money for them. Get the picture? I doubt it. Your blinded by your own sense of self-righteousness.
How embarassing for you.czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 3:46 PM
    You sound like a someone who grew up watching "The 70s Show" and thinks it's cool to be a flower child again.

That was a stupid thing to post.
Not embarassed at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 5:57 PM
He wouldn't be the only one who is finding it fashionable to be a hippy flower child without any true knowledge of what the movement was really about. His lack of understanding on the issues is self evident. He spews the mantra, but has little to no knowledge of the history. College campus' all over the country are being populated by these peace, luv and BMWs man types. They are trying to draw a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. That is a big stretch even for the leftists on this board. I don't think we'll see the tens of thousands of dead arriving in body bags, that we unfortunately did during Nam. Thankfully so. I'm just sick of the BS that is being spoon fed to these computer, TV, cell phone raised spoiled juveniles on college campus'. It is fairly evident that he is one of them. JMO of course :O)
I guess I'll have to be embarassed for you.czardonic
Dec 3, 2003 11:23 AM
More Americans have died in Iraq so far than in the first three years of Vietnam, so I think it is a bit premature to be calling it either way.

Nonetheless, even if any of your predjudices and assumptions were correct, what do they have to do with "That 70s Show"? It is a sitcom on Fox about a group of self-involved kids in Wisconsin, not some outlet for anti-establishment agitprop.

So on two counts, it is "fairly evident" that it is you who "spews the mantra, but has little to no knowledge of the history", or the present for that matter.

Live Steam: Railing against hippies in 2003!.
Not railing against hippiesLive Steam
Dec 3, 2003 1:23 PM
I was a hippie - well as much of a hippie as one could have been in the early to mid seventies. I was still an adolescent in the sixties.

You need to get out more. Today it is chic to be a hippie. Look at the hair styles, the clothes, the jewelry, the tattoos and body piercing and look at what they're watching on TV. The difference between today's hippies and the real deal is BMWs and Daddy's money. Yeah back in the sixties a lot of those hippies came from money too, but most of them rejected Daddy's money because of what it represented. These kids today embrace it and every yuppie fad associated with it. They have taken to "the cause" like it's a fad not like a conviction. You have your opinion and I have mine. They want to believe that Iraq and Nam are similar to give them a movement to associate with.

As for your remark about the first three years of casualties were less than the total thus far in Iraq, we only had hundreds of troops there at that time. They were acting as military advisors. Actually major conflict for US forces in Vietnam didn't start until 1966. We had as many troops in Iraq at the height of the conflict as we did in Nam. The major conflict in Iraq is over. I don't think any major force is going to engage our troops any time soon. It's a stretch to equate Nam with Iraq. It's also a slap in the face, to those that served in Vietnam, to compare the two, if you ask me.
I need to get out of Berkeley to understand real hippies. . .czardonic
Dec 3, 2003 1:53 PM
. . .and their retro wannabes? Do tell.

If I want a reactionary opinion clouded by predjudice and an intentionally blinkered world-view, I'll be sure to ask you.
hippies, VietnamFredrico
Dec 3, 2003 2:21 PM
A fair analysis. As far as history repeating itself, I think young people coming up today fully engaged on the internet, are thinking much like we did in the 60s, another time of rapid social change: the sexual revolution, Third World countries throwing off the yoke of colonial domination, Soviets vowing to defeat "imperialist capitalism." Their arguments were much the same as those of the anti-globalisation students today: all the money going into the pockets of the rich, poor people getting more numerous and poorer.

While Nam and Iraq are different, Bush's hubris is much the same as Johnson's. Johnson trumped up the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, even though the ship most certainly fired the first shot, and now Bush's official justification for going into Iraq has also been proven false. Turns out Saddam didn't have nuclear bombs or biological agents, and posed no imminent threat to US interests, directly nor through Al Quaida. Same arrogance, same duplicity.
of course, it's never about money for the US.rufus
Dec 3, 2003 8:32 AM
we're altruistic.
Rufus I didn't say that, but ...Live Steam
Dec 3, 2003 10:14 AM
those that opposed the war, France, Germany, Russia and China made their objections under the pretense of altruism. They didn't say, "Hey Saddam owes us big bucks. If we attack him we'll never get our money and we'll lose a great customer." They tried to mask their greed by attacking only the US on this and not GB who also willingly engaged in the effort, with false and self-serving lies. That was telling in itself as they need GB as a business partner in the EU. They gave a false impression that their objections were from a humanitarian view. They had nothing to gain from the war. They would only lose monetarily, so they felt no need to support their allies - the US and GB. Once again France has shown her true colors. We did not hide our intentions. We said we wanted Saddam and his regime out. The WMD and terrorist connection issues was and still is real. One would have to be very naive to not believe that.
Listen up, rufus!Fredrico
Dec 3, 2003 1:13 PM
The reason France gave the US a hard time about a pre-emptive strike in Iraq was that until now, only governments bent on aggression, wanting to take over another country, threw the first punch in a fight, with no respect for the right of sovereignty. If all nations do what the US did in Iraq, anyone can attack anyone else unprovoked, or with trumped up charges that later turn out to be false. Hilter did that in the Sudetenland, starting WWII. Milosovec did that to Kosovo. All despots come up with an explanation, however lame, that they use to justify their aggression.

On the street, that would amount to going up to someone and punching him out because you don't like him or what he stands for, not because he threatened you or hit you first.
like whatbill105
Dec 3, 2003 1:24 PM
you mean trumped up charges like 17 un resolutions?
Grow up sonny boy and get your facts straightLive Steam
Dec 3, 2003 1:31 PM
Iraq was the provoker. They were the losers in GW1 and were not attacked further because they surrendered unconditionally. They were required to dismantle their war machine. They did not follow the resolutions set froth by the UN Security Council. They had ample time to comply and did not.

During the 10 year period after GW1, they played the rest of the World like fools. Well most of the rest of the World. France, Germany, Russia and China were all profiting from doing illegal business with Iraq. On 9/11 everything changed. Too bad for them that they played the wrong hand. They should have given the inspectors unconditional access to what ever they wanted. The Iraqi people aren't sad that Saddam is gone. They are much better off for it in the long run.

If you are comparing the US to Nazi Germany, you are a bigger ass than I was willing to give you credit for!
and what does this have to dorufus
Dec 3, 2003 2:47 PM
with the justification du jour that by establishing a free and democratic iraq in the heart of the middle east will spur the development of other democratic governments in the area.

that's the reason given now as to why we went into iraq. no more "failure to comply with UN resolutions, WMD's, nuclear capability, etc", only a grand plan to transform the middle east into a democratic utopia.

do you really think anyone in the united states would have been behind this action if bush and the rest of the neo-cons had come right out and said that this was the goal? no, instead they lied and invented justifications for their own self-serving reasons, just as you impugn france, germany and russia for doing.
Just goes to show you how...No_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 8:58 AM
a hint of knowledge in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing.
Out of the mouths of babes, right, No-Sprint?(nm.).Fredrico
Dec 3, 2003 12:33 PM
Figure out why Clinton was impeached yet? LOLOL! nmNo_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 12:44 PM
Dec 3, 2003 1:25 PM
For feel good sexual encounters with a voluptuous intern with dark eyes and raven locks.


So for that, the Republican prudes spent almost a year trying, unsuccessfully, to impeach the poor guy. They never liked Clinton from day one, and were driven purely by negative emotions to get rid of him.
You're a piece of work. Clinton WAS impeached!!!! nmNo_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 1:27 PM
define pleasebill105
Dec 3, 2003 1:33 PM
so is it bad to be a prude? are you a prude if you think its not ok for a married president to get serviced, not once but lots. are you a prude if you think its wrong to lie about it for a year to congress and america? is this what we should expect a president to do?
Wrong facts againLive Steam
Dec 3, 2003 1:38 PM
You should feel embarrassed. Clinton was successfully impeached.

"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac tion brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."

These are the reasons Clinton was impeached. Hey I should start to charge you for this. You're getting an education here. Oh that's right, your a liberal. You believe you're entitled to everything for free! Ha ha ha! :O)
successfully impeached..Fredrico
Dec 3, 2003 1:59 PM
You're working hard on this one, aren't you?

That's right, impeached meaning "censured" or "scolded."

But they didn't get the man to resign nor the votes to vote him out of office. Instead, Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde shot themselves in the foot, and ended their political careers. "Moral Majority," my a$$.

My sex life is none of your business, as long as it's consensual. Neither was Clinton's. He got a very high approval rating, despite his sex life.
Dec 3, 2003 2:09 PM
he will go down (no pun intended) as the worst president in u.s. history. did nothing constructive, has no legacy, unless you count being nicknamed "bubba" a legacy.
Red baiting! Red baiting! nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 6:15 AM
Yeah, them Camp David accords were a disaster. nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 6:14 AM
All he is, the "anti-Bush".No_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 11:29 AM
Wow, what an amazing platform.

Yep, let's hope he gets it.
That is good enough for plenty of people.czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 12:09 PM
Believe it or don't believe it.
The ignorant masses.No_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 12:22 PM
and lots smoke crack too, good enough for them.

"What an amazing platform. I'd say let's hope he gets it."
That is good enough for plenty of people.bill105
Dec 2, 2003 12:24 PM
Hey, youre right. The fact that he's an idiot IS good enough for me.
LOL!!!! Good stuff! nmNo_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 12:28 PM
new campaign sloganbill105
Dec 2, 2003 12:31 PM
Vote for Dean, he's good enough for YOU!
LOL? "Good stuff"?czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 12:41 PM
You are easily amused. Not that that is a bad thing.

Bush is such a lousy president, so dishonest and such a coward that just about anybody could do a better job. Furthermore, the greater the disparity between their character and leadership skills and his, the better a job they'd likely do.

I don't think the incidence of crack cocaine use adequately explains the tes of millions of people to agree with me to varying degrees. Then again, if a crack addict can see Bush for the tinhorn that he really is, what is your excuse?
Wow czar.OldEdScott
Dec 2, 2003 12:45 PM
Pretty strong stuff. Seeing me and the other lefties talk like fascists yesterday must have made you CRANKY!
wait, he's correctbill105
Dec 2, 2003 12:53 PM
this rebounding economy, fewer unemployment filings, corporate profits and the fact we havent been attacked for two years on our own soil is starting to really suck! add to that all the millions of people killed by bush's environmental policy, oh, wait a minute scratch that. thats not happened yet.
Pretty strong stuff?czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 12:56 PM
I didn't even mention the dead thousands that he failed to protect and the tens of thousands he has since killed trying to redeem himself.
Pretty strong stuff?bill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:00 PM
man, he's been busier than i thought!
But you thought he was single handedly. . .czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 1:04 PM
. . .saving the economy and keeping us safe from terrorists. Seems pretty busy to me.

Or is he only responsible when things go well?
you know...bill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:09 PM
the thousands of terrorists he has killed since they waged war on us is a good thing. yes, he gets credit.
That answers my question perfectly. (nm)czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 1:33 PM
He's just trying to bait you. His style and "Fredericos" ...Live Steam
Dec 2, 2003 1:45 PM
seem a tad similar :O)
oh sorry...bill105
Dec 2, 2003 1:50 PM
i didnt know i was supposed to answer him. i thought he understood now and was now content to come out from under the dark cloud of conspiracy and gloom that seems to just be in his dna. i thought about writing "turn that frown upside down" but didnt want to make him mad and interrupt his appointment with the prozac rep.
Bait him? I wasn't talking to him. (nm)czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 1:51 PM
Sorry. I thought this was a "public" forum :O( nmLive Steam
Dec 2, 2003 2:00 PM
Yes, but you can't accuse. . .czardonic
Dec 2, 2003 2:04 PM
. . .ah, forget it.
I already did :O) nmLive Steam
Dec 2, 2003 2:19 PM
You must smoke crackNo_sprint
Dec 2, 2003 12:53 PM
if you think he's so lousy, so dishonest and such a coward. You cannot see the state of the union through your blinders and the smokey haze.

Then again, those are just your opinions, from the outside looking in. We all know that opinions of yours are just that, meaningless opinions, and they stink worse than @ssholes.

as opposed to your opinionsrufus
Dec 2, 2003 3:38 PM
which are tantamount to the word from on high.
That is good enough for plenty of people...oldbutslow
Dec 2, 2003 9:12 PM
especially when you run out of real issues - Hate is a good place to be.

During Clintoon's years, it was the angry white male. Now it seems like the hate filled liberals have taken their place.

I know we were hard on the old slickster but, he brought most of it on himself. But, even at our worst, I do not believe we expressed the rage I hear from the left now. For a party that preaches tolerance, ya'll ain't got none.
Well saidLive Steam
Dec 3, 2003 5:31 AM
The Dumocrats use "tolerance" and "inclusive" like a smoke screen. Their real desire is "power" and "control" and they pretty much go at it any way they can in order to gain those objectives. To them the end justifies the means. The perfect example of it was prior to the war in Iraq. The all-knowing Hollywood pundits were out there in droves screaming and yelling. They were spewing pretty hateful stuff and yet they didn't like the response it received. They cried foul when many chose to tune them out and turn them off. They claimed they were being censured and their right to free speech being deprived. They just didn't get it. People were tired of hearing their venom laced tirades. They were tired of being talked down to. People are waking up and seeing the reality of our new world. They fear the cats been out of the bag too long and their very lives are endangered by the lax policies that brought us to this juncture. The liberals would want us to believe that we have brought this upon ourselves. We are not a perfect nation, but I believe we have done more good than harm. There will always be malcontents bent on our destruction because they have no noble cause for themselves or humanity. This is all just my opinion of course :O)
Better Well saidoldbutslow
Dec 3, 2003 6:30 AM
It's not an opinion though - simple rational thinking - something the left (some at least) just can not do.

It's almost like when you confront a malevolent little child with the truth, their first reaction is denial, then anger. I believe that is what we are witnessing from of our DemocRATs.

Our friend Frederico talks well in the 5 second sound bites. I wonder what he would think if he wasn't rehearsed by the media? Maybe one of these day's, we will have a new age of enlightenment. One can only hope.
Don't kid yourself.czardonic
Dec 3, 2003 11:59 AM
All political parties want power and control. That is the point of politics. You think that your GOP heros are in it for the common man? They are in it for their wealthy selves and their wealthy backers (though they will gladly take votes from insecure losers who are "tired of being talked down to" - lol).

And don't accuse me of preaching inculsion and tolerance of you and your Repugnican buddies.
Of course ...Live Steam
Dec 3, 2003 1:46 PM
they want power too. The difference is Republicans actually have a platform of ideas that they present to the people for consideration. Your Dumocratic brethren have no platform. They just point out they are not like the Republicans. They also use tired old scare tactics that worked on the "uneducated/unwashed masses" once upon a time. They didn't realize that the aforementioned don't really exist any more. At least not in the same numbers and not in the same manner. They can't misinform the way they did. Too many sources for information.

I would never accuse you of being inclusive :O)
Don't insult yourself.czardonic
Dec 3, 2003 2:00 PM
    Your Dumocratic brethren have no platform.

Unless Bush has no platform, being against him and his policies is itself a platform. It will take years to fix the damage that he has done both domestically and internationally.

Surely you realize all this.
good old fashioned, rabble rousing class warfare populismdr hoo
Dec 2, 2003 3:37 PM
That's the democrats best chance for 2004. There is anger out in the land, and historically revolutions tend to happen when things are getting BETTER. Those who see others benefiting from a rising tide tend to ask "why not me?"

If the dems go for the center, they are toast. So Dean is likely and class warfare rhetoric the tactic. Remember, the whole confederate flag truck-driver thing was NOT about race. Dean said it to make a point about class being MORE important than race. Karl Marx would agree.

At the least, this next year will be highly entertaining.
Yes! I like your analysis!OldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 6:21 AM
And I think it's hilarious that the Repubs DECLARE class warfare, wage it mercilessly, then cry 'Foul! and try to pin the term on US when we fight back to defend ourselves! HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a fukin crew.
Yes! I like your analysis!bill105
Dec 3, 2003 6:30 AM
you mean like the dems saying theyre the the party of blacks, latinos, and women then fighting tooth and nail to keep them from positions like say JUDGES and such?
Yep, that's it. nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 6:40 AM
Yep, that's it. nmbill105
Dec 3, 2003 6:52 AM
or how about brutalizing condy rice because shes a black person, a class the dems are supposed to control but cant? or how about the way the dems defend to their dying breath an sob like jesse jackson? a wife cheatin, tax evading, money hustling, blackmailing, camera hog, ass clown? but he's black so its ok with the dems. or maybe even your beloved clintons who cussed jews and used the n word but were supposed to be their biggest supporters?
Yep again. nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 6:55 AM
Hypocrisy has long been a tenet of the left. nmNo_sprint
Dec 3, 2003 9:09 AM
How and where did the Republicans start class warfare?Live Steam
Dec 3, 2003 7:29 AM
That is a leftist tactic. They are the first to raise the us vs. them blabber. It doesn't work any more. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes - very transparent. People aren't' falling for that bait. They are more educated and see real issues.

Take the tax issue for example as this is where class warfare is generally fought by the Dems. Everyone who works pays taxes. They may pay more or less depending upon what they earn. Even the lower wage earners expect that someone earning more will get more back in tax relief because they pay more into the system. The "people" aren't dumb as the Dumocrats would prefer them to be. At least not any more. There are now too many source for information and truth.

It used to be simple for you guys to stand on a soap box with the aid of the leftist media and spout simple platitudes to get the "unwashed masses", as you like to put it, all in a lather. That was the "good ol' days" wasn't it? No real work had to be done. Just get out there with the help of the media and spread catch words to scare up some votes :O)
Oh Steam, don't be silly. nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 7:57 AM
thats not what Dean said in Novemberbill105
Dec 3, 2003 7:37 AM
"I think the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. I think there are a lot of poor people who fly that flag because the Republicans have been dividing us by race since 1968 with their Southern race strategy," Dean told a young audience at a Rock the Vote debate in November.
He changed his mind. Next. nmOldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 7:58 AM
He changed his mind. Next. nmbill105
Dec 3, 2003 9:16 AM
if he keeps it up maybe he can grow up to be al bore.
yes it isdr hoo
Dec 3, 2003 9:18 AM
"...the Republicans have been dividing us by race..."

He goes on to say that if those poor truck drivers would realize their CLASS is more important, and that democrats would help them with health care and education, then the dems could bring them into the tent. RACE divides the workers, but CLASS unites the workers into a powerful force. So the argument goes.

You can use the internet to find a nice clue sale near you. Stock up now and save!
yes it isbill105
Dec 3, 2003 9:26 AM
thank you for your clarification. i agree that he'll still get the crap beat out of him in 04. on the point of the tent. where did the blacks or other minorities get by voting for dems after they were brought into the tent? i dont see a benefit to them.
Yeah. I see your point. Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act,OldEdScott
Dec 3, 2003 9:33 AM
Fair Housing, AFDC, Medicaid ... all those Repub initiatives that HELPED the poor Negroes, while the Dems fought a desperate rear-guard action to keep them down on the plantation. Yep. Again, you're right.
Yeah. I see your point. Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act,bill105
Dec 3, 2003 9:48 AM
congrats, and all done without the help of a single repub!