2004 election

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

politics

Post by lance » Jan 26th 2004, 6:08 pm

Hey all,

I think New Hampshire doesn't mean much. I think the bid day will be February 3rd. Kerry is on top right now, but he has not organization in South Carolina. He pulled out what little he had to concentrate on Iowa.

Will see who does what on Feb 3rd. The media: I have seen so many hatchet jobs down by Maureen Dowd, Tim Russert and George S. The canidates can't let the media frame their message. Clark and Kerry have done the best so far in this regard.

-LanceMan

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jan 26th 2004, 6:30 pm

TomSpeed wrote:The reporter is grossly insensitive to the fact that Bush is hungry and wants some ribs. Like every other American, Bush is entitled to eat in peace.
Considering it was a photo-op, and the kick-off to his re-election campaign, and all Bush was doing was standing there with his arm around the owner, the reporters had every right to ask him those questions. And he refused to answer any of them. He didn't even leave a tip. Nice one.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Jan 26th 2004, 7:29 pm

Reporters are people, too. The reporter asked a question. He has the right to ask. Bush said he wasn't answering questions. He has a right not to answer questions. For the reporter to ask the question again and again is rude. He actually demanded an answer. Maybe other candidates should follow Bush's example. If you don't want to answer questions, don't answer them. That's how I read it anyway. I didn't see in the transcript about Bush not leaving a tip. Did the owner complain about Bush not leaving a tip? Is tipping customary in that restaurant? Does Bush tip at all? I'm not sure what tipping or not tipping says about Bush. It could mean he's too stupid to know how to calculate a tip. It could mean he doesn't tip. Or it could mean he's too cheap to tip. Or he could have tipped, but someone said he didn't to make him look bad to some people. I don't think tipping or not tipping is that important when somebody votes for president. At least he didn't act like his father, who was amazed by how cash registers worked during a campaign stop at JC Penney to buy socks. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most politicians don't tip. They are used to getting stuff free. Most of them haven't worked a real job in years, etc. I might be wrong though.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Jan 26th 2004, 7:46 pm

So far it’s between Kerry and Dean in my mind. I don’t believe Clark will be able to hang in there. Clark is basing his campaign on international experience right now, which is valuable and all, but what are you going to do with all that “experience”? I could see Leiberman getting a surge at the end if Dean and Kerry fall out of favor, but I haven’t been able to identify with him. I think Dean’s speech has nothing to do with his ability to be a president. He can pronounce words correctly and not look dumbfounded at every questioned asked of him, already a step ahead of Bush. The fact is it is easier to make a story people can digest about Dean’s hollering than it is to tackle larger more complicated issues. You ask the general public about what they know about Dean and most will say he yells and screams and jumps up and down, they have no idea what he stands for other than that. Most couldn’t name a single issue, but they can emulate the yell. Now I’m not a big Dean supporter in truth I haven’t made up my mind because I don’t know enough bout them all yet, but I think it is ridiculous how big of deal the speech has become. Shouldn’t what he talked about more important?

I’m having a hard time deciding because I’m caught between supporting a candidate that I most support and a candidate that has the best chance to win. Hopefully they will wind up being the same one, but it rarely works out that way. What good does it do to support someone who can’t win? I want the right man for the job in the office, but I also want a different one than we have above all else.

I must say I was impressed with Kerry’s response on gay marriages. He explained how he thought it was a rights issue, not a sanctity of marriage issue, and how he can support the issue without personally supporting gay marriages. I can find no reason other than prejudice to appose them, so even though I’m not an advocate or anything, I believe their rights should be protected. I thought this was a much better approach then Bush’s ban to protect the American family. Rights of the people should come before the President’s religious faith.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Post by Sammi » Jan 26th 2004, 10:40 pm

Since I currently living in Iowa, I thought I might give my insight in why Kerry won the caucus and not Dean. Kerry has had a huge presence here. He spent a lot of time connecting with the citizens of Iowa. He also inlisted his family (wife and son). At my university alone the Kerry for president held at least 5 rallies since last september. I attend a very small private University, so I can only imagine how many rallies he had University of Iowa, and Iowa State University as well as the dozens of other smaller universities in Iowa. Also Kerry made several personal calls to voters in an attempt to sway their decisions. Dean never came to our University once nor did he make a lot of other rallies in Des Moines itself.

So in summary I think that by having high visibility in Iowa he was able to win the caucus.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 27th 2004, 8:29 pm

Nothingman wrote: I must say I was impressed with Kerry’s response on gay marriages. He explained how he thought it was a rights issue, not a sanctity of marriage issue, and how he can support the issue without personally supporting gay marriages. I can find no reason other than prejudice to appose them, so even though I’m not an advocate or anything, I believe their rights should be protected. I thought this was a much better approach then Bush’s ban to protect the American family. Rights of the people should come before the President’s religious faith.
I believe this is called "framing the issue". This is something Democratic leaders have not done well these past three years. I am glad that Kerry was able to do this on an issue that I feel rather strongly on.

I think the battle cry for the Democrats is still, "Anybody but Bush...and Lieberman." I think Lieberman will drop out in a few weeks or simply stay on as an issue canidate. IMHO Lieberman is too close to the current Administration for the comfort of the Democratic base.

Sammi, thanks for that Iowa insight. You can read all you want to on the 'Net but is nice to hear from somebody on the ground.

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Bush ads

Post by lance » Mar 7th 2004, 11:13 am

So has anyone seen the ads?

What do you think about using images of 9-11 for political campaign commericals? Bad Taste?

On Meet the Press James Carville, democratic pundit, said that to his knowledge FDR never used Pearl Harbor in his campagn ads and that Clinton never used Oklahoma City footage in his campaign ads.

I will be back later with my thoughts.

-LanceMan

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Mar 8th 2004, 12:43 am

I find it distasteful. An obvious attempt to avoid the current issues and offer up a topic that no one else can counter. After all no one else was president during 9/11. But I find it to be in bad taste. In my opinion Bush does not deserve to be honored for 9/11 and the victims do not deserve to be a campaign add. Am I suppose to feel patriotic, I have never felt so blatantly manipulated by a president, and I haven’t even bought into it and I still feel that way.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
Dave Reed
Jody Barsh
Posts: 26
Joined: Dec 19th 2003, 9:24 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Post by Dave Reed » Mar 8th 2004, 6:48 pm

The ads, though I haven't seen them yet, pose the second time that Bush, himself, has waffled. Earlier on, he said that he wouldn't use 9/11 for campaigns. The other time was, of course, the whole gay marriage thing.
"Where it's not just a way of life but a toxic adventure & 60's-style love-in"

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Mar 8th 2004, 9:04 pm

Dave Reed wrote:The ads, though I haven't seen them yet, pose the second time that Bush, himself, has waffled. Earlier on, he said that he wouldn't use 9/11 for campaigns. The other time was, of course, the whole gay marriage thing.
Yeah,

the only thing Bush seems to want to run is 9-11. Be very afraid and vote for me. Don't pay attention to the job numbers, don't pay attention to mercury, lead or cynaide levels in the water, don't pay attention to logging or oil drilling on federal lands, don't pay attention to the 9-11 commission, don't pay attention to leak of Valerie Plume's name, don't pay attention to John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, don't pay attention to new rules limiting overtime pay, don't pay attention to the consolidation of media ownership, don't pay attention to white collar jobs going over seas, don't pay attention to 553 dead Americans lost in a war American didn't need to fight, don't pay attention to soaring deficits as far as the eye can see, in fact don't pay attention to life. Just trust in Bush and somehow everything will work itself out. Four more years!

:roll:

Or maybe not, maybe vote change this year and vote for Kerry. ABB-Anybody but Bush.

-LanceMan

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Mar 16th 2004, 5:58 pm

Hmmm... so lets see we must pay attention to only the Establishment Employment numbers don't look that the Home Employment Numbers that show job growth. Pay attention to the danger of dihydrogen monoxide and the fact that 90% of criminals are bread eaters and half of all bread eating children score below average on standardized tests :D . Don't pay attention to the fact that there are more trees in the US now than at the turn of the century, or the fact that OPEC is trying to throw there own little hissy fit about Iraq by raising oil prices. Pay attention to the 9-11 commission and the fact that the "outraged family's" are all part of an anti-bush group and were obviously coached in what to say to news reporters. Pay attention to the fact that Wilson hadn't been to Africa in five years and to Niger in more than 7, as well as to the fact that he didn't have any problem with the State of the Union address until he was approached for a book deal or the fact that several Washington insiders have come forward stating that it was not a big secret that his wife worked for the CIA.

Do pay attention to the Patriot Act!

Pay attention to the fact that the new overtime rules effect very few people and that they do not effect unions at all. Do not pay attention to the draconian tax system that makes it better for companies to reinvest there earnings into consolidation rather than have them double taxed as dividends to the shareholders, or the effects that that tax system and government controlled health care have on a company trying to pay and employee. Also don't look at the trend of companies who sent white collar jobs like computer programming overseas five years ago and are now hiring back programmers in the US due to the maintenance nightmare it caused. Don't pay attention to the 50,000+ Americans that died in the last war Kerry was involved in. Or the assassination plot that he was involved in and never reported. Or the medals he threw over the fence and yet still has. Or the mysterious leaders he can't talk about. Don't pay attention to the fact that the Dems cause the deficit during the 70's with their social programs that destroyed the inner citys.

Yes please raise my taxes and gut the military. Lets all wrap clothes around our head and praise Mohammad and party with Al-Qaida too, sorry but you women need to cover your faces and do as your men order you!
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Mar 17th 2004, 5:54 am

Awww mglenn. I missed you :)

And I was rattling along, reading your post and thinking that actually, you might have some solid points there.

Until this:
Mglenn wrote: Lets all wrap clothes around our head and praise Mohammad and party with Al-Qaida too
I don't agree with Bush's administration on basically 95% of what they have done so far. But that does NOT mean I want to party with Al-Qaida. Is someone not allowed to disagree, without being accused of siding with the terrorists? Sheesh. Looks like we're right back to square 1.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Mar 22nd 2004, 11:47 am

Is someone not allowed to disagree, without being accused of siding with the terrorists?

Sorry it was not intended that way. It was more a point of taking things to extremes. I understand that you don't agree that Iraq has anything to do with terrorism, but in my, and many others, opinions it does. We have destroyed the military center of extremist islam. We've provided a gathering point for every nut with a gun and a bone to pick with America a place to go and attempt to pick that bone. And it doing so we are eliminating those people who could later bring harm to America.

We are also greatly improving the quality of life in Iraq which will reflect on the rest of the middle east countries. Its fairly easy to convince a guy with nothing to live for to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a local restaurant and kill a few Jews and westerners. Its much harder if that same guy has a good job and a family won't be receiving a check from Saddam for blowing his ass up.

The simple fact is that in claiming that invading Iraq was wrong you are supporting all that happened there and saying that the status quo should have been maintained. The Killing, Raping and Torturing of Men, Women and Children most of who simply did exactly what you are doing with me, They disagreed with someone! I just don't see how you can say that you disagree with the Iraq invasion, without that meaning that you then agreed with the Iraqis form of government? And Iraq used islamic law to justify these atrocities, and as such if a person is to agree with Iraq's justifications they agree with using the perversion of islamic law as a reasoning for killing those that disagree with it... and who do we know that lives by those beliefs???
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 22nd 2004, 9:54 pm

The US has bitten off more Iraq than it can chew. People chided Bush I because he didn't take out Saddam. The old man knew we didn't have a dog in that fight. He also knew the resources and men that would be gobbled up by toppling Saddam. His son should have listened to him more closely. We will be supporting Iraq for years.

How many jobs would be created if the federal government decided to bring the country's electrical grid up to 21st century standards? Wouldn't it be nice if we could drive on modern highways? Are these improvements going to be done soon?

I don't think Bush II went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. I do think he decided to invade because he thought we would be safer with Saddam gone. But I think he badly misjudged the costs versus benefits equation.

Iraq will go the way of Iran. That's going to be the end result of bringing democracy to the country. Are Americans, Iraqis, and the rest of the world better with Saddam gone? That's a question that will be answered by history.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. No one likes to overlook tyranny and the human cost of oppression. I wish everyone could enjoy the prosperity, liberty, and safety Americans take for granted. However, I can't help wondering who will pay the tab, in more ways than one, when the bill is due.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Mar 23rd 2004, 10:52 am

People chided Bush I because he didn't take out Saddam. The old man knew we didn't have a dog in that fight.

No Bush I didn't take out Saddam because he bowed to political pressure that the coalition would collapse if the US occupied Iraq. The same way Reagan did when he chided Israel for the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor. Both of these acts only served in allowing Saddam to believe he was invincible and could do as he pleased.

We will be supporting Iraq for years.

Kinda like we did in Germany and Japan and those seemed to turn out OK. Of course it did take 7 years, in Germany, to get to point we are at now in Iraq.

How many jobs would be created if the federal government...

From that to this:

I wish everyone could enjoy the prosperity, liberty, and safety Americans take for granted. However, I can't help wondering who will pay the tab, in more ways than one, when the bill is due.

in the same post?

So let me get this, you wish everyone could live in a free world but not if it means you might lose you TV and microwave for a few hours or if it effects your ability to get down to the local Super Sam's Club in under 15 minutes???

But I think he badly misjudged the costs versus benefits equation.

Ask one of the 70 Iraqi newspapers if the cost to publish their views with out being arrested and tortured was worth making you wait for a quicker, smoother trip down the road or not losing you power ever?

Are Americans, Iraqis, and the rest of the world better with Saddam gone? That's a question that will be answered by history.

Why must that question be answered by history, are you afraid to answer it for yourself?
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests