PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: Who do you want to run in 2004?



Tycho
11-29-2002, 03:34 AM
Let me just start off by saying I'm supporting Al Gore, the man the majority of the people of the United States Elected President in 2000 - and certainly the President that California chose.

I've met Senator John Kerry and was impressed. He served in Vietnam, in combat, and was shot in battle. There's no doubt he offered his courage to his duty for his country.

I just am not sure if he's as strong as Gore, or as smart as Al Gore.

Other contenders may be Dick Gephart and Tom Daschle. Both are also impressive, and possibly more 'presidential' than Kerry.

Still I can't help but like Kerry, but he reminds me of "Johnathon Archer" when we need James T. Kirk to confront the Ferengi in office!

sith_killer_99
11-29-2002, 10:06 AM
Ferengi in office? :eek:

There are a few Democrate contenders that I like. Although, I would vote for Ventura LONG before any of the Democrats.;)

I think we will see Gore in 04.

I am unfamiliar with Kerry, but from what you describe, he sounds like the Democrats version of John McCain.

I just don't like Ton Daschal(sp?) or Dick Gephardt. They seem to whine too much and don't like to take the blame for anything, although Al seems to be taking the same approach. Which I find VERY unfortunate.

Here is what Al needs to do to win in 04.

1. Stop crying over the 2000 election. This was the same strategy employed by Nixon after he was cheated out of the election by JFK. (I love JFK but something was fishy in Chicago)

2. Distance himself from the trouble makers in the party.

3. Show support for our troops, compassion for the victims of 9/11, and a strong resolve to do the right thing...no matter how painful it is.

4. Do things he BELIEVES in, and not follow the "Party Line", just because he's a democrat.

5. Be more personable, which I believe he is working on.

6. Come up with a GREAT economic policy, as well as a strong foreign policy.

7. Stop acting like he invented the internet. ;)

8. Stay away from the mud slinging. People are tired of it.

I honestly believe that Gore could be a good president. But he really need to make some changes to win the ELECTORAL votes.

Just my 2 cents.

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 10:11 AM
In regards to the mudslinging....


you guys have it easy...............atlseast you're government party isn't warring WITH each other in office.......

sigh.......

sith_killer_99
11-29-2002, 10:32 AM
You are correct, it is easy to forget that sometimes.

In some countries, politics and religion are the SAME thing, or war and murder are part of the party platform.:crazed:

2-1B
11-29-2002, 12:09 PM
Well Tycho, I'm not a Democrat but I'm certainly more liberal than I am
conservative . . .

But there's NO WAY I would vote for Gore, Daschle, or Gephardt, they absolutely sicken me ! :crazed:

I can't say yet who I think the Dems should run, but it has to be somebody fresh with at least a sense of integrity - which is sorely lacking in all three of those hacks IMO.

Does it matter? I'm sure they'll run Gore anyway, then I'll be forced to "throw away" my vote on a third party. :D

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 12:18 PM
What do you find so sickening about Gore? Just curious.

JON9000
11-29-2002, 12:26 PM
Al Gore- he just couldn't get it done. He came close, but time to move on. And Bush is more poular now than when he was running. Time for a new voice with a new message, that was what benefited President Clinton when he ran the first time.

Gephardt and Daschle are weenies. Since they come out on a daily basis and agree with everything Bush does, and when they do complain it sounds like whining, I find them less palatable than Gore. At least he has the guts to treat Bush like the lightweight he is.

Kerry- Don't know much about him, except that he slaughtered people in Vietnam. I think that issue would haunt him out of contention.

Which leaves--- Senator John Edwards from North Carolina! Edwards hasn't been in Washington long enough to be a hack, and he is just as intellectually robust as Gore. However, he knows better than to talk to the American people as if they were in 5th Grade

EricRG
11-29-2002, 01:03 PM
Lock box.

derek
11-29-2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
What do you find so sickening about Gore? Just curious.

he's bill clinton with no personality!!!:crazed: as much as i despise clinton's politics, he'd probably be interesting to hang out with and talk to. gore on the other hand, is not only a blatant liar, and all around dud of a person, he's just about as phoney as they come. :crazed:

as for who should run as the democrat candidate in 2004?
john mc cain.;)

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 02:09 PM
I'm not too familiar with him.....what has he lied about?

derek
11-29-2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I'm not too familiar with him.....what has he lied about?

here ya go...:)

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS10-00HL/10-6-2000.1.html

2-1B
11-29-2002, 02:28 PM
Gore and Clinton should be publicly executed - both running around boasting about how they "knew right away" it was Bin Laden behind those 2001 attacks. :rolleyes:

Yeah, Bill would possibly be fun to clown around with - and he'll always bring the skanks ! :D
derek is right about Albert being a dud. Oh, and his wife is a real nutcase too. :)

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Gore and Clinton should be publicly executed - both running around boasting about how they "knew right away" it was Bin Laden behind those 2001 attacks. :rolleyes:

Yeah, Bill would possibly be fun to clown around with - and he'll always bring the skanks ! :D
derek is right about Albert being a dud. Oh, and his wife is a real nutcase too. :)

Dude, I was running around saying I knew right away that it was al qaeda........should I be executed too?

derek
11-29-2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Dude, I was running around saying I knew right away that it was al qaeda........should I be executed too?

nope, you were not in a position of power to take action against the terrorists, they were, and did nothing.

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 03:00 PM
erm................. neither of them were in office when the attacks occured.........or when they made those comments.

JON9000
11-29-2002, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by derek


nope, you were not in a position of power to take action against the terrorists, they were, and did nothing.

As I recall, when Bill made a half- a55ed attempt at killing Bin-Laden, and bombed the heck out of al-quaeda's chemical plant, every republican from here to the moon screamed that he was doing it do deflect attention from the hanky panky. So save the do nothing speech. And Bush didn't exactly make terrorism a priority before 911, shelving the Mitchell report.

We are all guilty in some way, because we felt invulnerable due to the big ocean that separates us from the bad guys.

Old Fossil
11-29-2002, 03:23 PM
I voted for Gore in 2000, and will do so again if he runs in '04, though I might change my mind if McCain were to run as an independent, or switched parties, since Bush will have the Republican nomination locked down. McCain could easily bring the country together in a way that no other party candidate could.

My only reservation about Gore winning would be the 4 years of slanderous half-truths and untruths we'd have to hear about him from the Republicans and hardline conservatives. It would be worth it, though, if it got Bush out of office.

derek
11-29-2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
My only reservation about Gore winning would be the 4 years of slanderous half-truths and untruths we'd have to hear about him from the Republicans and hardline conservatives. It would be worth it, though, if it got Bush out of office.

what would those half and untruths be? see my above post:

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 03:46 PM
Well, here's a look at a few of GWB's "untruths":

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

derek
11-29-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Well, here's a look at a few of GWB's "untruths":

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

that's funny. when it comes to gore the liar, you're ignorant to the man's mis-deeds, but when it comes to bashing on bush the liar, you've got a link ready to go.:crazed: :rolleyes:

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 04:00 PM
Actually.............it's been close to an hour since you posted yours............besides....it only takes 30 seconds for google to search the keywords:

"george w bush lies".........

I simply looked around.........in the interest of fairness.

derek
11-29-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by JON9000


As I recall, when Bill made a half- a55ed attempt at killing Bin-Laden, and bombed the heck out of al-quaeda's chemical plant, every republican from here to the moon screamed that he was doing it do deflect attention from the hanky panky. So save the do nothing speech. And Bush didn't exactly make terrorism a priority before 911

clinton bombed an asprin factory an a bin laden camp he knew was empty.

under clinton, we were hit numerous times by terrorists. they bombed the world trade center, a marine apartment complex, 2 US embassays, one naval ship, and killed 19 soldiers in africa.

it's common knowldege sudan offered to arrest bin ladin and turn him over to us and clinton rejected the offer.

basically clinton did nothing regarding terrorism in his 8 years. maybe bush didn't do enough in his 7 months in office before sept. 11th, but he was not near the failure clinton is.

Tycho
11-29-2002, 04:34 PM
That's a pretty powerful list of lies there, Derek. But so is Overlord's list of George W.'s lies.

I wonder how many of them can be validated? Such as the movie producers one Gore was told to have said, etc. I'm not sure that fundraiser was televised, so does a recording exist that shows Al Gore speaking it?

A Republican movie industry figure could have said Gore said those things, and we just have to take his word for it because HE attended the fundraiser, and because THAT person was never caught lying before doesn't mean that he's incable of it. It's also subjective to interpretation:

Did Gore say "I will just pretend to nudge the industry," or did he say "I think the idustry should be given a nudge in a more moral direction?" Obviously I doubt he said "I will radically change your industry and ban sex and violence in film!"

However, I hope we get more sex and violence in film, personally. I don't want to get bored at the movies!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I bet a lot of the lies on Derek's list are probably true. That being said, is there a site that lists all of George W. Bush's lies and false campaign promises, or dirty deals?

EDIT: while I was posting this, The Overlord provided one - thanks.

Are there ANY candidates that didn't lie?

I suppose John McCain for the Republicans and John Kerry for the Democrats seem to have the most honest dispositions.

But are all the politicians liars? And can they successfully fundraise any competitive amounts of cash if they do not lie? In other words, is the system so broke that without radical campaign finance reform, an honest man can't win the elected job?

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 04:43 PM
from what I can tell, the most honest politician in america just died in a plane crash a month or so ago........

Tycho
11-29-2002, 04:44 PM
You mean an assasination that helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, don't you?

Jedi Clint
11-29-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
You mean an assasination that helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, don't you?

The Democrat's own behavior at the late and "honest" :rolleyes: Paul Wellstone's memorial was more than sufficient to show the majority of voters who NOT to support :)

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint


The Democrat's own behavior at the late and "honest" :rolleyes: Paul Wellstone's memorial was more than sufficient to show the majority of voters who NOT to support :)

Tycho: I'm not one for WILD conspiracy theories with little to no back up information. If that ever turned out to be what took place, I wouldn't be overly surprised ............

I still find it funny that people here think echoing the words of another poster, but adding the "rolleyes" smiley, is somehow a valid argument... ;)

Jedi Clint
11-29-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


Tycho: I'm not one for WILD conspiracy theories with little to no back up information. If that ever turned out to be what took place, I wouldn't be overly surprised ............

I still find it funny that people here think echoing the words of another poster, but adding the "rolleyes" smiley, is somehow a valid argument... ;)

I never said it was a valid argument :D Who did? My :rolleyes: was simply in response to your assertion that Paul was an "honest" politician. I doubt I have any less evidence that he wasn't than you do that he was :) Funny that you "wouldn't be overly surprised......" if the above unfounded theory were found true. You get a :rolleyes: for that one also :p

The Overlord Returns
11-29-2002, 05:19 PM
Why would I be surprised by that?? ....I've expressed my general distrust of politicians countless times on these baords........

I also wouldn't be "overly" surprised if it turned out decisively that JFK was assasinated at the hands of a govt. plot.........

The notion that anyone should be shocked when politicians turn out to be corrupt is, well, naive........

JON9000
11-29-2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by derek


clinton bombed an asprin factory an a bin laden camp he knew was empty.


How do you know this? Free Republic? ;)

QLD
11-30-2002, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Tycho
You mean an assasination that helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, don't you?

Tycho, that was just a foolish statement that made you look ridiculous. Perhaps the FBI would be interested in seeing your evidence.

Tycho
11-30-2002, 02:21 PM
I'm just a simple American trying to go about my daily life.

Perhaps I should become an FBI agent and investigate these things. Of course I could lose my government job (due to downsizing) if my boss (FBI Director up for promotion to Homeland Security Deputy Director) tells me "There's no conspiracy here. There's nothing to see here. Move along. Move along." But I press the issue and am dismissed because "the government needs to down-size to save the taxpayers' money." --" But there is a position opening for a claims investigator at an international oil company and the President will give you references. Good luck and good bye."

So here I am back to being a simple American who is oblivious to all the high crimes it is possible that elites in power are willing to commit while I, like most Americans, toil about my middle-class life. Of course I should be happily content that if elites want to kill each other and make it look like accidents, that it doesn't affect my life, no, not at all. Right?

I'll still have my job and my bills regardless of whether we lose any possibility of real democracy in my country.

From what I actually know, which is probably less than you do, it still looks equally possible from my point of view that there was a assasination attempt as it is possible it was engine failure or pilot error.

QLD
11-30-2002, 02:29 PM
Of course it is possible. Just like it is possible the government assasinated JFK, MLK Jr., Abe Lincoln, Aaliyah, Elvis, Mama Cass, Lisa Lopez, John Candy, Sonny Bono, Nicole Simpson, Jean Benet Ramsey, Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper!

And yes, our government does shady things all of the time, I am sure. So yes, it's possible that it COULD have been an assasination, but you have no reasoning behind this theory other than the fact that you HATE Republicans. For all we know, maybe the DEMOCRATS killed him because he didn't agree with them about something, and they wanted to replace him with freakin' Walter Mondale. But it backfired on them. Why not, it's just as good a theory as yours.

I honestly believe, that in my opinion, the government had nothing to do with his death. However, even if they did, I don't believe it was simply for them to gain another seat.

Tycho
11-30-2002, 02:57 PM
Of course, there are always deeper and more diabolical reasons for these kinds of killings. Any of the possible motivations /culprits you suggested could be fathomable.

Just like September 11, may not have been 'just a terrorist attack.'

Osama Bin Laden was CIA trained and maybe he hasn't been captured yet, because that is what the conspirators in our government promised him. The actual goal was the elimination of evidence or people in the World Trade Center, as well as the unification of the American people behind the President, favoring a war the current administration wanted to have an excuse to launch forward with, against Iraq. Then an oil pipeline could be run through Afghanistan to Iraq and benefit Western European financial allies of the current administration, possibly shifting petroleum product refinement towards Europe, boosting their employment and trade capabilities (while giving a NATO OK and supplying a united front against Iraq to give the operation a 'world consensus outlook.'

There is a current investigation going on now to probe the government and current administration for possible knowledge or wrong-doing in their handling of Sept. 11 and the intelligence gathered prior to it.

But what if it is true? Can the average American do anything about it?

Why didn't the popularly voted for President win? (Al Gore) In political science courses taught in every university across this country, a Freshman Year concept students learn is that if the economy is doing well, the incumbent party is always re-elected to the White House, regardless of most scandals, etc. It is also safe to say, war-time Presidents are supported. But we were not involved in this war until Bush came into office. Meanwhile, I understand how the electoral college works, but you see it would have been less suspicious if the deciding state for the electoral college was not a state where Bush's brother ran the government (or the other most likely would have been Texas where Bush had been governor and his daddy was a resident).

Speaking of Daddy, George Bush Sr. was the director of the CIA before he became Vice-President to Reagan. Do you think this man was innocent of black ops situations?

Finally, the Supreme Court was made up of Republicans as a majority.

Gore wanted to fight this, but I'm sure he was threatened behind the scenes and got scared and finally backed down. Theoretically, had he fought this all the way, he could still hold a valid lawsuit and an investigation pending even while the nation had to continue on with a President (George Bush Jr.) - who might've had to have been removed from office if the case could be proven otherwise (that he did not earn Florida's electoral votes). But meanwhile, it would have been more likely that President Clinton would have declared a national emergency and retained the Presidential office for security reasons until Gore v. Bush could be decided after a more thorough investigation.

Remember the Court put limitations on how much of a re-count they could do, and where they could do it.

Sometime before George Jr. ever announced he was going to run, some very influential people decided HE WAS GOING TO BE ELECTED CHANCELLOR errr I mean PRESIDENT!

"I have good news Mr. President: the war has begun."

"Excellent, everything is poceed errr presitting no I meant PRO-SECEEDING as my handlers had planned."

QLD
11-30-2002, 03:22 PM
The Illuminati manipulate all, not just Republicans. They manipulate things to be just as they like them, Democrat and Republican, for their own purposes.

The 'Xir
11-30-2002, 04:11 PM
Me!!!!! :D :crazed:

Jedi Clint
11-30-2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Of course, there are always deeper and more diabolical reasons for these kinds of killings. Any of the possible motivations /culprits you suggested could be fathomable.

Just like September 11, may not have been 'just a terrorist attack.'

Osama Bin Laden was CIA trained and maybe he hasn't been captured yet, because that is what the conspirators in our government promised him. The actual goal was the elimination of evidence or people in the World Trade Center, as well as the unification of the American people behind the President, favoring a war the current administration wanted to have an excuse to launch forward with, against Iraq. Then an oil pipeline could be run through Afghanistan to Iraq and benefit Western European financial allies of the current administration, possibly shifting petroleum product refinement towards Europe, boosting their employment and trade capabilities (while giving a NATO OK and supplying a united front against Iraq to give the operation a 'world consensus outlook.'

There is a current investigation going on now to probe the government and current administration for possible knowledge or wrong-doing in their handling of Sept. 11 and the intelligence gathered prior to it.

But what if it is true? Can the average American do anything about it?

Why didn't the popularly voted for President win? (Al Gore) In political science courses taught in every university across this country, a Freshman Year concept students learn is that if the economy is doing well, the incumbent party is always re-elected to the White House, regardless of most scandals, etc. It is also safe to say, war-time Presidents are supported. But we were not involved in this war until Bush came into office. Meanwhile, I understand how the electoral college works, but you see it would have been less suspicious if the deciding state for the electoral college was not a state where Bush's brother ran the government (or the other most likely would have been Texas where Bush had been governor and his daddy was a resident).

Speaking of Daddy, George Bush Sr. was the director of the CIA before he became Vice-President to Reagan. Do you think this man was innocent of black ops situations?

Finally, the Supreme Court was made up of Republicans as a majority.

Gore wanted to fight this, but I'm sure he was threatened behind the scenes and got scared and finally backed down. Theoretically, had he fought this all the way, he could still hold a valid lawsuit and an investigation pending even while the nation had to continue on with a President (George Bush Jr.) - who might've had to have been removed from office if the case could be proven otherwise (that he did not earn Florida's electoral votes). But meanwhile, it would have been more likely that President Clinton would have declared a national emergency and retained the Presidential office for security reasons until Gore v. Bush could be decided after a more thorough investigation.

Remember the Court put limitations on how much of a re-count they could do, and where they could do it.

Sometime before George Jr. ever announced he was going to run, some very influential people decided HE WAS GOING TO BE ELECTED CHANCELLOR errr I mean PRESIDENT!

"I have good news Mr. President: the war has begun."

"Excellent, everything is poceed errr presitting no I meant PRO-SECEEDING as my handlers had planned."


What count did Gore win? They have been recounting since the election ended, and he hasn't won yet. He tried to steal an election, and failed. He tried to discount military votes while chanting "Every vote must be counted". Loyal supporters tried to manipulate the ballots to up Gore's total over and over again until a stop was put to that crap. I watched people crying about their spoiled ballot. Fools! I'm sorry.....which ballot was yours? I kept an extremely close eye on the election 2000 aftermath. Close enough to know that poor li'l Al stomped his feet and threw a tantrum and cheated and manipulated as much as he possibly could in order to win....AND HE STILL LOST!!!!!!

JON9000
11-30-2002, 05:38 PM
I think Al Gore lost for a lot of reasons no one (especially democrats) really wants to talk about:

The country had post Clinton hang over- everyone was tired of scandal and lying and fast talking. George Bush appeared simple and guileless, as compared to the fast-talking "too smart for their own good" shady tandem of Bill and Al.

Voters punishment. They punished everyone involved in the Lewinsky debacle- they trashed the witch hunt congress, then made Al a scapegoat.

Al Gore's constant retooling of his image through out the campaign. The minute he is labelled stiff, he goes prancing about in cowboy boots. Doesn't help that he has "image coordinators."
He talks down to Bush in the first debate and turns people off, so he acts completely lame in the second. People want to know who the heck they are voting for! Bush in contrast seems much more comfortable in his own skin.

Given the state of the Union at the end of the Clinton Era, Gore beat himself. He came across as disingenuous, mean spirited, knobbish, and tricky. All because he listens to others too darn much.

JON9000
11-30-2002, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint



What count did Gore win? They have been recounting since the election ended, and he hasn't won yet. He tried to steal an election, and failed. He tried to discount military votes while chanting "Every vote must be counted". Loyal supporters tried to manipulate the ballots to up Gore's total over and over again until a stop was put to that crap. I watched people crying about their spoiled ballot. Fools! I'm sorry.....which ballot was yours? I kept an extremely close eye on the election 2000 aftermath. Close enough to know that poor li'l Al stomped his feet and threw a tantrum and cheated and manipulated as much as he possibly could in order to win....AND HE STILL LOST!!!!!!

Looks like somebody saw and memorized all of O'Reilly's talking points (or whatever Fox News in ritual denial passes off as objective journalism these days).

Why don't you try reading the opinion of Bush v. Gore. It starts with a lovely disclaimer by the conservative majority that goes something like this:

We are big fans of "states' rights," and since the law in this case clearly gives jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court, which is ordering recounts, we would normally keep out. But since this is a national election, we feel it is our job to decide this matter! Oh- and by the way, we want to make it clear that this case sets no precedent, so if it comes out the opposite way next time, the majority reserves the right to say- "sorry, no jurisdiction!"

- it was almost worth it to see Rehnquist, Scalia (whom I used to respect), and Thomas have to admit to that their hypocrisy knows no bounds, and to see them ridiculed by constitutional law scholars everywhere.

There were immense problems with the ballots in Florida. Ballots that were not completely punched through were not counted for either Gore or Bush. The idea was to count them all. Then there was the heavily democratic burgh that mysteriously voted for Pat Buchanan.

I'll concede the military vote issue to you. But overall, although you might have kept an "extremely close eye" on the aftermath, you clearly did not understand most of what you saw, or more likely saw only what you wanted to, because as soon as the Supreme Court rendered its verdict, Al Gore magnanimously said we ought to move forward and unite behind the president.

If the rest of the democrats wanted to whine about it, go ahead and vilify them. Bush won, why not just take the win and get over it? :zzz:

derek
11-30-2002, 07:40 PM
tycho,

you still have not presented any evidence that republicans killed paul wellstone. if anyone would of been knocked off, i would of thought it would of been robert torcelli of new jersey, by the democrats. he was bringing down the democrat senate all by himself with his numerous ethical and un-prosecuted criminal violations.

so, to be consistent, do you think the democrats killed mel carnahan two years ago so his wife jean could garner the sympathy vote and beat incumbant senator john aschroft of missouri?

i'm all for conspiracies, but please present some evidence if you're gonna accuse somone of murder, not just that george h.w. bush was once head of the CIA and you think george w. stole an election.:)

Tycho
11-30-2002, 09:15 PM
I told you before that I have no evidence. I'm no special investigator.

But that's what elites count on.

These deaths could have been perfectly innocent, or engineered by organized crime, much less the opposing political party. All I'm saying is we will never have access to the truth, if things remain the same.

Anything can be a possibility now.

derek
11-30-2002, 09:26 PM
but why even speculate that wellstone was murdered? i know you're a democrat, and that's fine, but it just sounds like sour grapes that the republicans won the senate.:)

but with that said, here's a conspiracy you may find interesting that could lend credibility to your bin ladin theory. i heard about this on a credible radio broadcast this morning. it involves generals in the US military, during the early 1960's making plans to kill US military troops in cuba and CIVILIANS here in the states and blaming it on castro to garner world support to invade cuba and overthrow castro. luckily, kennedy rejected this idea, but this stuff apparently does happen. it dosen't make the "bush knew we were gonna get bombed theory" so strange. i doubt we knew, but regardless...........

here is a link:

http://webmail.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html

sith_killer_99
11-30-2002, 09:32 PM
Hey, speaking of conspiracy theories. Exactly how many people died or committed "suicide" after Whitewater broke? Can you say ATF?

I will admit, the mid 90's were a hoot.

All those shady dealing going on with illegal campaign fund raising (involving Mr. Gore), selling nuclear secrets to China (we sure showed Mr. Lee), not to mention all the attacks against the US (USS Cole).

Slick Willie was LUCKY there was a "right-wing conspiracy" to take peoples attention away from the REAL issues (can you say Healthcare? hehehe)

And senator Clinton should be thankful people found out about her shady dealings with Whitewater when the economy was GOOD. Just look at how people bashed Martha Stuart this last year. Thankfully, her illegal shady dealings are in the past. Because let's face it, she's no Martha Stuart.

The economic boom of the 90's had nothing to do with Bill Clinton or AL Gore. Let's see, what was Bill's economic policy?

Bill Clinton did 2 things while he was in office. 1. He passed a balanced budget ammendment. 2. He helped make it easier for HS grads to go to college.

Stunning accomplishments for 8 years.

Of course, he also SOLD presidential pardons on his way out the door.

But don't blame BC for Al's failure to secure the presidency, or even the popular majority vote in his own home state (even Mondale won his home state against Regan in 84.:rolleyes: ) AL did everything he could. I watched the last Presidential election VERY close. Al distanced himself from Slick Willie(and all the controversey that went with him) the economy was still doing relatively well. He was the encumbant. So here's the problem....

Al's about as exciting as a wet sponge. He probably would have done better if had, had an affair with some hot movie star, like J. Lo. hehehe

So, now we see Al Gore stiring up mud, as all the Democrats are doing. Maybe Al should blame his loss on Rush Limbaugh, that seem to be the new platform for the Democratic party these days. Tom and the gang can't possibly accept their own failures, so it must be those darn conservative media guy's telling people what to think.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Al need to drop the whole 2000 election issue, if he keeps crying about it he will LOSE in 04. Nixon never would have been elected if he went around crying about how he was cheated out of the Presidency.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
11-30-2002, 10:42 PM
I think Democrats would be foolish to nominate Al Gore again in 2004. The only way I can see his name on the ballot is if Democrats feel that 2004 is a lost cause, which it won't be no matter how popular Bush is.

John Kerry would certainly get my vote. He is an honorable, dignified man. Also, he is very articulate and down-to-earth kind of guy. I think he would smoke Bush in a debate. Plus he has a war record, serving in Vietnam. This will help with the pro-military types who normally don't side with the Democrats.

John Edwards seems like a good second choice. He is young and an articulate man too. He comes from the South which will help immensely. But I don't feel he has the name recognition that a Kerry might have, and that could hamper him.

I think an unbeatable combination would be a Kerry/McCain ticket, no matter how high Bush's approval ratings are, they would win. They would fire up the Democratic base and get the Independents, the largest voting block, and McCain Republicans behind them. I don't think however McCain will leave the GOP.

The thing I most fear, is that Gore loyalists will hijack the primary process and rig the nomination for him. They did it in 2000 when it was him versus Bill Bradley. Low voter turnout and persuasion of the rank-and-file loyal Democrats pretty much sealed the doom of Bradley, who I thought, would have beaten Bush.

derek
11-30-2002, 10:47 PM
I think an unbeatable combination would be a Kerry/McCain ticket

mc cain has said flat-out, he would be no one's vice president.
i don't know why he dosen't leave the republican party and become an independent or democrat.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
11-30-2002, 11:17 PM
originally posted by Sith_Killer_99
The economic boom of the 90's had nothing to do with Bill Clinton or AL Gore. Let's see, what was Bill's economic policy?

Actually, it was Clinton's 1993 Budget Act that helped kickstart a sluggish economy. Basically, under the previous two presidents Bush and Reagan, fiscal responsibility was not a priority for their administrations. That was evident by the budget defecits that plagued those two presidents. Neither had the fortitude to raise taxes to help stop the defecits and curb the huge national debt that was getting bigger by the year (this had gone on for over a decade and a half).

Clinton decided to raise taxes to help balance the gap between government revenue and spending. This was highly unpopular among Republicans, who seem to believe that raising taxes will bring armageddon. They hammered the tax increase to take control of Congress.

A funny thing happened though. Washington saw actually budget defecits turn into government surpluses. Surpluses that were projected for as far as they eye could see.

When Bush came into power another funny thing happened. He used the surplus to reward rich America with a huge tax decrease. He and the GOP congress went on to eliminate or cut taxes everywhere. Yes, the rich do pay the majority of the taxes in this nation, but I think fiscal and budget stability should take precedent over a belief that somehow if the rich get even more money, that this will benefit everyone.

Sure enough Washington turned in it's first budget defecit in seven years this year, and all of that projected surplus has been squandered in about a year and a half. GOPers like to blame 9/11 and the war on terrorism, but the fact is, we would have been in a defecit had 9/11 not occurred. So the debt will once again rise, and your tax dollar will more and more start to pay for interest on the debt, rather to Social Security, Medicare, etc.


Strangely enough

Jedi Clint
11-30-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by JON9000


Looks like somebody saw and memorized all of O'Reilly's talking points (or whatever Fox News in ritual denial passes off as objective journalism these days).

Why don't you try reading the opinion of Bush v. Gore. It starts with a lovely disclaimer by the conservative majority that goes something like this:

We are big fans of "states' rights," and since the law in this case clearly gives jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court, which is ordering recounts, we would normally keep out. But since this is a national election, we feel it is our job to decide this matter! Oh- and by the way, we want to make it clear that this case sets no precedent, so if it comes out the opposite way next time, the majority reserves the right to say- "sorry, no jurisdiction!"

- it was almost worth it to see Rehnquist, Scalia (whom I used to respect), and Thomas have to admit to that their hypocrisy knows no bounds, and to see them ridiculed by constitutional law scholars everywhere.

There were immense problems with the ballots in Florida. Ballots that were not completely punched through were not counted for either Gore or Bush. The idea was to count them all. Then there was the heavily democratic burgh that mysteriously voted for Pat Buchanan.

I'll concede the military vote issue to you. But overall, although you might have kept an "extremely close eye" on the aftermath, you clearly did not understand most of what you saw, or more likely saw only what you wanted to, because as soon as the Supreme Court rendered its verdict, Al Gore magnanimously said we ought to move forward and unite behind the president.

If the rest of the democrats wanted to whine about it, go ahead and vilify them. Bush won, why not just take the win and get over it? :zzz:

I am so glad you feel the need to reduce my opinion to regurgitating someone else's opinion. Isn't that the new liberal line of BS? "Well, you must be listening to conservatives if you feel that way." Right back at ya. I have no problem with the less than perfect decision by the U.S. Supreme court on the 2000 election debacle. It stopped obvious fraud. I understood what was going on, and I really resent your claims to the contrary. FYI I did read the opinions in B vs. G. The Dems pulled a bunch of dirty crap in an attempt to win, therefore, I don't have any problem with the strings that were pulled by the (R) in the Supreme Court to stop the manufacturing of votes in Florida. The decision was split down party lines. Was the minority opinion without bias? There are problems with every election. Al thought he could exploit the problems in Florida and steal the election. As for seeing what I want to see. Have you missed the fact that the Gores have been "whining" about how Al "really" won recently!?! Which Al should I believe? I will say that his concession speech was well crafted.

There was no way to clearly discern the intent of the voter in cases where the ballot was not properly punched. Your statement seems to imply that I didn't take that into consideration. How do you know that those who voted for Buchanan didn't do so of their own free will and accord? Once again there is no way to clearly discern the will of the voter. No one crying after the election can point to any one ballot and say "Yes, that is mine.....I made a mistake". Once cast it is taken as is.

If you want to discuss chads, then let's. How many times must one change the rules after the game has been played in order for the outcome to be acceptable (in their opinion)? Hanging. Dimpled. Manipulated. Chads scattered about the counting rooms. The most accurate count of those ballots taken happened on the first pass......each subsequent pass resulted in less and less accuracy as the ballots were handled and manipulated. Once again, Gore hasn't won a recount to date.

As I see it, Fox news allows both sides to present their case on every issue. How does that constitute bias?

JON9000
12-01-2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint


I am so glad you feel the need to reduce my opinion to regurgitating someone else's opinion. Isn't that the new liberal line of BS? "Well, you must be listening to conservatives if you feel that way." Right back at ya. I have no problem with the less than perfect decision by the U.S. Supreme court on the 2000 election debacle. It stopped obvious fraud. I understood what was going on, and I really resent your claims to the contrary. FYI I did read the opinions in B vs. G. The Dems pulled a bunch of dirty crap in an attempt to win, therefore, I don't have any problem with the strings that were pulled by the (R) in the Supreme Court to stop the manufacturing of votes in Florida. The decision was split down party lines. Was the minority opinion without bias? There are problems with every election. Al thought he could exploit the problems in Florida and steal the election. As for seeing what I want to see. Have you missed the fact that the Gores have been "whining" about how Al "really" won recently!?! Which Al should I believe? I will say that his concession speech was well crafted.

There was no way to clearly discern the intent of the voter in cases where the ballot was not properly punched. Your statement seems to imply that I didn't take that into consideration. How do you know that those who voted for Buchanan didn't do so of their own free will and accord? Once again there is no way to clearly discern the will of the voter. No one crying after the election can point to any one ballot and say "Yes, that is mine.....I made a mistake". Once cast it is taken as is.

If you want to discuss chads, then let's. How many times must one change the rules after the game has been played in order for the outcome to be acceptable (in their opinion)? Hanging. Dimpled. Manipulated. Chads scattered about the counting rooms. The most accurate count of those ballots taken happened on the first pass......each subsequent pass resulted in less and less accuracy as the ballots were handled and manipulated. Once again, Gore hasn't won a recount to date.

As I see it, Fox news allows both sides to present their case on every issue. How does that constitute bias?

The talking points bit was a joke, relax.

But the only opinion I recall regurgitating was the one by the Supreme Court. Whether the trying to count votes and discern voter intent constitutes "fraud" or not I'll let you debate with Jesse Jackson. I find it more interesting that you think the Supreme Court is justifed in acting outside the law when it suits your purposes.

So you think all the ballots that were not punched should have been tossed? Well, Monday morning is here and it turns out Bush would have won under any circumstances. And the Buchanan votes just point out that Florida is a mess, and there is no harm in pointing that out. But what I take issue with is your insistance that Gore, by pressing his claim, and by extension Democrats in general, tried to "steal" an election.

If you don't want people to assert that you simply push a party line, perhaps you should try to stop calling names.

And by the way, FOX news is about as impartial as NPR or the 700 club.

;)

2-1B
12-01-2002, 01:13 AM
derek, can I quote your sig line? :D

Jedi Clint
12-01-2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by JON9000


The talking points bit was a joke, relax.

But the only opinion I recall regurgitating was the one by the Supreme Court. Whether the trying to count votes and discern voter intent constitutes "fraud" or not I'll let you debate with Jesse Jackson. I find it more interesting that you think the Supreme Court is justifed in acting outside the law when it suits your purposes.

So you think all the ballots that were not punched should have been tossed? Well, Monday morning is here and it turns out Bush would have won under any circumstances. And the Buchanan votes just point out that Florida is a mess, and there is no harm in pointing that out. But what I take issue with is your insistance that Gore, by pressing his claim, and by extension Democrats in general, tried to "steal" an election.

If you don't want people to assert that you simply push a party line, perhaps you should try to stop calling names.

And by the way, FOX news is about as impartial as NPR or the 700 club.

;)

Sorry I didn't catch the joke. In that case, you can disregard any agitation in my response. I honestly believe that Gore intended to manipulate the system in order to win in Florida.....that is attempted theft IMO. If voter intent were paramount then the military ballot issue would not have been pressed by the Dems in Fl. Their goal was obviously to push the numbers in their favor no matter any of the noble ideals they expressed. I'm sorry you take exception to my opinion of the situation, but I came to my conclusions by analyzing both sides of the issue and reviewing the facts.

I have recognized that the Supreme court decision was largely partisan in nature, and I have offered my reasoning for accepting that decision. I never claimed to be impartial in my opinions. I fully recognize my bias.

I didn't call names. I did accuse you of spouting liberal rhetoric though. That was in turn for accusing me of spouting "Talking Points". We have already addressed that issue though ;).


On a technical note, you can delete your post (the one you in which you quoted yourself) if you do so within (?) hours after you posted it. You click edit under your post, and then check the delete box when the edit page appears. Submit the changes (by clicking "delete now" and it's gone.

sith_killer_99
12-01-2002, 12:21 PM
LBC, I give Clinton his dues for balancing the budget, I just don't see it the way you do.

The problem with a projected surplus is that it is still only projected which is not tangible. There is no way to be certain that it would ever be there. My mother used to say "Don't count your chickens before they've hatched."

The economic boom of the 90's was a result of major technological advances, both in the field of actual hardware/software and the phenomenon known as the internet. The computer industry had a major BOOM. During the span of the Clinton era computers became a household item. Almost every home now has a computer, not to mention businesses, and to go along with computers...software.

At what other time in history have such major "appliances" become household items in such a short time? Television didn't even catch on that quick, in fact it would take decades (the first television sold in the US around 1938).

As demand increased so did production, which led to an increase in employment (IT professionals, software designers, engineers, factory workers, etc.). It was quite literally a computer revolution.

One of the main driving forces behind this was the internet (along with business efficiency, learning environments, entertainment, etc.). However the internet was by far the most high profile. This led to an increase in demand for new services (ISP, e-mail, buying, selling, day trading, etc.).

If anyone thinks I'm making any of this up, just think about.... Microsoft, AOL (Time Warner), AMD, etc. I had never even heard of these companies in 1990. Yet in less than a decade these companies became larger and more powerful than many major corporations that have been around for over a century.

SO, in short, I believe Al Gore's Internet Bill did more for the economy than Bill's Balanced budget.

It is also a well know fact that the economy started it's downward slip at least a full year before the Presidential election. This was also shortly after the Internet bubble burst. Not to mention the fact that once computers have become a household name the rate at which people buy computers will slow down, leading to corporate down-sizing.

I am not saying that I agree with GW's tax cut. I don't, in fact it is still a major point of contention that I have with him. However, I just don't believe that the balanced budget was responsible for the boom of the 90's.

But we need to face the facts, Democrats favor big government (AKA big brother) and Republicans favor smaller government (and consequently fewer taxes).

As for Social Security, it was a broke system to begin with, and it was never really designed for long term use. When it was set up it was supposed to be a quick fix, to help an aging generation. I support the idea of cuting Social Security for the rich. That is, if a person has X amount of money they shouldn't collect a Social Security check when they retire.

As for the Reagan years, YES, deficit spending went up. But so did employment (talk about kick starting the economy, deficit spending will do it every time). The ME decade of the 80's...remember Yuppies? Regan asked America...are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The answer was a resounding YES and the largest victory in US Presidential history.

But Mondale still won Minnesota.;) Sorry Al.:D

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
12-01-2002, 09:38 PM
I don't think Bill's policy was the major reason why we had the economic boom but my point was that the bill reversed a decades old trend in Washington of defecits and increasing debts. That act in 1993 paved the way for budget surpluses which meant Washington had the resources to attempt to fix Social Security, talk about a real healthcare initiative and the money that Bush eventually used (squandered) for the tax cut.

Surpluses are indeed difficult to project and do hinge on the economy, however the Bush tax cut has ensured that the federal government will be in debt, presumably for the next couple of years, at least, and with the way the GOP (who say the believe in smaller government, but really don't practice what they preach) will spend $$$, I see no reverse in that trend.

And yes, Reagan did a lot of defecit spending and you mention the time of the Yuppies in the 1980's, but while the upper-crust and some middle class citizens did extremely well, the lower-middle and lower class sunk to new lows during that time. Teen pregnancies skyrocketed, so did crack, cocaine use, AIDS, crime and gang violence, which all can be traced to economic well-being. Remember Reagan was accused of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, meaning when he had to cut money from the budget, it was usually the groups that most needed that (welfare families, etc.) saw the axe fall down on them..

During the 1990's there was an economic boom, but we saw a record drop in crime, a record drop in teenage pregnancies, etc. all because that boom did affect the lower classes. African-Americans in particulary saw their income rise to their highest levels ever. I would attribute part of that to Federal Government policy.

sith_killer_99
12-02-2002, 12:34 PM
LBC, I must respectfully disagree with your statement "believe in smaller government, but don't practice what they preach".

George Bush just called for a cut of 181,000 federal employees, and put a 3.X% cap on federal pay raises for next year.

I'd say that constitutes government down sizing.

I do agree with you on on the Balanced Budget. I think it was a mistake for Bush to give a tax cut.

As for the Regan era, I am not ashamed to admit that I grew up in a low income home. My mother had to turn to government assistance when we were little. We never turned to drug, gangs, etc. But I realize that's just us.

As for the issues of AIDS and teen pregnancy, remember AIDS was a new epidemic back then. Since then we have learned soo much about the importance of protection and the transmission of HIV. Infected mothers can now, in many cases have healthy babies. Couples with 1 infected partner can now have full and normal lives without getting infected. The FDA is in stage 2 trials for a vaccination for HIV.

Drugs and violence have always seemed to plaque the lower class. But remember, in the 80's many of the rich and elite were hooked on coke and other drugs.

Just some food for thought.

2-1B
12-02-2002, 12:53 PM
Hahahaha, a local conservative host was citing (I believe it was) Drudge who claims:

Kerry positions himself as a populist candidate but he pays $150 for a hair shampoo and styling. :D

I've seen that guy's bouffant, and I don't think it's worth that much. :p

Darth Sinister
12-02-2002, 01:19 PM
I still love to ask this question..What did Clinton and Gore do good during their eight years in office?...and don't use the economy. It's always about the economy with Democrats...never a solution to the problem, just a weapon against the Republicans.

Tycho, don't even get me started on assassinations by parties....see Vince Foster and others that mysteriously died while Clinton was in office. Vince was doing the "thang" with Hillary and just happend to turn up dead from, you got it, suicide. PLEASE!!!!!

Gore went along with all these things until it started to hurt him in the poles..then he turn away....convienient. If Gore is the best Democrats have then they are screwed. I'm not saying a democrat would not be good in the White House, but don't go back to the same old song and dance. Plus, if Tipper ever gets in that house we will all have to start listening to blue-grass music and will be arrested for saying "naughty" words like, dang and shoot.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
12-02-2002, 10:22 PM
SK99, Bush also just created the new department of Homeland Security which consists of thousands of employees. Whether we need it or not, it is (I think this is what I heard) now the third largest department of the Federal Government or third largest of all the cabinet level positions. Plus, where I live in NY, GOPers who control the State Senate and the governorship have kowtowed to the different unions of the state, pretty much granting them any favor they have ever requested. In return they got the votes needed for reelection. Despite the tax cuts and 'smaller government' ads Pataki and friends ran, there have been no job cuts despite the tough fiscal crunch the state faces.

SK, I also came from a lower income family who received government assistance. We too never turned to those things. But if our circumstances were different (like living in the projects instead) who knows?

Tycho
12-03-2002, 02:03 AM
Darth Sinister, I agree with you about Vincent Foster. I thought the same thing when it happened - exactly the same thing.

Next, I am at first take aback by the "don't say anything about the economy part," of the question asking what Clinton and Gore did while in office. It's a big topic to tackle, but the economy is surely almost all-encompassing everything.

The student service job core certainly builds human capital which means a more productive workforce made up of individuals who are better instructed on how to take care of themselves. The more of this there is, the healthier the economy is. I mean economics encompasses everything and statistical factors can help you gauge a heck of a lot of other, more narrow subjects, and evaluate how things are going in those areas.

But in the meantime, I also think your question surely brings up "What should a President / administration do while in the White House?"

Maybe Republicans will have different answers to that question than Democrats would. Maybe it's only a question about what are the means each party would use to get to the same desired ends. But the more I watch the directions this country takes with each different party, the more I think that the ends we want to achieve are not agreed upon, not by a long shot.

sith_killer_99
12-03-2002, 12:48 PM
Kerry has announced his bid for the Presidential nomination for the Democratic party.

What do you all think?

I will be watching.;)

BTW, he has also said that he will NOT be financing his own campaign, despite the fact that the family is loaded.:crazed:

In any event, it will be interesting.;)

The Overlord Returns
12-03-2002, 01:02 PM
If lack of charisma killed Gores hopes.............. won't this kerry just sink like a stone? He seems to make gore look like Steve martin by comparison....

JON9000
12-03-2002, 02:57 PM
I think Kerry has about zero chance. He took part in a massacre in Vietnem. If he runs, you can bet all the dirty details will come out. I didn't really care that Clinton was a womanizer, but war crimes are important factors, and they will turn everyone off. John Edwards is the Dems best chance.

plasticfetish
12-03-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
Kerry has announced his bid for the Presidential nomination for the Democratic party.
... he has also said that he will NOT be financing his own campaign, despite the fact that the family is loaded.

It seems that the money is not really his, it's his wifes from a previous marriage. I'm not sure what to think about this guy ... I suppose I don't know much about him (keep getting him confused with Bob Kerrey) but I'm sure we all will soon. This is a somewhat informative article if you haven't already read it ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39691-2002May31&notFound=true

:]

Tycho
12-03-2002, 03:32 PM
I thought Kerry had formed an exploratory committee to decide whether or not he will throw his hat in.

Translation: he's hired consultants and started to collect volunteers who will test the waters (by polling?) to see if fundraising will be possible and to test public opinion concerning him.

You know, Joe Lieberman might explore the same, but won't run against Gore if Al goes in.

But it's funny: I think that Kerry would stand a better chance than Lieberman, but no one knows for sure if they could win.

Kerry has to say to himself: "Gee, if I never run, I'll never know. But if I do run, there's (put in a reasonable figure) percent of a chance that I could actually win the Presidency of the United States."

To give that opportunity up and not run, might be equally foolish. Only someone who does not want the job, should not throw-in if they actually do stand some chance.

If they do want the job, but don't run against Bush, they also take the chance that they might have to wait 8 years out of their life to feasibly go for it again. If a Democrat makes "W." a one-termer like his dad, that Democrat would pretty much be unchallengable to other Democrats at the end of their first term, provided they are doing a good job.

For some reason I cannot recall whether President Clinton was opposed during his SECOND Democratic Primary or not.