's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

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

A hypthetical question for the Bush Haters(39 posts)

A hypthetical question for the Bush Hatersbboc
Jan 13, 2004 1:05 PM
I am a Bush hater (and proud to proclaim it at the top of my lungs), just to clear the air.

Assume you could go back in time and change the results of the 1996 election with your vote.

Bush Haters: Would you elect Dole and give up the last 4 years of the Clinton Admin. in order to stave off the current Bush Regime? (IE either Dole or a Dumbocrat would win in 2000, no Bush)

Bush Lovers/Clinton Haters: Would you forsake the chance to elect the best president ever "King Bush" in 2000 in order to vote out an impeachable Lout like Clinton?

I think I'd vote for Dole in '96 as it jives with my "a pile of crap would make a better president than Bush" stance. (I'm not calling Dole a pile of crap, just to clarify)

Easy, Dole in Bush out......CARBON110
Jan 13, 2004 1:09 PM
But Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

We have to learn it the HARD WAY!
since we're talking hypothetical....bill105
Jan 13, 2004 1:17 PM
if i could have clinton in federal prison serving at least life with no chance of parole on treason, i'd give up the next election as long as it wasnt to dean.
So you are the living poster child forBottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:07 PM
years of inhalant abuse? This is what it does to you?
I've said it before...No_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 1:24 PM
We are all lucky to have the current administration, whether we know it or not.
You still would be getting Bush for a first termOldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 1:28 PM
this year. There was no avoiding him. He was always a main cog in the Republican's Thousand Year, uh, Strategy.

Hell, might even have gotten him in 2000 after a one-term Dole reign. With Repubs, these things happen ...

Dole was and is a good man, by the way. He would have been a good president, I think.
But then there'd be no Viagra ads ...HouseMoney
Jan 14, 2004 10:48 AM
Dole may be a good man, is witty, and has a keen sense of humor which is underestimated. Problem was, he was a lousy campaigner. I don't think his heart was really in it (kinda like the 1st Bush in '92). I had to hold my nose when I pushed the button for him in '96.

He was no better than a sacrificial lamb going against Clinton in '96 ... although a good part of the reason the country was doing so well was the "Gingrich revolution" from the '94 mid-term elections.
re: Dole was to crusty..jrm
Jan 13, 2004 1:55 PM
and way to republican hard line and representational of "old men running the country".
maybe you guys could get Carrot Top to run as a dem (nm)bill105
Jan 13, 2004 1:57 PM
Hey you guys got Arnold to run as a repubjrm
Jan 13, 2004 2:02 PM
with no education, no experience and only $$$$. Only to prove that bullshlt walks and talks as long as the ear piece is in place.

All i will say be very careful what you wish for..especially re-electing Bush for 4 more.
ahhhnold cant do wuuurrrsseee (nm)bill105
Jan 13, 2004 2:06 PM
You apparently dont live in Cally_forn_yahjrm
Jan 13, 2004 2:11 PM
Where the agenda consists of "blowing up boxes" and "hunting down waste". Face it the guys a steriods retard in a nice suit.
He was still the only electable Republican. . .czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:15 PM
. . .in spite of the legendary unpopularity of Davis.
Jan 13, 2004 2:21 PM
Was twice the republican that arnold is. But he was to hard line to convince middle of the roaders to jump ship.
You apparently dont live in Cally_forn_yahNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:15 PM
I do, and like most others, regardless of party affiliation, we're happy that it's not Davis.

Hey, you guys are trying the same tactic, anything but Bush? Anti-Bush with zero platform other than that. Right in one instance, wrong in another

Seems like more hypocrisy coming from you types.
What idiot believes the Democrats have no platform!?czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:22 PM
Please tell us so we can have another laugh at their expense.

As far as I know, none of the major Democrats are running purely on the popularity of their action movie careers. All are governors or members of congress who could talk circles around Bush in just about any area of policy you can name (or someone who is informed about politics could name).
The idiots themselves will shortly answer.BottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:27 PM
I bet a million bucks bill105 has another snort of benzene and weighs in.
Maybe it's thorazene, you obviously missed another dose. :) nmNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:29 PM
Confront your past. You will never heal until you do.BottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:32 PM
I say this as someone who's been there and recognizes the symptoms. I sincerely want to help.
Trying to get any issue other than personal attacks outNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:28 PM
of Dean and Gephardt right now requires one heck of a mammoth imagination.

You and a couple others have that, no doubt!
Because disagreeing with Bush is a "personal attack"?czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:32 PM
I guess Bush won't have to worry about debates after all. He can simply refuse to dignify questions about his policies by responding to them.
They're too busy attacking themselves for anything else. nmNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:35 PM
Get your story straight.czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:39 PM
Who are they attacking? Bush? Or are they too busy attacking each other? Or did you really mean that they were attacking themselves?

Jeez -- can't you even get this asinine line right?
LOL! Good stuff!! nmBottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:44 PM
Imitation is the deepest form of flattery. nmNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:46 PM
If you don't see the attacking amongst Dean and GephardtNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 2:45 PM
right now, directed at each other, well, you're exactly as I think you are!

*Among* requires at least three.BottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:59 PM
The correct grammar is *between.* Since you're an educated man and obviously know that I must say it's no mere slip or mistake. It's the pathology again. You are subsconsiously including yourself among the attackers, making three. The attack theme is very strong.

If you would keep at the therapy you'd have these insights on your own.
Are they attacking each other's Bush hatred?czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 3:14 PM
Your argument against them is confusing. It's almost as if you are just jumping back and forth between disparaging characterizations as you are challenged to back up either.

Are they fixated on attacking Bush? Or are they too busy attacking each other? Is there even a problem with the latter, if you don't like either?
You don't understand the pathology at work here.BottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 2:35 PM
Of course he's going to see it as a personal attack given his past.
Its not Who its Howjrm
Jan 13, 2004 2:27 PM
Bushs policies have hurt this country dearly. its not bush that i dislike its the policies..

Arnolds heading that course whether you like it or not too. hes saying one thing and doing another. Like Bush being programmed by Cheney Arnolds being programmed by Wilson.

Its all business as ususal. And the middle class and poor are paying the grunt for the policie failures of BOTH.
Please define "Bush's policies".94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 5:46 AM
In my opinion, other than the war (which many were in favor of after 9/11 despite current banterings), he (and the congress) has (have) let down a lot of his republican constituancy by passing the certainly left of center policies he has over the past 3 years. Education, medicare, immigration, you name it.

What the heck do you people on the left want? How could he have done better for you? You worry about $80-100 billion spent in Iraq while he's spending far more than that everywhere else.

Please clear up my confusion. Ans I am probably considered middle class and I haven't paid a dime fo tax in the past couple of years. I guess I am getting really fleeced, huh?
its not what the left wants its what is best for the countryjrm
Jan 14, 2004 10:43 AM

cuts that fund the investment in automation and oversee labor markets, medicare policy favoring domestic prodcers of generic drugs and shifting the higher cost of meds to medicare receipents, expansion of the powers of governement over states while starving the funding for states, nation building, advancement of faith based donestic policies, isolationism, a 550 billion export-import imbalance.

In short this adminstration has done NOTHING for me at all. All i see is the rich getting richer at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
You need to come to terms with Bush's dishonesty. . .czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 11:33 AM
. . .if only to put your own mind at ease. There is nothing "left of center" about Bush's education and medicare policies. But you would never know that if you listened to him lie to the American people about them -- and took him at his word.
exactly. what the PR spin says they dorufus
Jan 14, 2004 1:38 PM
and what effect the actual policy implementation has are complete opposites.
What always surprises me is howBottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 1:41 PM
conservatives say the liberals are beaten and not relevant anymore, but Bush seems very keen on throwing them false bones. I agree that the drug bill and the education bill are shams but it's interesting that the Republicans feel the need to pass 'pretend' liberal legislation. Maybe there are more liberals out there than they like to admit?
Than Bush? (nm)czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:11 PM
Even he couldn't beat Powell's prop act in front of the UN. (nm)czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:02 PM
In 96 Powell said he didnt want to run or be part of a campaignjrm
Jan 13, 2004 2:04 PM
ohhhhh pictures...
Carrot Top, that is. (nm)czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 2:04 PM