Originally posted by Zero
You know they already have voter fraud plans in effect, right?
No, we don't care if you don't support his position on gun control, we need to put this country back in the hands of an American.
A REAL Republican, sure...or a Democrat, for that matter.Originally posted by Shadow
Yes, which is precisely why we need a republican president. Like you said: The hands of an American.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
kat: I don't know, I posted a link up there.
I think a couple of them could do Bush, and looking at the platform synopsis side-by-side, Graham packs a good punch.
But what I'd really love to see is Hillary get back in and we could all see GWB get his butt kicked by a girl!
well he most likely won't win the primary, but he has strong words for the President. If he ran as an independant, he might do some damage (like Perot did to Bush Sr.)I don't see Graham getting the NE support he would need to win
The economy is definitely not going to recover with debt growing at billions per day, that all the taxpayers have to pay, with no forseeable cieling. Those two tax cuts gave all and more of the Republic's money to the rich, where in theory it "trickles down." This theory is fundamentally flawed because if capital is concentrated into a few hands and they stop spending their money (how many yachts can you have anyway) then nobody gets any money.I think with the economy taking an upswing, if we get a U.N. mandate that brings in greater international support in Iraq Bush will be back retain his position as president.
Might as well use it. It works. If the economy picks up (looks like it already is) they'll have to find something else.Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Dick Gephart called Bush a "Miserable Failure" a few times the other day.. what do you make of that?
I have no problem with that. Clinton's basic economic plan (sit in the oval office getting blowjobs while the economy ran itself) was sound. Its not so easy when the economy isn't doing well though.Gephart also said that he'd go back to the economic plan of Bill Clinton. Is that a good idea?
Ambivalent. Clinton's Middle East policy was a "Miserable Failure" but thats about par for the course anyway. Politicians at least have to make it appear that they are trying and thats pretty much what Clinton did. Yeah, it started a new Jihad and cost thousands of lives, but he did get a couple of nice photo ops. Bush's policy while more coherent and ambitious may just make its inevitable failure that much greater. In the end its up to the residents to decide if they want peace or not. At the moment it appears they do not.Dean has said that he'd redo the Middle east policy of Clinton- how about that?
Yeah, but what if it's a 'jobless' recovery, that is, stock prices rise but unemployment increases or stays high. I think they're saying that the economy has been changed so fundamentally (and so badly for the middle class) that unemployment will remain, as plagued the Bush I years.Might as well use it. It works. If the economy picks up (looks like it already is) they'll have to find something else.
lol. Now, now. He did lots of groovy things, like steal Republicans' ideas: De-fed wellfare. NAFTA. Cut government waste. Make college tax deductible. Why? Not because he was a Dem or a Rep., because he wanted the best for the country & wasn't crazy.I have no problem with that. Clinton's basic economic plan (sit in the oval office getting blowjobs while the economy ran itself) was sound. Its not so easy when the economy isn't doing well though
I hope that the leadership will make judgements based upon analysis instead of wrong theories, regardless of party. The candidates except for Leiberman and Kuchinich have re-enforced each other in attacking Bush. Many of them are Senators and Governors. This government is divided, not united. It's Bush's fault.I fear we will see them making a big sticky mud of all their ideas in the next few months, and become just republican-lite again.
Now, now, Zero. You know thats not necessary until the Democrats become a threat I figure by late October (next year) a handful of votors will be able to name a Democratic presidential candidate.Originally posted by Zero
I'm just waiting for the inevitable stream of lies from teh Republicans...they already have their distraction machine running full-steam.
And so the propaganda begins...Originally posted by russ_watters
Now, now, Zero. You know thats not necessary until the Democrats become a threat I figure by late October (next year) a handful of votors will be able to name a Democratic presidential candidate.