Generation ME Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 So she is Powell's replacement? Christ have we went to stevestojan that bad? 119430[/snapback] Scintillating analysis, filled with deep insight. Thanks for stopping by and explaining your position ( prone).
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Scintillating analysis, filled with deep insight. Thanks for stopping by and explaining your position ( prone). 119866[/snapback] More like prostrate but I digress...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 What a joke... This is like substituting Jim Kelly for Gale Gilbert! No one is going to take us seriously out of our own little continental world we have built for ourselves. Ohh well, like the line says in blue......
JimBob2232 Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Don't blame me... I didn't vote for Bush Who did you vote for in the democratic primaries? If it was kerry or dean, you need to take some blame. Bush was a VERY beatable candidate, all it took was a worthy opponent.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I'd also wager that a great number of them were voting against Kerry, rather than for Bush. 119833[/snapback] I GUARENTEE that most of the voters that voted for Kerry were actually voting AGAINST Dubya.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 You mean like Democrats have hijacked race and the welfare/impoverished segment of society? They must be incredibly well informed. Go watch Farenheit 911 and pretend it's true. 119864[/snapback] At least the welfare/impoverished section of society is voting in a manner that will help them out. Dems are generally more likely to seek funding for social programs that are geared toward helping out the people you are referring to. At least they realize that the lesser of two evils is the one that they and their families can benefit from the most. They've figured out that Dubya<>Jesus. Just because you don't agree with my views does not mean I watch Farenheight 9/11 every night before I go to bed or that I even like Michael Moore. Come to think of it, you're starting to sound a bit like bad right-wing conservative radio. Rush is Right, so tow the party line, lemming.
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Books by Clarke and Woodward? Well that clears it up completely. 119841[/snapback] Unfortunately, no one is inviting me behind the scenes to see what is going on. All we have to judge them on is their public performance and the information from behind the scenes, loaded with salt, that we can get. The alternative is to assume that there are stunning achievments on her part that have been kept a secret. The information provided by Woodward has not been denied by the administration and in fact, the book was highly recommended by them at the party web site. Very little, if any, of the information from Clarke on Rice's pre 9/11 performance has even been denied let alone effectively denied. That doesn't mean that everything either has written is gospel truth. It is kind of like being on a jury. Unless you witnessed the crime yourself, you can't be 100% sure of the truth. You have to do the best you can with the evidence you have and then make the best judgment call you can under the circumstances.
GG Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 At least the welfare/impoverished section of society is voting in a manner that will help them out. Dems are generally more likely to seek funding for social programs that are geared toward helping out the people you are referring to. At least they realize that the lesser of two evils is the one that they and their families can benefit from the most. 119999[/snapback] Keep wrapping yourself in that feel good blanket of entitlements. Ever consider that the social programs that haven't worked for 40 years, may not suddenly start working if you keep electing the same enablers?
JimBob2232 Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 We are off topic now, so i might as well continue... We have 2 parties. Democrats believe that the government should provide for you that which you are unable to provide for yourself. And Republicans, who believe that the government should help you be able to better yourself and your future. Its the whole "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" approach. Now, there are MANY things about the republican platform of late that I disagree with. But I will save those for another day, but I do know that if you are going to give a tax cut, it goes to the people who pay taxes. In business, competition cures all, and profit is not inherently bad.
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Keep wrapping yourself in that feel good blanket of entitlements. Ever consider that the social programs that haven't worked for 40 years, may not suddenly start working if you keep electing the same enablers? 120043[/snapback] By what standard have they "not worked"?
Gene Frenkle Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 By what standard have they "not worked"? 120060[/snapback] Rush said so. So did Savage.
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 At least the welfare/impoverished section of society is voting in a manner that will help them out. Dems are generally more likely to seek funding for social programs that are geared toward helping out the people you are referring to. At least they realize that the lesser of two evils is the one that they and their families can benefit from the most. They've figured out that Dubya<>Jesus. Just because you don't agree with my views does not mean I watch Farenheight 9/11 every night before I go to bed or that I even like Michael Moore. Come to think of it, you're starting to sound a bit like bad right-wing conservative radio. Rush is Right, so tow the party line, lemming. 119999[/snapback] BS. The democrats are the party that benefit the most from keeping people mired in poverty. With the exception of the Hollyweird elite and nutjobs like George Soros, the average upper middle class and higher wage earners are EXTREMELY likely to be conservative in their political views. The "lesser of two evils" argument doesn't get any more credible the more it is repeated. I wouldn't know about conservative radio. I catch about 30 minutes a week total of it when I'm driving around at lunch time. I'm not about to apologize for my stance that the government doesn't fix problems by playing Robin Hood. It only creates more and usually larger ones. History is filled with examples of same, with few contrarian exceptions.
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 By what standard have they "not worked"? 120060[/snapback] How about virtually the same number of people not being covered by health insurance despite a program that costs more than the Department of Defense? How about virtually the same poverty rates? How about worsening education results despite ever increasing funding over the years?
GG Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 By what standard have they "not worked"? 120060[/snapback] They have not worked because the programs under domination of the DEMs over the past generation - education, welfare, and large urban inner cities have not improved in a generation. That's the feel good blanket that I'm talking about. You can campaign on the platform that you are out to help the people by simple deployment of capital, when the reality is that by not addressing the core issues of increasing self-reliance and raising the education bar, you are creating an inescapable subculture of poverty and dependence on the state. You often cite the highly disproportionate voting statistics of blacks towards the DEM candidates. Well, the inner cities have been a DEM provence since the '60s. How have the urban areas benefitted from continual re election of the popular candidates, other than perpetuate the Two Americas myth (be it racial or economic)?
GG Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 How about virtually the same number of people not being covered by health insurance ...120330[/snapback] I think that the statistic you're trying to recite is that historically the same % of US public in not covered by medical insurance. Absolute #s have risen with the growth of population.
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I think that the statistic you're trying to recite is that historically the same % of US public in not covered by medical insurance. Absolute #s have risen with the growth of population. 120483[/snapback] You're right. I meant percentage of people. Coincidentally, it's virtually the same percentage as our Canadian counterparts - who have socialized medicine. Source: Canoe.ca article I posted just before this board Rosened the last time that is now lost forever in cyber space.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I GUARENTEE that most of the voters that voted for Kerry were actually voting AGAINST Dubya. 119984[/snapback] Absolutely. Just goes to show what a pathetic election it was.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Unfortunately, no one is inviting me behind the scenes to see what is going on. All we have to judge them on is their public performance and the information from behind the scenes, loaded with salt, that we can get. The alternative is to assume that there are stunning achievments on her part that have been kept a secret. The information provided by Woodward has not been denied by the administration and in fact, the book was highly recommended by them at the party web site. Very little, if any, of the information from Clarke on Rice's pre 9/11 performance has even been denied let alone effectively denied. That doesn't mean that everything either has written is gospel truth. It is kind of like being on a jury. Unless you witnessed the crime yourself, you can't be 100% sure of the truth. You have to do the best you can with the evidence you have and then make the best judgment call you can under the circumstances. 120016[/snapback] I question the reasoning that just because something isn't vociferously denied, it must be true. Clarke's book, especially, was obnoxiously stupid on it's face. The lack of denial by anyone doesn't make it any less stupid.
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I question the reasoning that just because something isn't vociferously denied, it must be true. Clarke's book, especially, was obnoxiously stupid on it's face. The lack of denial by anyone doesn't make it any less stupid. 120578[/snapback] Not only was it not "vociferously" denied, much of it was not denied at all. Further, other sources have emerged, including her own testimony before the 9/11 comm. that confirmed factual allegations made by Clarke and others regarding her pre 9/11 actions. Dubious or not, the evidence we have is the evidence we have. I could simply refuse to have an opinon on whether she would be a good SoS or I could reach an opinion as best I can based on the information that is available. I don't think it will be a tragedy to have her at State but I also don't see her as making much progress with our on-the-side-lines allies either. The biggest challenge will be the Palestinian issue now that Arafat is dead. I have a hard time picturing her as a strong enough SoS to force Palestinians and Israelis to move off square one.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I don't think it will be a tragedy to have her at State but I also don't see her as making much progress with our on-the-side-lines allies either. The biggest challenge will be the Palestinian issue now that Arafat is dead. I have a hard time picturing her as a strong enough SoS to force Palestinians and Israelis to move off square one. 120591[/snapback] I agree...but for reasons that have nothing to do with an idiot like Clarke.
Recommended Posts