|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Aug 31st, 2003 10:25 PM | ||||||||
The One and Only... |
I don't know who the hell I would vote for, but it would NOT be John Kerry. I would much prefer taking a large shit on his mouth by claiming that the problem with Bush is that he's an "extreme libertarian". I'm not saying his comment was foolish because there's nothing wrong with libertarianism, but because he called Bush one. WTF? Bush is most certainly not a libertarian, and never will be. My guess was that he was trying to make libertarians look bad, even though he knows damn well he shouldn't claim Bush among them. Probably the best Democrat I've seen isn't even running for president, and I didn't care enough to catch his name. He's a senator: the one that basically whooped Wolfowitz's ass during a debate; that's all I really remember. I liked him because he actually seemed to have a clue with what is going on, and was able to tell that Bush is basically bending over for the neocons. I'm not saying I agreed with his political views entirely, but he was at least honest. You might know him from Real Time will Bill Mahrer last night. |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 10:03 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
If some Dems. want to switch over temporarily or permanently, well that's theie perogative. It may be a good thing, cuz another realignment might be in order at this point in the game.... Quote:
On the other hand, labor won't be stabbed in the back again like they were by Clinton. Dean has essentially endorsed the neo-liberal policies of Clinton on free trade and such, and that might cost him the labor vote. However, once again, winning often becomes more important than idealism, and the current flocking of lefties to the Dean campaign serves as an excellent example.... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And pinky, please don't think I was patronizing you, I truly am grateful you aren't THIS: Quote:
And you're telling me that every person who voted for Bush in 2000, and every voter who will likely vote for him in 2004, understand COMPLETELY why they vote the way they do....? Please, just, stop. Stop. No more. |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 06:51 PM | ||||||||
VinceZeb |
I'll break it down: If you ask most people why they wouldn't vote for Bush, they couldn't give you a real reason. The only reasons they have is because a celeberty said something or some so called "political expert" said something. They haven't done any research or even know shit about politics. I generally refer to these people as sheeple. |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 02:33 PM | ||||||||
glowbelly | pinky? don't try to understand him. it's futile. | |||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 02:18 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
"celeberties and college-political scientist"?? what the?? |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 02:06 PM | ||||||||
VinceZeb | We have raised a country of idiots that knows nothing of self-reliance or true indivudality. They only vote against Bush because a couple of celeberties and college-political scientist say he is bad. | |||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 01:46 PM | ||||||||
O71394658 |
I don't know if this has been said, as I've only mildly skimmed through the thread. I don't think the rise of the 3rd party is going to come too soon in this country. It just follows the lines of basic apathy. How many people come out to vote for President? 40%? 50%? 60%? The fact that people wouldn't bother spending the 5 minutes to vote for the person who is going to lead their nation for the next 4 years is rather upsetting. Among those who do vote, there are those that take the "Perndog" stance. They'll just follow the stereotypical roles of partisan politics and vote for the ones they hate less. Most would equate the Conservative to be a fat, rich, white man who likes to fuck over the poor. Most Americans don't even bother finding out the stances of their political candidates. They just choose the lesser of two evils. For example, no matter how far-left Dean turns out to be, he is still, if he gets the nomination, going to draw a substantial amount of voters towards him. Those merely dissatisfied with the Bush administration would take the stance that "anything is better than this guy" and pull the lever for Dean, not merely because they like him or support his policies, but only because they've developed a deep-seated hatred for the current President. For an example, I've pulled a quote from another thread. Quote:
|
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 01:21 PM | ||||||||
CaptainBubba | Pinky Lee obviously has this place figured out. | |||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 01:04 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
who the fuck are you calling a he-she you anus with ears Im female although that seems to be a bit threatening to some of the macho shitheads waving there tiny dicks around this entire forum |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 12:51 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
And pinky's politics certainly can't be any worse than yours, faux-libertarian-conservo boy.... |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 12:33 PM | ||||||||
CaptainBubba | Vince, I think its time you started posting in other forums. You are an endless source of comedic value which is desperately needed in general blabber. And lets be honest here. You no longer have anything to add to any political disscusion. | |||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 12:26 PM | ||||||||
VinceZeb |
Pinky's politics are stupid, but he/she has single-handedly made Kevin look like a flaming idiotic homo. I thought only a posting of Kevin's picture would do that. Good show. |
|||||||
Aug 31st, 2003 12:19 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
well you should hope that Gephardt wins the nomination, and not Dean if you are a Democrat- Dean is going to cause a whole new wave of Reagan Democrats- conservative Dems who cant stomach a hard lefty like Dean and who might vote straight Rep ticket Labor delivered the votes for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000. But union members are much more conservative on issues like national security and gun control, and not likely to fall in line behind an old school peacenik like Dean. If they go in big numbers to Bush and the GOP, it increases the possibility that Republicans will win super majorities in the Senate and House. Some labor leaders are agitating to back a single Democratic candidate to offsett Dean. The Teamsters already endorsed Gephardt and several other unions are also backing Gephardt. But Gephardt 's an uninspiring candidate. Union members may give him their vote but first they have to care enough to come to the polls. Dean can speak to the 25 percent of voters who hate Bush and will bring out college students who otherwise wouldn't vote. And in a primary with a lot of candidates, that could be all it takes to win. That would leave labor in using membership money to back a candidate its members can't stomach. Dean may talk the talk on trade and job protection, but union members are smart enough to know that jobs don't come from that far left. Privately, some union officials hint they may effectively sit out the general election if Dean wins the nomination. |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 09:03 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
And following your logic, I'd say it can only get worse if the Republicans gain more and more seats. They can't hold it all forever, right? Quote:
The article was an interesting read, but I cringe at the selective use of history and information used by the libertarian extremists at the Cato Institute. I'll have to read through it again, but here's one part that caught me: "New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation's poorest region. ''A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams,'' Powell writes. ''Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.'' And what the author neglects to mention is that it was racist southern Democrats who pushed to prevent the New Deal from extending too far into their own constituencies, because it would've provided blacks with work. Had FDR not yielded on this, the welfare policies may never have reached fruition in the first place. This was undoubtedly an unfortunate compromise, but certainly not FDR's intent, or his "folly." In providing social nets and expanding government programs, FDR just may have saved us from the popularity of Communism and Socialst revolution that often resulted when countrires went into economic distress. I'm sure our friends at the Cato Institute wouldn't believe that.... And just how is President Bush contracting the size of government, by expanding medicare to cover elderly prescription plans?? This is a big government conservative if I have ever seen one.... |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 07:58 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
CA lost 2 electoral votes and 2 seats in Congress last census. The point is the Republicans are gaining in the areas of growth and prosperity. Also, you were talking about local elections- the Republicans gained control of a majority of state legislatures for the first time since the Civil War. Despite losses, they still lead in Governorships. They control all 3 branches of the Federal Government and look to expand that advantage next election, by even Dem estimates- also, they performed a historical first when they picked up seats in an off-year elections in both Houses of Congress. It can only get batter. I'd hate to be a Dem in the coming decade, they are fighting a reactive battle to try to keep from losing power, and the big deficit will help contract government. Everything further erodes the terrible burden FDR put on the average citizen with his disasterous New Deal- we are still dismantling it. GWB should have it pretty well reversed by 2008. http://www.suntimes.com/output/roese...dt-roes30.html |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 07:25 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that the Republican Party is likewise a "regional" party. And the exodus aside, states like California still comprise a large amount of the nation's population, and with our birth rate decreasing, and other factors in California, the state can oinly go down in population from there. And of course people and businesses are going to flock to the places with cheaper taxes.... |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 05:46 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
you misunderstand my point about the red and blue states http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110003942 explains it better- plus, blue states like CA and NY are losing electoral votes while red states are picking them up |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 05:34 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Both Dean and Kerry have dropped mentionings that Bob Graham would make a good runningmate. Is this because he's such a swell guy and a great senator? No. It's because he could possibly lock in Florida....learning from mistakes. Granted, recent polling data shows that Graham may not be a lock for Florida, but he is still fairly popular amongst the conservative Democrats in Florida. Dean can easily take NY, probably take California, probably home state Vermont, and probably other North Eastern bastions as well. This guy has a chance.... Quote:
And you give "Republican dominance" far too much credit. Republicans may have swept out the Federal level, but when you count win totals from the 2002 mid-cycle elections, AND include statewide offices, the Democrats did just peachy. Most places are still dominated by old machine and party boss style setups. I wouldn't anticipate any kind of sweeping "Republican revolution" any time soon... Quote:
However, this very same problem once burdened the Republican Party. "liberal Republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," or "Eisenhower Republicans" ran much of the 1st half of the century, while conservative ideologues and southern racists bounced around from party to party. Folks like Barry Goldwater helped shift the "solid South" though, and the Willie Buckley's of the party fought for more influence. This again occurred in 1994, when guys like anti-semite Pat Robertson helped devise the "no enemies to the Right" policy. Oh, the conservative ideologues and populists are in the Republican Party, they just shut up when told to. You think guys like Pat Buchanan and Grover Norquist are happy with Medicare expansion and a sky rocketing deficit....? Both parties are considered "big tent" parties. Shouldn't internal debate, pulling-and-tugging, representation, etc. be encouraged with these broad parties, rather than stifled debate...? Quote:
Young people today are just as involved in community events, functions, aiding homeless shelters, etc. The thing they consistently do not do is vote. I don't know of any old leftists who "bemoan" the conservative youth, which is again a greatly overstated matter.... Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 04:01 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
In brief, my opinion is the angry far lefties who control the primaries are going to drag the party to the left and ultimately break it up. I know the Greens aren't viable. I suspect in the next generation we'll see a dominant majority Republican party with a shifting coalition of smaller parties of varying degrees of liberal/socialist slates, much like in Parlimentary countries. The problem with the Dem party is, and has always been, its a competing group of special interests who are all chasing the same dime- the well has run dry so they have very little common interest, and each of their competing interests are going to make them tear at one another. On top of that is the real anger and impotence of the dying hippie left who bemoan the conservatism of today's youth. I think they are already a regional instead of a national party and the exodus of productive members of the blue states to the red states is going to exacerbate the situation. I'd link you to the article I read aobut that yesterday but I'm too busy. later |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:45 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You give far too much credit to the Left. It has tried working throughout the system to take over the Democratic Party, and it hasn't worked since the 1970s. The pieces left after the demise off the Citizens Party went into the Jackson presidential camp in the 80s, in an attempt to push him up. That didn't work, and it hasn't worked. The DLC are far too powerful, and far too many elected Democrats are in bed with big donors to push too far to the Left. Quote:
Quote:
The Lefties are flocking to Dean because he opposed the war, he was governor of Bernie Sanders' state, and he works on a so-called "grassroots" level. Truth is, he isn't that liberal, and he also has big money behind him, like from AOL Time-Warner. Now I'm certain that your view of what makes someone a "socialist" or a "fanatic" is different than mine, but I have a hard time seeing what makes Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton one of those things. |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:36 PM | ||||||||
Perndog | I don't think you quite get it. Right now, there is no way we will have a 3rd party candidate. I am opposed to the Republican platform, and I feel that any Republican official will support policy that is detrimental to me and contrary to my personal beliefs. Therefore, I vote Democrat to keep Republicans out of office. Shove your sanity and rationale up your ass, I've demonstrated mine and it makes perfect sense to me. | |||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:22 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
Quote:
|
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:17 PM | ||||||||
pinky lee |
The Whig party was pretty monied too, and it met the same fate. I'll tell you what I base it on- there is a hard core cadre of unrepentant tax-spend-socialist government program- politically correct- minority set aside- gay empowerment- anti-military- pro-abortion fanatics who are tired of sublimating their hard left ideology in order to win elections. Its not working anyway, the only years it worked and the only Dem is elected is Bill Clinton, and he was basically a liberal nightmare- he single handedly set back socialized health care, the welfare system and protectiionist union policies. So, they are rebellilng against the DLC with its Leibermanlst centrist policies and going on a liberal kamikaze mission. The only reason the Dem party is viable at all is that mostly they hide their far left agenda or pander to enough groups to mollify the lefties who dont really get any real power. Now, Dean and Co. are threatening to blow the lid off what the true agenda of the far left is: and they control the Dem activists who control the primaries. By and large the electorate DOESNT support the ideology of Commisar Rodham-Clinton and even she knows enough to make nice about the military and security. Dean has no such compunctions. His "surrender first' strategy will go over like a led zeppeliin and he could conceivably lose 49 states, even liberal NY and CA. On his coattails the Senate could go 60+ filibuster proof Republican. On the heels of this, the centrist disgust at the far left's hari kari will split the party. The Greens will make up a 3rd sect. Once the rift begins, there will be scism after scism as various interest groups break off to consolidate what power they have left. etc. ad nauseum |
|||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:14 PM | ||||||||
Perndog | No matter how poor the Democratic party gets, there will still be plenty of voters for them, like me, simply because we hate the Republicans and will accept any alternative to them. | |||||||
Aug 30th, 2003 03:06 PM | ||||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Warren R. Ashe (D-Virginia) * Donald P. Award (D-Connecticut) * Jerry G. Beck (D-Missouri) * Sanderson Beck (D-California) * Jim Bollinger (D-Indiana) * Willie Carter (D-Texas) * Patrick Cazneau (D-California) * Randy Crow (D-North Carolina) * John Estrada (D-Nevada) * Susan Fey (D-Colorado) * James I. Glover (D-New Jersey) * Al Hamburg (D-Wyoming) * Amanda Lou Hardy (D-DC) * Alfonzo Jones (D-New York) * Lyndon LaRouche (D-New York) * Glenn D. Leaverton (California) * Sherry Meadows (D-Texas) * Grady Dean Mollenhauer Jr. (D-New York) * Fred Ogin (D-Oregon) * Bill Pearman (D-Indiana) * Fern Penna (D-New York) * James J. Prattas (D-Hawaii) * John Donald Rigazio (D-New Hampshire) * Adam Safran (D-California) * Ole S. Savior (D-Minnesota) * Craig E. Sharp (D-Texas) * Former Congressman Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) #* Evelyn L. Vitullo (D-Arizona) * Lucian J. "Louie" Wojciechowski (California) * Happy now? Might wanna double check on when they all filed their paper work, too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Saying something enough times doesn't necessarily make it true. Conservatives can say "Dean will be McGovern, Dean will be McGovern" all they like, but that doesn't make it true. Just like if I had said "Bush will be Goldwater, Bush will be Goldwater" over and over again, that doesn't make it true. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can you at least expand upon your apocalyptic prediction here....? |
|||||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |