Jump to content

Bush Vs Kerry


DudeAsInCool

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I spent last night browsing the democrat underground forums...interesting :bonk

I spent a couple of nights last weekend checking out Republican blogs with open forums. I was floored at the sheer absence of unbiased information about current political events. It was apparent that they didn't check out anything other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox Network, because everything seemed to be incredibly slanted. The few rational conservatives who dared post were jeered into submission by the froth-mouthed firebrands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was apparent that they didn't check out anything other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox Network, because everything seemed to be incredibly slanted.

That shouldnt be a surprise - look who they voted for :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are more serious than everybody thinks. America turned into a laughing stock the last four years and they voted for again.

After reading some serious political analysis in Greek and especially English papers (the most coservative press in the world) and a few articles like the one Lord posted above I really feel sorry for the open minds that live in the states. More and more people are thinking of moving out of the country and that is no joke.

We are going through a complete change as we know it. Last century was America's century (american dream and all that shit) but this century did not start good at all. Thinks will not be that good in the -near- future.

I just hope those hawks change their ideas for the sake of the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope those hawks change their ideas for the sake of the American people.

Everyone has their day in the sun. But sure as you are reading this post, they will be eclipsed. American politics is topsy-turvy, and when these guys are exposed for the reactionaries they are, they will go the way of the dinosaurs. Make no mistake about it, the other half of the country is gearing up to stop them...and we will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when these guys are exposed for the reactionaries they are, they will go the way of the dinosaurs
I thought so too Chris but they WERE exposed yet they were voted again.

I just wish the americans came out in the streets and protested but I doubt it cause most -american- people think that only hippies do that

...although after seeing New Yorkers during the republican convention I think that slowly changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

method, they were exposed but in such a way that left the republiKKKans free to keep on bullshitting and people were left to make up their own minds (not good when reality's concerned). the bush issues have been cloaked in language that makes most think they're voting for the exact opposite of what they want. brilliant, really (i blame Karl Rove).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: Why Bush Won

By LOIS WEISS

November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first comments on President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine" about the outcome, but to find a "clear national message."

Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing issue of gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put on the ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden in the final days of the race.

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York Hilton.

Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism fears, as did suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security moms of 2004."

He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than Republicans, the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who were already registered but had not previously voted.

Despite the GOP victory, the former president — whose wife Hillary is already being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 — said Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.

Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing."

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.

Democrats "need a clear national message, and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil," he said.

Clinton said the country was more divided than it was in 1968 and called for an end to the "culture war."

In his hourlong speech Clinton, who had open-heart surgery in September, gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.

"The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said.

Clinton said Bush should use his second term to move toward less dependence on foreign oil.

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said.

The biggest opportunity he noted was the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace amid the impending demise of Yasser Arafat.

Peace in the region would "take enormous steam" out of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism worldwide, Clinton said. "They would have to think of a new excuse to murder people."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York Hilton.

As hard as it is to believe, Bin Laden probably wanted this all along.

Bush is his perfect puppet. He'll never be able to foster good feelings with Arabs and allies alike.

This makes his recruiting job easier. Kerry, however, would have been able to get support from other nations when it came to Iraq because he could say that he "wasn't involved in the mistake of preemptive strike", or something along that line. It would be as though he was left with a mess to clean up, and other nations would have felt sorry for him.

The U.N. would have been in control very soon, and the Iraqi people would have given Kerry a clean slate to start with.

---Bad news for the head-cutters.

Also, what is with this notion that Bush is “stronger” when it comes to “defending America” (as if that wasn’t such a ridiculous statement for one man to make)? He’s a fucking moronic former Alcoholic, cocaine snorting loser. The guy can’t do anything right on his own. Oh, and on those notes, there go his so called “moral values”.

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT VOTERS ATTRIBUTED MORAL VALUES TO A POLITICIAN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

They’re among the last on earth to represent that.

Sometimes I just don't understand other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what is with this notion that Bush is “stronger” when it comes to “defending America” (as if that wasn’t such a ridiculous statement for one man to make)? He’s a fucking moronic former Alcoholic, cocaine snorting loser. The guy can’t do anything right on his own. Oh, and on those notes, there go his so called “moral values”.

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT VOTERS ATTRIBUTED MORAL VALUES TO A POLITICIAN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? They’re among the last on earth to represent that.

Sometimes I just don't understand other people.

Well put. I'd vote for you in a heartbeat, ken. I think its time to bring your alter-ego out on Tuesday... :good job:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As hard as it is to believe, Bin Laden probably wanted this all along.

Bush is his perfect puppet.

yeah, especially after the real translation of his tape was released by al jazeera last week, read in conjunction w/analysis of the new tape (which hasn't been released because the US gov't put pressure on al jazeera not to; sorry no links, this is shit i read over the last few days).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...keep alienating southern voters

That's how you retake majorities in house/senate or the presidency :psychofun:

I suppose I'm a bit more familiar with southern voters than many people here, considering I was born in rural Mississippi, where I lived most of my life. I've also lived in Waco Texas, Tampa Florida, Goldsboro North Carolina, and now Louisville, Kentucky. All southern states and all solid Republican states. But that wasn't always the case. Four decades ago Democrats could count on support from all of those states, but not any more. Why? All because of a moral decision made by a Democratic president who knew he was going to lose the solid south. But he made that decision because it was right and it was just, not because it was politically profitable.

That president, Lyndon Johnson, was not a great man. He had the reputation as a ruthless campaigner and it was well deserved. There are many stories in Texas concerning his shady vote totals in state elections in the 1940's and there probably is much truth in those rumors. But he did have one strong belief that he never strayed from even though it was impossible to act on until the 1960's, and that was that all people in this country, regardless of race, should have equal rights and equal value as citizens. When he became president after Kennedy's death he had the opportunity to do something about that belief by continuing John Kennedy's work, and he did. His Civil Rights act of 1964 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that opened the doors for minorities and it is still regarded as some of the most important work by any president in the last 100 years. It would have never existed if Johnson hadn't pushed it through.

The southern states were obviously more affected by the legislation than the rest of the country. I remember white-only lunch counters at Woolworth's and seperate restrooms for the races. I remember schools when they were white and black, not integrated, and I remember blacks having to order hamburgers at side windows at the local burger joints. The south was racist, without question. They were furious at the betrayal of the Democrat president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson. They rose in protest in the only way they could...they stopped supporting the "Nigger-loving" Democrats. And that's when the Republicans got the strength they have today. They had just come off a disasterous 1964 election in which their candidate, Barry Goldwater, had been waxed by Johnson and they were absolutely at their lowest ebb. Then this huge block of states fell in their lap.

So, the bottom line is.....does that make you proud of being a Republican? Do you think Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush presidents would have made the same decision Lyndon Johnson did, knowing the consequences? I think not.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind if I disagree a little with you, Koop.

Johnson was financed by big oil, the same as your Republican buddies. He also flip flopped on civil rights. He opposed civil rights until he got on the Kennedy ticket. Like all politicians, he didn't have an honest bone in his body and didn't give a damn about anything but power.

link

Also lets not forget all the race riots that occurred in the land of liberals where everything is justice for all. Detroit, Chicago, and more recently L.A.. There have been lots of race riots besides the ones in the south. Racism is alive in every part of the country.

The Democrats have lost the south in recent years and I don't think it has a thing to do with race. Voters seem to have a 30 day memory which is why Kerry got as far as he did with his flip flopping on the Iraq issue. The more rural areas aren't as likely to go for the "govt will take care of all your problems" pitch as the more urban areas. They also like a military and Kerry's voting against so many military programs (F14, F15, F16 and too many others to name) caused him problems. Southerners and for that matter most of the "red" states have a high number of law abiding people that like to have guns. The Dems don't want the law abiding people to have guns.

oops.....breaking my do not debate politics rule again. To Hell with it, I'm going to bed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind if I disagree a little with you, Koop.

Johnson was financed by big oil, the same as your Republican buddies.  He also flip flopped on civil rights.  He opposed civil rights until he got on the Kennedy ticket.  Like all politicians, he didn't have an honest bone in his body and didn't give a damn about anything but power.

Your points are hollow. To say that Johnson opposed civil rights in the 1940's and 1950's is meaningless. NO politician dared to publicly support civil rights until John Kennedy had the guts to do it in 1960, and Lyndon Johnson improved Kennedy's legislation and rammed it through Congress in 1964. That is undeniable. Johnson grew up in the midst of poor whites AND blacks and he recognized the human importance of both races. To bring oil companies into the issue I addressed is also meaningless....it has no bearing on the point I'm making, and all major Texas politicians of the day were supported by oil companies to some degree or another, depending on their rank.

To say that the civil rights legislation had no bearing on the dissolving of the solid south voting history is to deny reality.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA '64) in the United States was landmark legislation. The original purpose of the Bill was to protect black men from job (and other) discrimination, but at the last minute in an attempt to kill the bill, it was expanded to include protection for women. As a result it formed a political impetus for feminism.

CRA '64 transformed American society. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. This simple statement understates the large shift in American society that occurred as a result. The Jim Crow laws in the South were finally swept away, and it was illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Although initially enforcement powers were weak, they grew over the years, and such later programs as affirmative action were made possible by the Civil Rights Act.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law on July 3, 1964. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the act thourgh congress. This act divided both politcal parties and changed both's demographics. Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming Democrat majority (which it did, barring some exeptions). Despite a significant majority of Republican's support for the act, the Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater voted against the act claiming, "you can't legislate morality". The Mississippi Democratic Party actually endorsed Goldwater as a result of his vote which in turn lead to the formation of the short lived Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The Rising tide of Presidential Republicanism

The Election of 1964

This was the election that took place in the same year as the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and was between the incumbent president, Texan Lindon Johnson, and conservative Arizona senator Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had been one of the few Republicans to vote against the Civil Rights Act, and was a vocal critic of using federal governmental power to force integration. He also was militantly anti-communist and pro-defense. In this election, for the first time, all 5 Deep South states went for the GOP candidate, and all 6 Rim South states went for the Democrat.

This is a reversal of 1948 and 1928, and shows the continuing rift between these two areas of the South. It also showed the obvious power that a third party candidate like Wallace would have in 1968.

This was in essence a realigning election in the South.

The Election of 1972

This was the worst wipeout the Democrats ever suffered. The Democratic party had restructured its delegate selection process to allow proportional representation of blacks, women, and young people, who tended to move the party to the left. It also completely abandoned conservative Democrats from the South.

Remember SC? This was the state that had voted for Al Smith, the Democratic candidate, in 1928 with 96% of the vote. In 1972, it gave 72% of its votes to Nixon.

Nixon received 70% of the vote South-wide. Interestingly, there was no real difference in vote totals for him between the Rim South and Deep South states. In fact, that difference has not resurfaced since.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=the+solid...solecture11.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2004 voting conspiracy theories begin...vol. 2

• November 7, 2004 | 6:55 p.m. ET

George, John, and Warren (Keith Olbermann)

NEW YORK— Here’s an interesting little sidebar of our system of government confirmed recently by the crack Countdown research staff: no Presidential candidate’s concession speech is legally binding. The only determinants of the outcome of election are the reports of the state returns boards and the vote of the Electoral College.

That’s right. Richard Nixon may have phoned John Kennedy in November, 1960, and congratulated him through clenched teeth. But if the FBI had burst into Kennedy headquarters in Chicago a week later and walked out with all the file cabinets and a bunch of employees with their raincoats drawn up over their heads, nothing Nixon had said would’ve prevented him, and not JFK, from taking the oath of office the following January.

This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear - so might our election of just a week ago.

Stories like these have filled the web since the tide turned against John Kerry late Tuesday night. But not until Friday did they begin to spill into the more conventional news media. That’s when the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there.

Suspicious enough on the face of it, the decision got more dubious still when County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.

Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville. During the vote count in Lebanon. Or maybe it was Kings Island Amusement Park that had gone Code-Orange without telling anybody. Al-Qaeda had selected Turtlecreek Township for its first foray into a Red State.

The State of Ohio confirms that of all of its 88 Counties, Warren alone decided such Homeland Security measures were necessary. Even in Butler County, reports the Enquirer, the media and others were permitted to watch through a window as ballot-checkers performed their duties. In Warren, the media was finally admitted to the lobby of the administration building, which may have been slightly less incommodious for the reporters, but which still managed to keep them two floors away from the venue of the actual count.

Nobody in Warren County seems to think they’ve done anything wrong. The newspaper quotes County Prosecutor Rachel Hurtzel as saying the Commissioners “were within their rights” to lock the building down, because having photographers or reporters present could have interfered with the count.

You bet, Rachel.

As I suggested, this is the first time one of the Fix stories has moved fully into the mainstream media. In so saying, I’m not dismissing the blogosphere. Hell, I’m in the blogosphere now, and there have been nights when I’ve gotten far more web hits than television viewers (thank you, Debate Scorecard readers). Even the overt partisanship of blogs don’t bother me - Tom Paine was a pretty partisan guy, and ultimately that served truth a lot better than a ship full of neutral reporters would have. I was just reading last night of the struggles Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer had during their early reporting from Europe in ’38 and ’39, because CBS thought them too anti-Nazi.

The only reason I differentiate between the blogs and the newspapers is that in the latter, a certain bar of ascertainable, reasonably neutral, fact has to be passed, and has to be approved by a consensus of reporters and editors. The process isn’t flawless (ask Dan Rather) but the next time you read a blog where bald-faced lies are accepted as fact, ask yourself whether we here in cyberspace have yet achieved the reliability of even the mainstream media. In short, a lot gets left out of newspapers, radio, and tv - but what’s left in tends to be, in the words of my old CNN Sports colleague NickCharles, a lead-pipe cinch.

Thus the majority of the media has yet to touch the other stories of Ohio (the amazing Bush Times Ten voting machine in Gahanna) or the sagas of Ohio South: huge margins for Bush in Florida counties in which registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, places where the optical scanning of precinct totals seems to have turned results from perfect matches for the pro-Kerry exit poll data, to Bush sweeps.

We will be endeavoring to pull those stories, along with the Warren County farce, into the mainstream Monday and/or Tuesday nights on Countdown. That is, if we can wedge them in there among the news media’s main concerns since last Tuesday:

Who fixed the Exit Polls? Yes - you could deliberately skew a national series of post-vote questionnaires in favor of Kerry to discourage people from voting out west, where everything but New Mexico had been ceded to Kerry anyway, but you couldn’t alter key precinct votes in Ohio and/or Florida; and,

What will Bush do with his Mandate and his Political Capital? He got the highest vote total for a presidential candidate, you know. Did anybody notice who’s second on the list? A Mr. Kerry. Since when was the term “mandate” applied when 56 million people voted against a guy? And by the way, how about that Karl Rove and his Freudian slip on “Fox News Sunday”? Rove was asked if the electoral triumph would be as impactful on the balance of power between the parties as William McKinley’s in 1896 and he forgot his own talking points. The victories were “similarly narrow,” Rove began, and then, seemingly aghast at his forthrightness, corrected himself. “Not narrow; similarly structured.”

Gotta dash now. Some of us have to get to work on the Warren and Florida stories.

In the interim, Senator Kerry, kindly don’t leave the country.

Thoughts? Let me know at [email protected]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Wait, Burning Man is going online-only? What does that even look like?
      You could have been forgiven for missing the announcement that actual physical Burning Man has been canceled for this year, if not next. Firstly, the nonprofit Burning Man organization, known affectionately to insiders as the Borg, posted it after 5 p.m. PT Friday. That, even in the COVID-19 era, is the traditional time to push out news when you don't want much media attention. 
      But secondly, you may have missed its cancellation because the Borg is being careful not to use the C-word. The announcement was neutrally titled "The Burning Man Multiverse in 2020." Even as it offers refunds to early ticket buyers, considers layoffs and other belt-tightening measures, and can't even commit to a physical event in 2021, the Borg is making lemonade by focusing on an online-only version of Black Rock City this coming August.    Read more...
      More about Burning Man, Tech, Web Culture, and Live EventsView the full article
      • 0 replies
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?

×
×
  • Create New...