|
I really wanted McCain to beat Bush 2 in the 2000 primary. He would have handled 9/11 and Afganistan much better in my opinion. Whether he would have still fallen into Iraq would be interesting. (Despite all the anti Bush "he did it cause of daddy" crapolla, I still believe there was a bigger reason we went back. And that bigger reason has to do with Iran and our ability to manipulate/control Saddamn.)Haliburton, Cheney, Oil.
Gore disgusted me because of his wifes PMRC organization (Parent Music Resource Center) a pro censorship anti artist group of senators wifes who tried to bully the record industry because of who their husbands were and his support of it.I haven't forgotten about that. Loved Dee Snider's appearance when called in. :D
But hey, I think Palin would be doing a much better job of VP than Joe Biden is.Well, she is easier on the eyes...
if this was but the only qualification! Sigh
As an Arizonan, I only voted for McCain this past election because of Palin and because Obama scared the living daylights out of me - especially his "coming out of nowhere, rookie Senator suddenly on the fast track to the top slot" enigmas.
Before Palin, or if the opposition hadn't been such a blank unknown, McCain would have never gotten my vote.
McCain and Bush 2 really lost me with there support for the illegal alien amnesty bill. Some one slipped them the koolaid spiked with some brown acid left over from woodstock I guess.
Yeah that's one of the big ones.
But hey, I think Palin would be doing a much better job of VP than Joe Biden is.
Even speaking as a fan of Palin...... the bar's not very high on that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Incidentally, when I was in high school, a fellow student of mine was heavily involved with the school equity funding suit in Ohio. That event helped me better understand the nature of education in Ohio and it made me seriously consider how our schools operate. It drove me towards education as a serious career choice.
I remember that. My family was approached but they decided against using us as a test case since a) I was graduating and my sister wasn't that far behind and b) someone figured out using TAG kids as a basis of a funding disparity suit wasn't the smartest move they could make.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Perot in 92 (Was still young and idealistic, and not nearly as politically savey as I am now)
Didn't vote in 96 *blushes*
Bush in 2000, Al Gore's um, playing fast and lose with history and just plain Al Gore in general bothered me.
Bush again in 04. While I didn't like the spending, and that he lost his veto pen somewhere, the alternative was worse. Kerry's embelishments of his military record, his magic hat, writing himself up for a purple heart, and the testimony of his fellow swifities cinched it.
And, to quote an internet friend "The Cranky Old Guy/Palin 2008!"
I like Sarah Palin, she was rough around the edges, but had the most executive experience in the campaign of any of 'em. Plus, as I was fond of saying, "She knows you shoot terrorists, not hold fundraisers in their house."
|
|
Bush again in 04. While I didn't like the spending, and that he lost his veto pen somewhere, the alternative was worse. Kerry's embelishments of his military record, his magic hat, writing himself up for a purple heart, and the testimony of his fellow swifities cinched it.
That, my friend, is what we call Swiftboating
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Swiftboating = telling the truth about Democrats.
Let's not forget, by Kerry's own words he's a war criminal, who engaged with talks with the enemy without permission, while a uniformed officer.
Not to mention at least one of the purple hearts was written up by Kerry himself.
No, doing research on John Kerry, plus Dan Rather's attempt to smear George W Bush by producing forged letters, definately put me in W's camp for 2004.
No, doing research on John Kerry, plus Dan Rather's attempt to smear George W Bush by producing forged letters, definately put me in W's camp for 2004.
How do you feel about that decision now?
Zo
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, doing research on John Kerry, plus Dan Rather's attempt to smear George W Bush by producing forged letters, definately put me in W's camp for 2004.How do you feel about that decision now?
Zo
Still think W was better than Kerry. I mean the man wants to go talk some more with Iran for Pete's sake. "Jaw-Jaw" as Churchill said is well and good but "Jaw-other side trying to get nukes" isn't.
Between that and Kerry's care and respect for the military "Kicking in doors in the middle of the night, stealing parents from children"
"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." I don't regret it.
...'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'...
A great number of the people who join the military do so because is the best option available to them. Further, had they gone to college, that would probably not be the case. The military's own recruiting numbers don't leave much room for argument on this point. Or do you merely find it disrespectful to point out?
|
I REALLY don't like having a Democrat in the oval office along with a Democratic majority in Congress. Likewise, Republican presidents seem like they do the best job when they're stuck with a Democratic congress. Separation of power, and all that.That's not the problem... the problem is the two party duopoly.
As it is politics in America works this way.
There are two parties, One party will either have a slim edge over the other or a commanding lead.
1. The party on top will try to get some members of the minority to crossover on votes or simply curbstomp the minority party if it can.
2. The party on bottom will settle for obfsucation for either policy reasons or the belief that any failure to progress will be blamed by the party in majority.
3. The process continues until the majority and minority parties switch places and then goes back to step 1.
In other democracies, even in Britain third party support is neccessary to form a government much less enact legislation, so actual party interaction is never something that anyone can walk away from.
Actually, that's not the case in Britain. The current government has an overall majority and barring a massive rebellion of their own MPs doesn't actually need the other parties for anything. Things might be different after the general election (apart from swapping the guy in charge), but we'll see. The last coalition government in the UK parliament was tin the 70's. We've had more coalitions in the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, but they use a proportional representation system that all but guarantees some form of coalition or minority administration.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'...
A great number of the people who join the military do so because is the best option available to them. Further, had they gone to college, that would probably not be the case. The military's own recruiting numbers don't leave much room for argument on this point. Or do you merely find it disrespectful to point out?
Since my little brother is college educated, chose to enlist at 28, spent two tours in Iraq, and is now in the ONG teaching other medics... Yes, yes I do have an issue with a Senator (and veteran) calling our soldiers stupid.
...'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'...
A great number of the people who join the military do so because is the best option available to them. Further, had they gone to college, that would probably not be the case. The military's own recruiting numbers don't leave much room for argument on this point. Or do you merely find it disrespectful to point out?
Many people join the military as the only way to pay for college, since college costs seem to expand exponentially year by year, no matter what the economic climate. Heck, I was floored when I got the bill for my wife's one year of culinary arts training. It was about 3X what my 4-year bid at a state school was twenty years ago. And with that shiny degree she could get a $10/hr seasonal job ... >.<
Already told my daughter it was scholarships, military or trade school for her.
Since my little brother is college educated, chose to enlist at 28, spent two tours in Iraq, and is now in the ONG teaching other medics... Yes, yes I do have an issue with a Senator (and veteran) calling our soldiers stupid.
Kerry didn't call soldiers stupid; he correctly observed that many people join the military because they're out of better options. Your anecdote in no way invalidates the data.
Edit: Nevermind.
Swiftboating = telling the truth about Democrats.
Hmmm...blanket condemnation of an entire party. Thank you for airing your prejudice, as I now know better than to take you seriously.
Let's see:
1988 - Bush Sr.
1992 - Perot (and after watching the mask slip, I was glad he didn't have a chance of getting elected)
1996 - Dole
2000 - Gore
2004 - Badnarik (I didn't like either candidate--they both scared me in their own ways, so my "protest vote" didn't really amount to anything)
2008 - Obama (I bought into the promise, and I'm still waiting for it to be fulfilled)
|
Palin scares me.
I have a theory about Sarah Palin and the news coverage she has been getting. Certain elements in the news rooms at the major networks are pretty liberal. They admitted it in a Pew Poll that said that 70% of all journalists identify themselves as liberal and Democrat. That number increases to 90% when you survey just the punditry. These pundits push John McCain really hard as the Republican candidate and then turned on him in the generals. They know that tactic will not work the ext time around so they have switched tactics. They seem to be opperating under the assumption that if they hammer Palin with negative press it will drive the Republicans to her and then Obama will get re-elected. This is all speculation of course, but it makes more sense then what I have heard from some of my friends at church and such, which is they are trying to destroy her because she is the only one who can beat Obama.
Palin scares me.I have a theory about Sarah Palin and the news coverage she has been getting. Certain elements in the news rooms at the major networks are pretty liberal. They admitted it in a Pew Poll that said that 70% of all journalists identify themselves as liberal and Democrat. That number increases to 90% when you survey just the punditry. These pundits push John McCain really hard as the Republican candidate and then turned on him in the generals. They know that tactic will not work the ext time around so they have switched tactics.They seem to be opperating under the assumption that if they hammer Palin with negative press it will drive the Republicans to her and then Obama will get re-elected. This is all speculation of course, but it makes more sense then what I have heard from some of my friends at church and such, which is they are trying to destroy her because she is the only one who can beat Obama.*
*Emphasis mine. I'm a bit confused: If "they" are truly afraid Palin can beat Obama, why would there be an effort to drive Republicans to support her? Or did I misunderstand your post?
Oddly, I hope she gets the nomination, as I think her chances of beating Obama are practically nil. I'd certainly find a true fiscal conservative (who isn't also a religious fundamentalist) much more compelling.
Palin scares me.I have a theory about Sarah Palin and the news coverage she has been getting. Certain elements in the news rooms at the major networks are pretty liberal. They admitted it in a Pew Poll that said that 70% of all journalists identify themselves as liberal and Democrat. That number increases to 90% when you survey just the punditry. These pundits push John McCain really hard as the Republican candidate and then turned on him in the generals. They know that tactic will not work the ext time around so they have switched tactics. They seem to be opperating under the assumption that if they hammer Palin with negative press it will drive the Republicans to her and then Obama will get re-elected. This is all speculation of course, but it makes more sense then what I have heard from some of my friends at church and such, which is they are trying to destroy her because she is the only one who can beat Obama.
This is why I vote The Elder Party. At least with Cthulhu in charge I *know* I'm in for mind-rending horror and an eventual destination as a Dinner Special. ^_^
|
|
Palin scares me.I have a theory about Sarah Palin and the news coverage she has been getting. Certain elements in the news rooms at the major networks are pretty liberal. They admitted it in a Pew Poll that said that 70% of all journalists identify themselves as liberal and Democrat. That number increases to 90% when you survey just the punditry. These pundits push John McCain really hard as the Republican candidate and then turned on him in the generals. They know that tactic will not work the ext time around so they have switched tactics.They seem to be opperating under the assumption that if they hammer Palin with negative press it will drive the Republicans to her and then Obama will get re-elected. This is all speculation of course, but it makes more sense then what I have heard from some of my friends at church and such, which is they are trying to destroy her because she is the only one who can beat Obama.**Emphasis mine. I'm a bit confused: If "they" are truly afraid Palin can beat Obama, why would there be an effort to drive support to her? Or did I misunderstand your post?
Oddly, I hope she gets the nomination, as I think her chances of beating Obama are practically nil. I'd certainly find a true fiscal conservative (who isn't also a religious fundamentalist) much more compelling.
I agree that her chances are practically nil. I believe that the Pundits I mentioned also feel the same way, hence the effort to drive people to her. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I agree that her chances are practically nil. I believe that the Pundits I mentioned also feel the same way, hence the effort to drive people to her. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
Thanks for explaining...that makes sense. Sadly, I find that entirely plausible.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Since my little brother is college educated, chose to enlist at 28, spent two tours in Iraq, and is now in the ONG teaching other medics... Yes, yes I do have an issue with a Senator (and veteran) calling our soldiers stupid.Kerry didn't call soldiers stupid; he correctly observed that many people join the military because they're out of better options. Your anecdote in no way invalidates the data.
Edit: Nevermind.
Yes because if you say the 'smart' people do well and everyone else 'goes to iraq' you're not insulting the troops intelligence, no...
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your beliefs.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmmm...blanket condemnation of an entire party. Thank you for airing your prejudice, as I now know better than to take you seriously.Swiftboating = telling the truth about Democrats.
What a shame, I've never found a reason to take you seriously to begin with, and the above display of lack of reading comprehension seems to support that.
Nowhere have I condemned an entire party. In fact, while I disagree with Senator Brown on most issues, I do send e-mails congratulating him when he agrees with me. Joe Lieberman is liberal on most all issues, but he's a democrat I respect.
Now as to 'swiftboating' The SVfT confronted Kerry on his lies about Cambodia, he recanted. They confronted him on his lies about Nixon and the magic hat, he recanted those. They raised the question of his original discharge. He didn't answer that, pointing to the revised discharge granted after Carter pardoned the draft dodgers. So when someone uses 'Swiftboating' as a smear, I feel that it has to be pointed out that to use it that way, apparently telling the truth about a Democrat is a smear.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*nods* The two problems with that, as the American system currently exists are:
1) The rules are rigged to support the two parties at the national level and
2) The 'national third parties' focus more on the big elections rather than the little ones. Give me a Libertarian (for example) mayor, then county comissioner, then state legislator, then congressman... that's how a 3rd party has to form.
*nods* The two problems with that, as the American system currently exists are:
1) The rules are rigged to support the two parties at the national level and
2) The 'national third parties' focus more on the big elections rather than the little ones. Give me a Libertarian (for example) mayor, then county comissioner, then state legislator, then congressman... that's how a 3rd party has to form.
I believe that a number of third parties have been working along these lines. Whether or not any of them will muster a national presence before I'm dust in a pine box is another matter... *sighs*
...I do send e-mails congratulating him when he agrees with me....
How very gracious of you. What I particularly enjoy is that you seem to feel that proves that you are open-minded.
By all means, please continue...you are much more effective at making yourself look ridiculous that I could hope to be. :)
|
|
Hmmm...blanket condemnation of an entire party. Thank you for airing your prejudice, as I now know better than to take you seriously.Swiftboating = telling the truth about Democrats.
What a shame, I've never found a reason to take you seriously to begin with, and the above display of lack of reading comprehension seems to support that.
Nowhere have I condemned an entire party. In fact, while I disagree with Senator Brown on most issues, I do send e-mails congratulating him when he agrees with me. Joe Lieberman is liberal on most all issues, but he's a democrat I respect.
Now as to 'swiftboating' The SVfT confronted Kerry on his lies about Cambodia, he recanted. They confronted him on his lies about Nixon and the magic hat, he recanted those. They raised the question of his original discharge. He didn't answer that, pointing to the revised discharge granted after Carter pardoned the draft dodgers. So when someone uses 'Swiftboating' as a smear, I feel that it has to be pointed out that to use it that way, apparently telling the truth about a Democrat is a smear.
Also the founder of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth has offered a $10,000,000 reward for any evidence that what they said was a lie. So far nobody, including Senator Kerry, has taken him up on the offer.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...I do send e-mails congratulating him when he agrees with me....
How very gracious of you. What I particularly enjoy is that you seem to feel that proves that you are open-minded.
By all means, please continue...you are much more effective at making yourself look ridiculous that I could hope to be. :)
Silly silly man. Believe it or not, I do believe in positive reinforcement. If my represenative is going to vote in the way I want, I'm going to tell him good job. It's a funny thing, if you let someone know you approve of his actions, he might be more inclined to take similar actions in the future.
Likewise, when he votes in a way I disagree, I let him know, politely.
Cause, you know, people who deserve politeness get it.
|
|
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.
Also the founder of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth has offered a $10,000,000 reward for any evidence that what they said was a lie. So far nobody, including Senator Kerry, has taken him up on the offer.
And here I thought the burden of proof rested with the character assassins. Since I was clearly mistaken, W was a cross-dresser. Prove he wasn't!
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.
Agreed.
Cause, you know, people who deserve politeness get it.
ZOMG I see what you did there!
|
|
Also the founder of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth has offered a $10,000,000 reward for any evidence that what they said was a lie. So far nobody, including Senator Kerry, has taken him up on the offer.And here I thought the burden of proof rested with the character assassins. Since I was clearly mistaken, W was a cross-dresser. Prove he wasn't!
Except that the SBVfT presented their evidence. In their case the evidence was their eyewitness testemonies. When a group of Democrats produced evidence of their swiftboating of Bush the documents turned out to be forgeries, and not very good ones either.
Except that the SBVfT presented their evidence. When a group of Democrats produced evidence of their swiftboating of Bush the documents turned out to be forgeries, and not very good ones either.
They did, but many people found it less than conclusive. My point is that the offering of a reward doesn't suddenly make the burden of proof shift. Unless you feel that if I offered a $20 reward for someone to prove W wasn't a cross-dresser, then that would lend credence to my claim?
I hereby offer a reward of $20 (US) to anyone who can George W Bush isn't a cross-dresser.
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.
Offtopic, but I had an SLC Punk flashback. You've seen the movie? Do you guys really have to go to Wyoming for the good stuff?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*resist urge to make snarky comment*
Since they (and anyone with a calendar) proved that President Nixon didn't order anyone into Cambodia in January of 68, that's positive proof that Sen. Kerry lied.
OTOH, Sen Kerry could never prove his character assassination of other soldiers, including those he served with.
|
|
Except that the SBVfT presented their evidence. When a group of Democrats produced evidence of their swiftboating of Bush the documents turned out to be forgeries, and not very good ones either.They did, but many people found it less than conclusive. My point is that the offering of a reward doesn't suddenly make the burden of proof shift.
No but the burden of proof does shift if you contend that a witness is lying. Let us put this in different terms. On Law and Order, if the detectives or the DA's office suspect that a witness is lying what do they do? They don't just say, well we think you are lying so the jury should disregard you statements. Instead they must produce evidence or witnesses tho disprove what the original witness has said. This is the same case here. SVfT has made their argument, and so far the only defense arguments have been that they are liars and should not be listened to. However, no proof has been offered by the defense that they have lied, therefore the evidentary burden has not been met. Offering a reward doesn't shift the burden of proof, but just as in court, once the accusurs have put all their cards on the table, the burden does of nessecity shift to the defense to disprove the original charge.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.
That would be good. Who was it (in Texas I think) that switched parties, resigned his seat, then ran for it again under his new party? That I admired.
|
|
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.Offtopic, but I had an SLC Punk flashback. You've seen the movie? Do you guys really have to go to Wyoming for the good stuff?
I don't I have to go to Nevada. :) Okay seriously when the movie was made it was true, However last January 1st the state lifted the 3.24 liquer law and now full strength beer can be sold in Utah.
|
|
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.That would be good. Who was it (in Texas I think) that switched parties, resigned his seat, then ran for it again under his new party? That I admired.
It was Glenn Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.
No but the burden of proof does shift if you contend that a witness is lying. Let us put this in different terms. On Law and Order, if the detectives or the DA's office suspect that a witness is lying what do they do? They don't just say, well we think you are lying so the jury should disregard you statements. Instead they must produce evidence or witnesses tho disprove what the original witness has said. This is the same case here. SVfT has made their argument, and so far the only defense arguments have been that they are liars and should not be listened to. However, no proof has been offered by the defense that they have lied, therefore the evidentary burden has not been met. Offering a reward doesn't shift the burden of proof, but just as in court, once the accusurs have put all their cards on the table, the burden does of nessecity shift to the defense to disprove the original charge.
Fair enough. I still don't see the point of mentioning the reward; the whole thing was a (calculated) distraction. I don't recall many DAs offering a reward to anyone who can prove their witnesses are lying...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It was Glenn Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.That would be good. Who was it (in Texas I think) that switched parties, resigned his seat, then ran for it again under his new party? That I admired.
Thank you. Like I said, I have to admire someone who is willing to stand for their convictions.
|
|
No but the burden of proof does shift if you contend that a witness is lying. Let us put this in different terms. On Law and Order, if the detectives or the DA's office suspect that a witness is lying what do they do? They don't just say, well we think you are lying so the jury should disregard you statements. Instead they must produce evidence or witnesses tho disprove what the original witness has said. This is the same case here. SVfT has made their argument, and so far the only defense arguments have been that they are liars and should not be listened to. However, no proof has been offered by the defense that they have lied, therefore the evidentary burden has not been met. Offering a reward doesn't shift the burden of proof, but just as in court, once the accusurs have put all their cards on the table, the burden does of nessecity shift to the defense to disprove the original charge.Fair enough. I still don't see the point of mentioning the reward to being with; the whole thing was a (calculated) distraction. I don't recall many DAs offering a reward to anyone who can prove their witnesses are lying...
No but they do offer rewards to anyone with information relating to the case.
I don't I have to go to Nevada. :) Okay seriously when the movie was made it was true, However last January 1st the state lifted the 3.24 liquer law and now full strength beer can be sold in Utah.
Offtopic, but I had an SLC Punk flashback. You've seen the movie? Do you guys really have to go to Wyoming for the good stuff?
Ooh. Alcohol and polyamory. I'm moving to Utah and get my Bacchanalia (sic) on. :P
No but they do offer rewards to anyone with information relating to the case.
I still contend the reward doesn't constitute evidence. Apparently you disagree, which is your right.
To be honest I wish more states had laws like we do here in Utah. Here you can only run for one political office at a time. Therefore you could not have had Senator Kerry running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time. Politicians should not have the ability to hedge their bets like that.Agreed.
+1. I rarely agree with your politics, David, but this is just good horse sense.
|
|
No but they do offer rewards to anyone with information relating to the case.I still contend the reward doesn't constitute evidence. Apparently you disagree, which is your right.
Apparently I'm not making myself clear enough. I do not believe that a reward constitutes evidence. What I believe is that there are lost of people who would love to hav $10 million and yet the reward remains unclaimed. I'm also saying that If ther is evidence that counters the claims of the SBVfT it is the duty of those who have it to present it, not the evidence of the the group making the claim to go find it. That is th way of politics and the courts.
What I believe is that there are lost of people who would love to hav $10 million and yet the reward remains unclaimed.
Bugleyman's $20 reward also remains unclaimed. I can offer a trillion dollars to anyone demonstrating that the Earth is round. They send me pics of the Earth from space, or reproduce Eratosthenes' experiments, or cite any other evidence. I ignore it all and don't pay, and my supporters all say, reverently, "That money remains uncollected! The Earth is flat!!!" That is the way of propoganda and public opinion.