posted
You're not the only one who thinks Lieberman is an idiot. Lieberman is a Republican in all but name, and most Democrats know this, or they know it and just don't want to admit it. I was wondering when we would get on the subject of the Deomcratic candidates on Flare, and I knew if we did the one candidate you would like would be Lieberman, Fo2. And my suspicions were right!
Lieberman is not going to become the Democratic nominee. That is going to be Howard Dean, which, I must say, seems to be terrifying the Republicans. From what I've seen, the Republicans don't want to go up against him because not only is he the most stringent anti-war candidate, he is the only one that can beat Bush.
A Dean-Clark ticket would have been great, but Clark made the wrong decision of running by himself, and now his hype has worn off.
And since when did not asking a question in a joking manner mean it was not a joke?
posted
I wouldn't put much past Fox News. They wouldn't fabricate her comments because that might backfire, but they sure would report them, saying "Didn't sound like she was making a joke to me." That famous liberal bias, after all. . .
posted
That is going to be Howard Dean, which, I must say, seems to be terrifying the Republicans.
Can you show me a Republican terrified of Dean? I haven't seen any. Insofar as I qualify as a Republican, I consider all the Democrat cantidates to be jokes. None are able to unite their party, partially because the Democratic party has no platform to stand on. They're united in opposition to everything Bush does, regardless of what it is, and... that's it. None of the cantidates have any distinguishing features. Of course, the Republicans don't have a platform either, instead simply being united in support of Bush no matter what he does. But at least the things Bush does actually, y'know, are good things for the most part. What I'm saying is, the system is screwed up either way, but if your only objective is to remove Bush from office, you have to ask yourself what you'd rather have his potential replacement doing. Don't look at Dean as your savior. See both sides for all their flaws, and choose the least evil while trying to fix things.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman. I have gone to some rallies and seen some debates, and I find that the Democrats have a chance of winning. It will be a hard battle, because Bush's got the Republican party, millions of dollars, two wars, and Saddam Hussein to show for it, but the Democrats have a president who had an affair with an intern, and that's his lasting memory.
I will admit I don't know of any Republicans that are terrified of Dean, but I doubt anyone knows of any Democrats that are terrified that Saddam was found.
posted
The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman.
This is exactly what I meant. You don't care who wins, because all you want is Bush gone. You don't care about what his replacement does, so long as Bush is out of office. Can you really tell me WHY you feel like that? What's your major beef with Bush?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I do not like how he scourned the world and the United Nations, how he told the world the reason we were invading Iraq was to disarm it of their massive WMD stock, and how the country we were supposed to be liberating has descended into a nation of chaos, and the people who are causing the chaos were encouraged to "bring it on." And I don't particularly like those tax cuts (which some Dem candidates are also proposing, I know).
I'm not saying Bush is the anti-Christ or some incarnation of evil, I just don't think he is a good president. The number one reason is Iraq: because of the war, the rest of the world is deeply angered at us. And I'd rather have a president who doesn't make the rest of the world cringe when "America" is mentioned.
I DO want Bush replaced, because of the things I mentioned. I mean, what did YOU feel like when Bob Dole lost to Clinton? Or when Clinton finally left office?
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
No one still hasn't directly answered my question on why Saddam is not being treated as a POW. Someone says the US didn't declare war against Iraq. I'd like to see statements supporting this. And if this is true, then my opinion of Bush has sunk to an all time low, which can only get lower.
So invade Canada. You don't need a declaration to do so, if this is true.....
And Veers, it's not just people cringing, it's more of people getting really pissed off.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I do not like how he scourned the world and the United Nations, how he told the world the reason we were invading Iraq was to disarm it of their massive WMD stock
He told the world it was _A_ reason. Which it was. It was a reason the world agreed with, seeing as there was a (unanimous?) UN resolution on the matter. The only disagreement was on how long to wait. There I will grant you that another course could conceivably have been better. But it might not have been. How likely was it that the UN would EVER have enforced that resolution? Or that more time for Sadaam would have mattered at all? It was a judgement call. He chose to move, probably because not going at all would be dumb, and waiting would be pointless. But that's just me. So what would you have preferred he do?
how the country we were supposed to be liberating has descended into a nation of chaos
I believe you'll find that that's an exaggeration. Yes, things are unruly, significantly more than they were, but there is an end in sight. Again, what would you have Bush do differently?
the people who are causing the chaos were encouraged to "bring it on."
You know that wasn't intended as encouragement, nor will it be taken as such. It was intended to convey a lack of fear, which it did. What harm do you think it did?
And I don't particularly like those tax cuts
Because of the deficit, I assume?
I DO want Bush replaced, because of the things I mentioned. I mean, what did YOU feel like when Bob Dole lost to Clinton? Or when Clinton finally left office?
That's a different scenario. I'm trying to find out why you think Bush is a bad President. It has nothing to do with Clinton.
Someone says the US didn't declare war against Iraq. I'd like to see statements supporting this.
The US hasn't "declared war" against anyone for sixty years. What do we call them now, "resolutions of force"? Makes things a little more vague, gives us wiggle room. Of course, even under that, Bush has long since declared an end to major combat operations, so the "war" as such is over.
Of course, these are just possibilities. You'd have to ask Bush himself if you want his explination.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Back to the Albright thing, "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" isn't much of a quote, when there's not context. To me, it sounds rhetorical, and perhaps even sarcastic. If she said "Is the pope Catholic?", would they accuse her of not knowing who the pope is? We need to know the context of the quote to determine whether there's any chance she meant it.
"How likely was it that the UN would EVER have enforced that resolution?"
Probably more likely than that they would ever enforce any of the resolutions against Israel.
"The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman."
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. Al Sharpton and Dick Gephardt both suck pretty much, too.
"And I don't particularly like those tax cuts" "Because of the deficit, I assume?"
That, and the fact that they're aimed at rich people. Reaganomics didn't work when Reagan tried it. I don't see what makes anyone believe it will now.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
How did Reaganomics not work? Tax revenues increased dramatically, and the number of "poor" (for some arbitrary definition of poor) in the country dropped dramatically due to massive economic growth, exactly like we're seeing now. Am I forgetting something?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Over here, they redefined the threshold of the definition of poor, they made it lower to give it the appearance that their numbers were dropping.
If there was any investment during Ontario's boom, it usually resulted in low paying jobs, not like the tide that rises all boats.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Reagan/Bush years described as a time of "massive economic growth".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Sure, of negative growth. Or of imaginary growth, depending on the angle. That's a math joke, by the way. LAUGH!
"At least we don't have a compromising system of multiparties like the Israelis do."
Like most Western nations do, where things actually GET DONE rather than bog down in partisan bickering 24/7?
[ December 19, 2003, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe if Bush hadn't stressed the WMD claim OVER AND OVER AGAIN until it's imbedded in our conciousness, and then when we went in, it's suddenly about liberation and the WMDS don't matter. What would I have had him do differently? I don't know, maybe stressed Saddam's reign of terror before the war instead of WMDs.
In regards to it being an exaggeration that Iraq is in chaos, it seems to be the opinion of mostly Republicans that things are going well. I wouldn't call "going well" or "unruly" the dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, the guerilla attacks, the ambushes, the assassinations, the missile attacks on airplanes, the deaths of more than 450 Americans. That's not "unruly;" at the very least, it's "very dangerous." Good things are happening, they are just outnumbered bby the negative.
As for the Bill Clinton thing, Omega, I want to know because you're a Republican. Usually the member of the other party wants the current president out. Was it or was it not the same with you?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
