KinkaidAlum Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 What a fun thread to reread 4 years later. I'd be interested to hear what the unabashed Bush supporters from 4 years ago think now. Any takers?The truth tellers in my opinion this go round are Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, and possibly Biden. I don't agree with what they all stand for, but at least I know what they stand for.My prediction for what to watch for; if Huckabee wins in New Hampshire be prepared for the big money to come out and CRUSH him ala McCain. Fundamentalists like to think they run the GOP but the fact of the matter is BIG INDUSTRY MONEY runs the RNC and they would rather any of the Democrats win over Huckabee. A few years ago, we had to watch as the Republicans ate McCain and questioned his cojones because he spoke out against torture. What will they trump up to stop the Huckster?As a proud Democrat, here's how I rank my favorites;Kucinich (has no chance but I like that he causes trouble)Obama Edwards Biden RichardsonClinton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Unfortunately, since I'd already said earlier that I would favor a basic preventative healthcare program, I read through about half of that sentence and caught the word "tuberculosis" at the end, and figured that you were asking me to pay for the treatment of my neighbor's TB.I'm not asking. I'm telling you how our society works. You don't get to opt out of every tax and every program you disagree with. If you live among people who elect a government that passes a law that says your tax money will be spent treating your neighbor's TB, then you have 4 options. You can pay the tax, you can not pay the tax (and face criminal penalties), or you can move. You can also campaign to change the government while doing one of the first three. I'm not sure where killing me figures into any of that.If you're asking whether I'd be willing to include quarantine as part of the preventative healthcare program, I would. But I won't pay for that person's treatment.Sure you will.EDIT: In retrospect, my conditional death threat is really really funny.It isn't funny from where I'm sitting. Can you explain the joke? Edited January 6, 2008 by memebag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm not asking. I'm telling you how our society works. You don't get to opt out of every tax and every program you disagree with. If you live among people who elect a government that passes a law that says your tax money will be spent treating your neighbor's TB, then you have 4 options. You can pay the tax, you can not pay the tax (and face criminal penalties), or you can move. You can also campaign to change the government while doing one of the first three. I'm not sure where killing me figures into any of that.And I'm telling you what should be, not what will be. But sometimes people get raped at gunpoint...it sucks but life goes on.Killing you doesn't figure into that, btw, but the phrase was (at the time) intended to make you think about the ethics of taking something precious from one person by force to give to another.It isn't funny from where I'm sitting. Can you explain the joke?Accidental non sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 If there were a single policy issue one had to pick in order to vote, this would be mine.And no, no mainstream candidate can buck the insurance companies on this.The insurance companies?How bout a ____load of voters, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 What a fun thread to reread 4 years later. I'd be interested to hear what the unabashed Bush supporters from 4 years ago think now. Any takers?I can't stand GW but I would still take him over John "Always criticize but never offer a solution" Kerry. I think last nights Simpsons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Politics 101: If you're going to show emotion, make sure it's in full view of the camera! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 What a fun thread to reread 4 years later. I'd be interested to hear what the unabashed Bush supporters from 4 years ago think now. Any takers?The truth tellers in my opinion this go round are Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, and possibly Biden. I don't agree with what they all stand for, but at least I know what they stand for.My prediction for what to watch for; if Huckabee wins in New Hampshire be prepared for the big money to come out and CRUSH him ala McCain. Fundamentalists like to think they run the GOP but the fact of the matter is BIG INDUSTRY MONEY runs the RNC and they would rather any of the Democrats win over Huckabee. A few years ago, we had to watch as the Republicans ate McCain and questioned his cojones because he spoke out against torture. What will they trump up to stop the Huckster?As a proud Democrat, here's how I rank my favorites;Kucinich (has no chance but I like that he causes trouble)Obama Edwards Biden RichardsonClintonYeah, It's all about Barack Obama. He will do a great job leading our nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) I can't stand GW but I would still take him over John "Always criticize but never offer a solution" Kerry. I think last nights Simpsons episode summed up the whole Democratic party pretty well:"I don't know how we will blow it, but we will because that's what the Democratic party is all about".If only we had a government that just criticize and does nothing, then we wouldn't be in so much crap right now. The country is in a much worse shape, international standing in the toilet, money deficit down the drain, civil liberties lost, because we offered solutions. The act of implementing a solution, any solution, no matter how crappy was deem more important, that is why we are in the shape we are now. Let's attack anywhere, cause we got attacked. Lets take our citizens liberty, cause we want to protect them. Let borrow money, cause we need an even bigger military.I would rather they had done nothing, then that would actually be doing the best thing ever. Edited January 8, 2008 by webdude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I would rather they had done nothing, then that would actually be doing the best thing ever.I actually agree with you on this, however LunaticFringe's point was more likely that John Kerry spent all his time criticizing Bush without actually driving home what he wanted to do, specifically, or how he intended to accomplish it. ...better the devil you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I can't stand GW but I would still take him over John "Always criticize but never offer a solution" Kerry. I think last nights Simpsons episode summed up the whole Democratic party pretty well:"I don't know how we will blow it, but we will because that's what the Democratic party is all about".It's important to note that what a politician does in office is very different from what he says on the campaign trail. GWB promised to back away from interventionist policies and he criticized other administrations for nation building - now the only two things he's known for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) I'm listening to Obama's 2nd Place speech following the NH primaries, and its just disgusting. He's preaching. He's not preaching anything in particular, policy-wise. Just preaching. ...and regularly slipping into a fake southern accent that we all know that he enunciates too well to actually have.This is early stumping for the SC primaries, of course. I guess the question is whether southerners are as stupid and gullible as he thinks they are.EDIT: As assinine as Obama's speech was, Clinton's was just sucky, so I give him the edge. Edited January 9, 2008 by TheNiche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) I am just happy to hear any of the candidates speak; its refreshing to hear presidential candidates who can speak properly, compared to the stammering clown currently in office. Edited January 9, 2008 by webdude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millennica Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I am just happy to hear any of the candidates speak; its refreshing to hear presidential candidates who can speak properly, compared to the stammering clown currently in office. I completely agree. Just a small selection from the rather large corpus of malapropisms, semantic or linguistic errors and gaffes made by our current president. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." Oct. 18, 2000"It's your money. You paid for it." Oct. 18, 2000"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Jan. 27, 2000"They misunderestimated me." Nov. 6, 2000"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?' Jan. 11, 2000"Never again in the halls of Washington, D.C., do I want to have to make explanations that I can't explain." Oct. 31, 2000"They said, 'You know, this issue doesn't seem to resignate with the people.' And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn't matter to me, because I stand for doing what's the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work. Oct. 31, 2000"Reading is the basics for all learning." --George W. Bush, March 28, 2000"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." Jan. 3, 2000."We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal --" federal cufflink." March 30, 2000"If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow." --George W. Bush, Jan. 2000"There's an old saying in Tennessee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I am just happy to hear any of the candidates speak; its refreshing to hear presidential candidates who can speak properly, compared to the stammering clown currently in office.I for one am not happy to hear them speak; its a frustrating reminder that they're insincere douchebags without internally consistent political philosophies. GWB only has another year in office, the candidates currently running are looking forward to having four. And what lies ahead is more troubling than what has passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) I for one am not happy to hear them speak; its a frustrating reminder that they're insincere douchebags without internally consistent political philosophies. GWB only has another year in office, the candidates currently running are looking forward to having four. And what lies ahead is more troubling than what has passed.The most honest sincere consistent one I can think of is Ron Paul, but you seem to dislike him most. Such is the nature of politics, maybe you should run. Edited January 9, 2008 by webdude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liammclaren Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) The most honest one I can think of is Ron Paul, but you seem to dislike him most, so maybe you should run.people like Niche aren't really interested in honesty, they prefer being lied to, that's why they can't stand Ron Paul Edited January 9, 2008 by liammclaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) people like Niche aren't really interested in honesty, they prefer being lied to, that's why they can't stand Ron PaulUnfortunately, there is too much controversy around his god in government stance plus some other extreme ideas that I too have my doubts. But I do find him really consistent and sincere of the bunch. Maybe being too consistent and not playing enough politician is why he is still down. Edited January 9, 2008 by webdude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liammclaren Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 there is too much controversy around his god in government stancenot quite sure what you mean by that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The most honest one I can think of is Ron Paul, but you seem to dislike him most, so maybe you should run.He's honest, yes, but his policy proposals are flawed, fraught with internal inconsistency, and to top it off, doesn't stand a chance in an election. If he can't pull it off in NH, he can't pull it off anywhere else...the Libertarians are rabid up there. Still, I'd rather Paul than Huckabee.I'm not old enough to run for president, and aside from having insufficient experience or money, I also have no desire to endure (or perpetrate) the hardball politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Unfortunately, there is too much controversy around his god in government stance plus some other extreme ideas that I too have my doubts. But I do find him really consistent and sincere of the bunch. Maybe being too consistent and not playing enough politician is why he is still down.Btw, by internal consistency, I'm referring to the various concepts employed in his political philosophy such as you just brought up. His message is remarkably consistent...gotta give credit where it is due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Read an interesting theory stating that NH independents saw in the polls that Obama had it in the bag and decided to vote for McCain instead. Clinton got 47% of the women vote, while Obama got 34%, while in Iowa, Obama got 35% to Hillary's 30% women vote. New Hampshire is full of old, white, New England elitist types....I still have hope. And remember, Bill didn't win NH the first time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 people like Niche aren't really interested in honesty, they prefer being lied to, that's why they can't stand Ron PaulI'll tell you one thing ANYONE that has been in Washington over 30 years is a lying snake in the grass. Honest people don't last in the snake den, I don't care what political affiliation they are. New blood is your only chance to get someone close to honest, and they will be one and out, two if they are lucky. These career politicians are all POS as far as I am concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liammclaren Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'll tell you one thing ANYONE that has been in Washington over 30 years is a lying snake in the grass.I completely agree with you, but Ron Paul may just be the exception that proves the rule. Not saying he's perfect, but I'll take him over any of the other lying scumbags every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northbeaumont Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I completely agree with you, but Ron Paul may just be the exception that proves the rule. Not saying he's perfect, but I'll take him over any of the other lying scumbags every time.Thanks, Granite State! Hillary all the way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Would Hillary be more effective since she's had years to build political connections? Or will Obama do better because he doesn't come with a lot of baggage?(I would like to send Huckabee back to Arkansas. What a ridiculous choice for a candidate - I guess for all those who believe that Chuck Norris is Jack Bauer and Jack Bauer is real.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liammclaren Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (I would like to send Huckabee back to Arkansas. What a ridiculous choice for a candidate - I guess for all those who believe that Chuck Norris is Jack Bauer and Jack Bauer is real.)No kidding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 But I heard if Huckabee wins he will withdraw all the troops and just send Chuck over to finish the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Read an interesting theory stating that NH independents saw in the polls that Obama had it in the bag and decided to vote for McCain instead. Clinton got 47% of the women vote, while Obama got 34%, while in Iowa, Obama got 35% to Hillary's 30% women vote. New Hampshire is full of old, white, New England elitist types....I still have hope. And remember, Bill didn't win NH the first time around.New Hampshire is definitely full of white people. Hell, less than ONE PERCENT of voters are black!That said, you rarely hear New Hampshire and elite in the same sentence. New Englanders often call New Hampshire the Mississippi of New England. It's the home of the only NASCAR track in New England, redneck honky-tonk beach towns, motorcycle gathering spots, etc... New Hampshire also has more registered Republicans than Democrats.It's that last fact that I find interesting. There are 221,217 registered Democrats in New Hampshire and 255,251 registered Republicans. Yet, last night, about 285,000 votes were cast for Democratic candidates and only around 233,000 for the Republicans. Those are important numbers to study. That means two things were at work here; Democrats turned out to vote more than Republicans and Independents swung the Dems way too.New Hampshire is a classic swing state. It went for Bush over Gore in 2000 and only went for Kerry in 2004 by a 50% to 49% margin! Last night's numbers broke about 55% to 45% in favor of Dems over Repubs.If I were working for the RNC, I'd be very concerned by those numbers. The Republicans will carry the South and most of the Mountain West, but they'll need to snag states like Iowa, New Hampshire, or Oregon to win the overall election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 New Hampshire has been turning more Dem lately as the Boston burbs expand into southern NH. Lots of folks who vote for higher taxes and then don't want to actually pay them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Everyone was talking about the tear on Wednesday. Or to be more precise, about the near-tear. Was it for real?Women who've spent years in Texas politics said yes, they believe Hillary Clinton when she came perilously close to shedding a tear on the campaign trail earlier this week.full articleHAIF ladies...comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.