Bush up by 14 points!

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Sprayber
All polls are crap

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Are you really that partisian or is it an act? I mean do you really think Kerry is a great guy or something? I was just wondering cause you seem to think Kerry is somehow different from the standard politician. Oh and you don't have to be too condecending in your answer, I'm honestly curious.

Maybe you forgot I backed Dean, not Kerry, so I have never been a huge Dean fan. I am also the first to blame his campaign as inept.

But since when is it partisan to think what they pulled on Kerry was absurd? Most of those charges and the most serious were utterly unsibstantiated, and yet everyone jumped on them. To say that "Kerry made his war record an issue, its fair game" is different from what actually happened- which was a political mugging. And we have past experience with the people running this campaign pulling those stunts. I work in politics now, even if just NYC local-what gets me is that people fail to see this as just that, a political mugging.

Its also why I do act condescending- people say they want issues, then spend hours on this. Thats hypocrasy. Yes, i spend hours decrying that, but as I said, I don;t give a **** about Vietnam. Its not an issue for me, never was an never will- I dislike (hate) Bush for many other reasons.

As for "seeming partisan"- I am a democrat, I want to win. But if we have a discussion about POLICY, not simple street politics, then I will discuss with anyone (who is rational)

[Dis]

*sigh* I was hoping this election would be close.

Let's get Al Gore back in here.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap




Maybe you forgot I backed Dean, not Kerry, so I have never been a huge Dean fan.

Now thats what I call damning support!

I am also the first to blame his campaign as inept.

We all thought the Dean campaign inept or were you refering to Kerry?

But since when is it partisan to think what they pulled on Kerry was absurd? Most of those charges and the most serious were utterly unsibstantiated, and yet everyone jumped on them.

No that was quite the point. No one in establishment media jumped on them. They instead jumped on the messengers in an attempt to immediately discredit them. All that was ever asked is that there was an investigation and release of all relevant records akin to what Bush has been asked to do and has compied with.

Its also why I do act condescending- people say they want issues, then spend hours on this. Thats hypocrasy. Yes, i spend hours decrying that, but as I said, I don;t give a **** about Vietnam. Its not an issue for me, never was an never will- I dislike (hate) Bush for many other reasons.

As for "seeming partisan"- I am a democrat, I want to win. But if we have a discussion about POLICY, not simple street politics, then I will discuss with anyone (who is rational)

Yet you deny the core issue, which is not about Bush or Kerry, and I could really give a rats patout about either but more so the clearly biased media treatment of like issues. The issue here is the death of modern media not the candidates, to me a much larger issue.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Sprayber
If the Dems can't win against Bush not once but twice with different candidates, then something is obviously wrong with them

If the Americans still vote for Bush not once but twice while having adequate alternatives, then something is obviously wrong with them

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No that was quite the point. No one in establishment media jumped on them. They instead jumped on the messengers in an attempt to immediately discredit them. All that was ever asked is that there was an investigation and release of all relevant records akin to what Bush has been asked to do and has compied with.

The Washington Post and Fox News are mainstream media-WaPo is most definitely establishment (ditto Wall Street Journal), so this claim is absurd to begin with. As for "an investigation", I htink most people have a minimum burden of proof before wasting resources. On most charges those guys did not meet them. I doubt if I called the media and charged that Bush was still doing coke when gov of Texas that the media would care or take me seriously.

Yet you deny the core issue, which is not about Bush or Kerry, and I could really give a rats patout about either but more so the clearly biased media treatment of like issues. The issue here is the death of modern media not the candidates, to me a much larger issue.

One channel ran a piece against Bush (CBS)- you know how many channels there are? Its called choice. As for the death of modern media, the lack of indepth coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, of compteting plans for healthcare, of trade and budget iseues- yes, those are huge media failings-and thank god for Bush, cause he wins in that.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


If the Americans still vote for Bush not once but twice while having adequate alternatives, then something is obviously wrong with them

Apparentlly Gore wasn't adequate and Kerry is bound and determined to prove that he is just as inadequate as Gore.

[MrFun]

It's amazing how bad people's memory is when it comes to the election of 2000. The ones who voted for Bush gloat about Bush's victory as if he won with an overwhelming majority, when in fact, Gore lost just BARELY to Bush.

And some even claim that Gore had won, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

[Ramo]

Gallup had Shrub up by 13 a week before the 2000 election.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no way in hell that Bush should've even stood a chance against Gore. The fact that he won clearly indicates that Gore was an inadequate candidate. He couldn't even win his home state, for crying out loud...

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless we want to exclusively focus on religious-right Republicans at expense of other Republicans.

Funny how you confirm that very point.

Perhaps there is a party of hate, but it's not the one everyone thinks it is, eh?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap



The Washington Post and Fox News are mainstream media-WaPo is most definitely establishment (ditto Wall Street Journal), so this claim is absurd to begin with. As for "an investigation", I htink most people have a minimum burden of proof before wasting resources. On most charges those guys did not meet them. I doubt if I called the media and charged that Bush was still doing coke when gov of Texas that the media would care or take me seriously.

The burden of proof for investigation has in fact been established adnauseuem with 250+ verbal claims, 2 recantings of stories as being fabrications and/or exaggerations by Kerry (PH1 and whether he ever was in Cambodia), not to mention his own recanting of purjured testimony in front of the the Senate when he claimed he may have exaggerated as he never witnessed any of the atrocities he noted.

Only Fox News had the temerity to force the issue. The others sat back until it became apparent the issue was not oging to be dropped. Almost 2 weeks IIRC went by before the other majors picked the story up and only for the purpose of discreditting the Swiffties. By that time, Kerry had already been crying foul (a sure sign to most rational folk that where there is whining some nuggets of truth must exist), recanted his Cambodia Xmas stories. All that was being requested at the time was investigative reporting calling for the release of all records. But why should Kerry be accountable at all? Heck he gets to hide all kinds of things by keeping Teresa's tax returns out of the media hands, now doesn't he?

[Admiral]

If one really wants to get into the "party of hate," argument, then:
The Democratic party has since Wilson been a party of toleration, and inclusion, and has as a result been much more diverse, and hence factionalized, than the Republican party (this accounts for how many Democrats vote Republican in elections, but few Republicans vote Democrat). The Republican party has, in the past 50 years, become a party of intolerance (They opposed the civil rights acts, they are anti-gay). Now, intolerance does not necessarily lead to hate, but it is much closer to it, and often does, than tolerance. Also, currently, the religious right has monopolized the Republican party. You cannot deny that Bush said that he thinks of himself on a mission from God, he is trying to have religious groups take the place of programs like welfare, his stance against stem cells and gays and abortion are all dictated by the religious right. And this is a group that propogates hate. They, who are opposed to abortion because they think it murder, go and murder the people who perform abortions (yes, only some of the religious right condone and support such acts, but it has occurred enough that the "bad apples" argument does not really hold sway). Finally, what has been misinterpreted in the democrats as "mindless hate," is instead the realization that Bush stands against basically every value they have. The "anyone but Bush" argument is merely an acknowledgement that it is hard to imagine anyone taking the country down a path more disturbing to the left than the path Bush is following.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Most of this troll I will not address other than to point out for the umpteenth million time it was the [sarcasm]party of inclusion that party of tolerance that was the main opposition to civil rights[/sarcasm], ie. Dems. Only because the Republicans were real party of tolerance did the civil rights bills become law as the southern Dems were the opposition.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


I backed Dean, not Kerry, so I have never been a huge Dean fan.

John Kerry would be proud of this statement. True neodemocrat double speak!!