Not trying to create animosity, but wondering what folks think.
If you post, say which candidate you think could win.
IMO Hillary is the only one with a chance, the other candidates are laughable.
Bush, beatable in 2004?
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Bush, beatable in 2004?
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
MegaFighter_X
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: 27 Apr 2003 16:52
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
There is always a chance that he will be beaten. I think what is going to end up killing him politically is all the money he's spending and not making any. Today, he told the public he wants $86 BILLION to fuck around in Iraq. The economy is going to get him ousted... But who knows? I'm hoping he does get beaten, personally. 
Please don't take offense or anything to this, this is simply my opinion.
Please don't take offense or anything to this, this is simply my opinion.
John D
-
ShredPirate
- Punkass
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: 03 May 2003 15:57
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Bush is definitely beatable in 2004. While I think an informed public would vote him out for several reasons, I feel that if he does lose it will be due to the economy over anything else.
Your average Joe on the street may not be aware of, or even care too much about, the damage the Bush administration is doing to the environment, education, or civil rights.
But the fact is, people who have lost their jobs under this administration, people who cant find jobs under this administration, and people who have given up looking for jobs under this administration, are all well aware that the economy is in the shitter.
Of those jobless people, the ones who arent in the top 1% of the economy are not being helped by massive tax cuts. The smart ones will also realize that the tax cuts (pretty much the only fiscal policy Bush has instated) means they will receive less services. For all the millions of dollars folks like Cheney and Bush get from these cuts, schools get less money, hospitals get less money, cities get less money. So if you are jobless, these tax cuts actually hurt you.
And its not just that more Americans have lost jobs under Bush than under any other President since Hoover (remember him? Great Depression.) . It`s that they see this President asking us for 87 billion dollars to keep us in Iraq. The economy is in the shitter, and we`re just pouring money into military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which are not producing any visible results except lots of dead American soldiers.
Remember May 1st? Sure you do. Bush spent over a million dollars to fly out onto the deck of an airforce carrier to announce an end to hostilities in Iraq. Remember the big flier in the background saying mission accomplished? That bugged me at the time, that a man who used his daddy`s name to avoid combat in his youth would delay the return of real American soldiers so he could stage a photo op that costs more than the annual salaries of all the soldiers he was inconveniencing. And since the `end of all hostilities in Iraq`, more Americans have died there than during the initial fighting.
The democrats need to find some teeth. I could go on about how Bush misled the country about the reasons to fight in Iraq. About his promises during the debates in 2000 not to embark on nationbuilding, and how hypocritical that is. About him trying to castrate the Clean Air Act. About the administration awarding all Oil contracts in Iraq to Cheney`s old company Halliburton in closed bidding. About pledging AIDS money to Africa in speeches and photo ops, and then giving them a fraction of what he promised.
But even if the Democrats don`t call him on all this shit, your man on the street without a job has plenty enough reason to be angry on his own.
Your average Joe on the street may not be aware of, or even care too much about, the damage the Bush administration is doing to the environment, education, or civil rights.
But the fact is, people who have lost their jobs under this administration, people who cant find jobs under this administration, and people who have given up looking for jobs under this administration, are all well aware that the economy is in the shitter.
Of those jobless people, the ones who arent in the top 1% of the economy are not being helped by massive tax cuts. The smart ones will also realize that the tax cuts (pretty much the only fiscal policy Bush has instated) means they will receive less services. For all the millions of dollars folks like Cheney and Bush get from these cuts, schools get less money, hospitals get less money, cities get less money. So if you are jobless, these tax cuts actually hurt you.
And its not just that more Americans have lost jobs under Bush than under any other President since Hoover (remember him? Great Depression.) . It`s that they see this President asking us for 87 billion dollars to keep us in Iraq. The economy is in the shitter, and we`re just pouring money into military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which are not producing any visible results except lots of dead American soldiers.
Remember May 1st? Sure you do. Bush spent over a million dollars to fly out onto the deck of an airforce carrier to announce an end to hostilities in Iraq. Remember the big flier in the background saying mission accomplished? That bugged me at the time, that a man who used his daddy`s name to avoid combat in his youth would delay the return of real American soldiers so he could stage a photo op that costs more than the annual salaries of all the soldiers he was inconveniencing. And since the `end of all hostilities in Iraq`, more Americans have died there than during the initial fighting.
The democrats need to find some teeth. I could go on about how Bush misled the country about the reasons to fight in Iraq. About his promises during the debates in 2000 not to embark on nationbuilding, and how hypocritical that is. About him trying to castrate the Clean Air Act. About the administration awarding all Oil contracts in Iraq to Cheney`s old company Halliburton in closed bidding. About pledging AIDS money to Africa in speeches and photo ops, and then giving them a fraction of what he promised.
But even if the Democrats don`t call him on all this shit, your man on the street without a job has plenty enough reason to be angry on his own.
If the american public knew anything at all they would have voted unanimously for RALPH NADER. The fact is the US is going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better. It's just one big stinking pile of corruption on top of another. I mean does anyone have to go into the details? It's a big conspiracy see, the rich bastards at the top take the money out of education so that the majority of the population don't realise their gettin' it up the rear.
I think ALL presidential candidates should be allotted the same amount of campaigning money, maybe even things out a bit eh? Ya think the oil companies want a president who cares about the environment?
And what happened to separation of church and state? The states needs a left wing atheist president to straighten things out.
Oh well, I'll just wait for the collapse of the american empire...it's inevitable ya know. Rome was taken out by a bunch of savages.
I think ALL presidential candidates should be allotted the same amount of campaigning money, maybe even things out a bit eh? Ya think the oil companies want a president who cares about the environment?
And what happened to separation of church and state? The states needs a left wing atheist president to straighten things out.
Oh well, I'll just wait for the collapse of the american empire...it's inevitable ya know. Rome was taken out by a bunch of savages.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
you make some interesting points:
ShredPirate: Ya Hillary will run, but only if she has better than 50-50 chance.
I hope she decides to run in 2008. Then "Rudy" can come back and defeat her in her Senate re-election. Then she will have no where to carpet-bag from (cept Arkansas, which she hates).
C-fan: True, 86 billion is a lot to ask for. I remember when we gave New York 20 billion to bail them out after the 9-11 attacks. 86 billion is chump change compared to the cost of more attacks(bankrupt airlines, security cost burdens, economic slowdown).
(I know your sensitive to this issue, so I don't toss it around lightly)
Did Bush really short-change Africa on his AIDS promise? GOOD!
That $15 billion dollar promise was a slap in the face to all struggling Americans.
Giving uneducated natives a complicated drug regiment is doomed to fail. Changing behavior is the only way to cut down on AIDS(like Uganda).
note: Clinton set a presidental record for travelling to other countries, often bringing massive entourages, costing many millions per trip.
At least Bush saved the money for a pilot and landed the plane himself.
ShredPirate: Ya Hillary will run, but only if she has better than 50-50 chance.
I hope she decides to run in 2008. Then "Rudy" can come back and defeat her in her Senate re-election. Then she will have no where to carpet-bag from (cept Arkansas, which she hates).
C-fan: True, 86 billion is a lot to ask for. I remember when we gave New York 20 billion to bail them out after the 9-11 attacks. 86 billion is chump change compared to the cost of more attacks(bankrupt airlines, security cost burdens, economic slowdown).
(I know your sensitive to this issue, so I don't toss it around lightly)
Did Bush really short-change Africa on his AIDS promise? GOOD!
That $15 billion dollar promise was a slap in the face to all struggling Americans.
Giving uneducated natives a complicated drug regiment is doomed to fail. Changing behavior is the only way to cut down on AIDS(like Uganda).
note: Clinton set a presidental record for travelling to other countries, often bringing massive entourages, costing many millions per trip.
At least Bush saved the money for a pilot and landed the plane himself.
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
He's right. Waging war is the only way to prevent future attacks. Don't you bleeding hearts know any history?True, 86 billion is a lot to ask for. I remember when we gave New York 20 billion to bail them out after the 9-11 attacks. 86 billion is chump change compared to the cost of more attacks
It's true. Being able to land a plane is a significant skill in world leadership. Everyone should care about this and bring it up when debating, becuase despite what those ignorant democrats without their pilot's licences say, it's valid.At least Bush saved the money for a pilot and landed the plane himself.
I can't joke about this.Did Bush really short-change Africa on his AIDS promise? GOOD!
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
The way anti-terrorism spending was set up after 9-11, your average citizen in Wyoming receives way WAY more anti-terrorism dollars than anybody who lives in high risk areas such as NYC or DC or SF. Every state either receives equal amounts, or its almost that bad.
As for the 20 billion promised to NYC for 9-11.
1. We didn`t get all of it.
2. The Bush administration was aware of the health dangers of all the asbestos like dust floating around after the attack, but made the EPA not report the danger, because they knew that would drive up the costs of reconstructing NYC even more.
3. NYC was attacked. This was not a decision we made. We didn`t plan on getting attacked, and once we were, we needed to rebuild. The money Bush is requesting is for a war he chose to fight, which was not necessary. Not only did he choose to fight it, he fought it in such a way that other countries wont help us financially, unlike the last gulf war, which the Saudis mostly paid for. On top of that, the planning for the post-war occupation was utter crap, which means we have to pay over 4 billion a month because we didnt plan post-war iraq well enough.
Oh, and The New York Times just ran an article about how people in African nations are better about sticking to AIDS medication regimes than are people in first world countries.
Also, I would gladly pay 86 billion to prevent further attacks on America. Unfortunately, that`s besides the point, since unilaterally invading Iraq, militarily occupying it, and pissing off the arab world isnt going to do it.
As for the 20 billion promised to NYC for 9-11.
1. We didn`t get all of it.
2. The Bush administration was aware of the health dangers of all the asbestos like dust floating around after the attack, but made the EPA not report the danger, because they knew that would drive up the costs of reconstructing NYC even more.
3. NYC was attacked. This was not a decision we made. We didn`t plan on getting attacked, and once we were, we needed to rebuild. The money Bush is requesting is for a war he chose to fight, which was not necessary. Not only did he choose to fight it, he fought it in such a way that other countries wont help us financially, unlike the last gulf war, which the Saudis mostly paid for. On top of that, the planning for the post-war occupation was utter crap, which means we have to pay over 4 billion a month because we didnt plan post-war iraq well enough.
Oh, and The New York Times just ran an article about how people in African nations are better about sticking to AIDS medication regimes than are people in first world countries.
Also, I would gladly pay 86 billion to prevent further attacks on America. Unfortunately, that`s besides the point, since unilaterally invading Iraq, militarily occupying it, and pissing off the arab world isnt going to do it.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
c-fan said:
-------------------
2. The Bush administration was aware of the health dangers of all the asbestos like dust floating around after the attack.....
-------------------
Anybody with a brain should have realized this.
2 days after the fact, I thought, "look at all that dust, that can't be good" (my sister lives a few blocks from there.)
I also thought, "Where's Hillary?" she's the smartest woman in the world.
How could she not bring up this danger to her constitients?
c-fan also said:
------------------------
The money Bush is requesting is for a war he chose to fight, which was not necessary.
------------------------
Yeah, we should have rebuilt Pearl Harbor to. But not declare war, that's was to expensive.
c-fan also said:
------------------------
Oh, and The New York Times just ran an article about how people in African nations are better about sticking to AIDS medication regimes than are people in first world countries.
------------------------
Didn't they just fire everyone for making stuff up? You believe them?
If so, I have a California drivers license for sale.
-n
(so much for not creating animosity, I'm not mad at anyone though)
-------------------
2. The Bush administration was aware of the health dangers of all the asbestos like dust floating around after the attack.....
-------------------
Anybody with a brain should have realized this.
2 days after the fact, I thought, "look at all that dust, that can't be good" (my sister lives a few blocks from there.)
I also thought, "Where's Hillary?" she's the smartest woman in the world.
How could she not bring up this danger to her constitients?
c-fan also said:
------------------------
The money Bush is requesting is for a war he chose to fight, which was not necessary.
------------------------
Yeah, we should have rebuilt Pearl Harbor to. But not declare war, that's was to expensive.
c-fan also said:
------------------------
Oh, and The New York Times just ran an article about how people in African nations are better about sticking to AIDS medication regimes than are people in first world countries.
------------------------
Didn't they just fire everyone for making stuff up? You believe them?
If so, I have a California drivers license for sale.
-n
(so much for not creating animosity, I'm not mad at anyone though)
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
A majority of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. He did not. Maybe you`re in that majority. As for the dust thing, there was a good article by Paul Krugman about that in the Times, but I am having trouble tracking it down.HighDemonslayer wrote:cc-fan also said:
------------------------
The money Bush is requesting is for a war he chose to fight, which was not necessary.
------------------------
Yeah, we should have rebuilt Pearl Harbor to. But not declare war, that's was to expensive.
Glib, funny answers that avoid answering the issues at hand are entertaining, but ultimately pointless.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
c-fan said:
------------------------
A majority of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (...) Maybe you`re in that majority.
-------------------------
I guess I do believe that there was some type of connection. On it's face, that should not be an outlandish belief. A New York judge recently allowed a lawsuit to progress against (someone?), citing evidence of training camps dedicated to airline hijacking, Egyptian agents who trained there, and photos of the plane used to practice.
(Bush WAS an idiot to not publicize this)
c-fan said:
------------------------
(...)He did not(....)
------------------------
How do you know?
c-fan also said:
-------------------
As for the dust thing, there was a good article by Paul Krugman about that in the Times, but I am having trouble tracking it down.
------------------------
O.K. he has some credibility. But, like I said, anyone should have realized the dust danger, and not trusted the government to protect or inform us(especially after a spectacular failure to protect us).
c-fan also said:
------------------------
Glib, funny answers that avoid answering the issues at hand are entertaining, but ultimately pointless.
------------------------
I'm trying to be as brief as possible. My witty statements have roots in the truth. And are anything but pointless.
For example:
The New York Times is unreliable, with biased coverage.
Pearl Harbor..... we got our ass handed to us. And still many people argued that war was unnecessary and to expensive, and to risky.
Bush was also a fool by not doing something right after 9-11, when support was high. But no, he listened to the peaceniks and took it to the U.N. (for more than a year!) to ask permission. Bush looked so WEAK pleading with them to do something, instead of doing his duty. Maybe they could have issued another resolution(toliet paper).
p.s.
So what if the Arab world hates us. They were dancing in the streets as the towers went down. You can't please them with weakness and inaction.
Adversaries respect power, and show contempt for weakness(Somalia, for example)
------------------------
A majority of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (...) Maybe you`re in that majority.
-------------------------
I guess I do believe that there was some type of connection. On it's face, that should not be an outlandish belief. A New York judge recently allowed a lawsuit to progress against (someone?), citing evidence of training camps dedicated to airline hijacking, Egyptian agents who trained there, and photos of the plane used to practice.
(Bush WAS an idiot to not publicize this)
c-fan said:
------------------------
(...)He did not(....)
------------------------
How do you know?
c-fan also said:
-------------------
As for the dust thing, there was a good article by Paul Krugman about that in the Times, but I am having trouble tracking it down.
------------------------
O.K. he has some credibility. But, like I said, anyone should have realized the dust danger, and not trusted the government to protect or inform us(especially after a spectacular failure to protect us).
c-fan also said:
------------------------
Glib, funny answers that avoid answering the issues at hand are entertaining, but ultimately pointless.
------------------------
I'm trying to be as brief as possible. My witty statements have roots in the truth. And are anything but pointless.
For example:
The New York Times is unreliable, with biased coverage.
Pearl Harbor..... we got our ass handed to us. And still many people argued that war was unnecessary and to expensive, and to risky.
Bush was also a fool by not doing something right after 9-11, when support was high. But no, he listened to the peaceniks and took it to the U.N. (for more than a year!) to ask permission. Bush looked so WEAK pleading with them to do something, instead of doing his duty. Maybe they could have issued another resolution(toliet paper).
p.s.
So what if the Arab world hates us. They were dancing in the streets as the towers went down. You can't please them with weakness and inaction.
Adversaries respect power, and show contempt for weakness(Somalia, for example)
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
*Edited for being an asshole
'So what if the Arab world hates us.'
I'm not sure if you know this, but people hating you is dangerous.
'So what if the Arab world hates us.'
I'm not sure if you know this, but people hating you is dangerous.
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Jeremy: The reason I like the Simpsons is obvious. And a lot of they're humor takes jabs at real life.
He targets some on the right and left . He targets his "fellow lefties" more because it is easier to make them look ridiculous.
He makes Clinton look like a total bafoon whenever he's a "guest".
I respect Matt G. for his talent and business prowess. Just because we might disagree, doesn't mean I hate him.
That would be most intolerant, to hate somebody for their thoughts, to think the world would be better off if "those" people weren't around.
Hypocritical is it when we are told(threatened) not to hate, not to be racist, or a homophobe. And then those same people will turn around and spew naked bigotry and hatred towards Jews, Christians, or anyone with even a single conservative idea.
Lenny rocks!
-n
He targets some on the right and left . He targets his "fellow lefties" more because it is easier to make them look ridiculous.
He makes Clinton look like a total bafoon whenever he's a "guest".
I respect Matt G. for his talent and business prowess. Just because we might disagree, doesn't mean I hate him.
That would be most intolerant, to hate somebody for their thoughts, to think the world would be better off if "those" people weren't around.
Hypocritical is it when we are told(threatened) not to hate, not to be racist, or a homophobe. And then those same people will turn around and spew naked bigotry and hatred towards Jews, Christians, or anyone with even a single conservative idea.
Lenny rocks!
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan