Bashing republican\democrats thread

It's up to Kerry to corral the undecideds. I'll call them UDs from now on. If they're not for Bush after having four years to judge him, there's little he can do in three months to suddenly make them dedicated followers. The only thing Bush can hope for is a huge fall from grace by Kerry that will repel the UDs. The economy shows no sign of suddenly spiking within three months and Iraq can only get worse. The only hope for Bush is for him to possibly capture OBL and raise some hellfire propaganda that will rally support a la 9/11.
 
It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?
 
I know everyone set out to vote for the Democrats before the elecion campaigns began. Well, what if Kerry is a bigger idiotic bastard than Bush?
 
well kerry has shown in the past that he is capable of achieving things on his own in this world, unlike bush. i believe he is capable of making reasonable, rational decisions.
 
It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?
Click to expand...

With a Republican congress, Nader will find it just as hard as Clinton to get any work done. That's the folly of Nader's top-down strategy, as opposed to David Cobb's much more intelligent down-top strategy. What good's a Green president when congress is dominated by Republicans and DLC Democrats? The problem with Nader is not that he presents a challenge to the Democrats, but that he simply despises and wants the Democrats destroyed. How else do you explain the fact that he has run campaigns against very liberal Democrats such as Paul Wellstone in senate races? If Nader truly wanted the best for a liberal Democratic party, he'd help guys like Wellstone and Feingold, and he would've worked to make Dennis Kucinich competitive in the primaries.
 
I remember people believing Bush was unbeatable. Now it looks like he can't win considering the economy and the war...unless Osama helps him out. How ironic.
 
Bush is trailing Kerry in all but one category: "Strong leader".

That is simply laughable in my opinion. Firstly, if history teaches us anything, it is that when danger comes, Kerry will volunteer for the most dangerous duty while Bush will rely on his connections to opt out. Secondly, most of that "strong leader" crap comes from the fact that people like how Bush toppled two regimes. Ha, the American military could topple about 90% of the world's governments! Only of course, they'd encounter great casualties, villification, and an extremely hard task of winning the peace, but nonetheless, they'd still be able to topple the government.
 
I'm still crossing my fingers that during the first Presidential Debate, A giant meteor suddenly strikes both Bush and Kerry killing them instantly. Cheney will pick up the republican ticket, and Wesley Clark the Democratic. Fearing a sudden heart attack from Cheny, Clark wins the White House easily.
 
That's my job...
FIREdevil.gif
 
When Bush talks it looks like he LIKES a good drink, when Kerry talks he looks like he NEEDS a good drink badly, if Kerry makes a narrow win, the youthfull spirit of Edwards will probably make the small difference.
 
Last edited:
Get ready to vote again suckers!!.

Oh!! I'll be guilty of cuting & pasting however this one is so muchj reflective of my own opinion;

*Get ready to vote again, suckers!
by Leon Fisher, Unknown News

Aug. 13, 2004

Okay zombies, get ready to vote again!

But first, sit down and feast on a delicious propaganda burger with a side order of lies followed by a fresh disinformation salad and a tall glass of Kool-Aid.

Now you're ready to vote for the corporate approved candidate of your choice.

For your convenience, the new Diebold voting machines are now at your disposal. Vote for candidate A and you might get candidate B, or visa versa depending, on how it's programmed.

It's the old switch-a-roo, but who cares? You will never know who stole the election this time -- that's the beauty of the new voting system.

Don't worry, whoever is elected, whether Democrat or Republican, he will be uniquely qualified to sell out your interests to the highest bidder while paying 'freedom' the lip service you assholes really deserve.

As usual, nothing of any good will come after this election. In fact, the war will continue, the economy will most likely worsen, the standard of living for working people will fall further, and higher taxes are a sure bet.

But don't worry, zombies -- there will be another election in four years, and another after that, and another after that.

Don't forget to vote, suckers!*

Well like i've mentioned before, the choosing of two pundits from the same old school, really no choice, just the lesser of two evils.

Godless.
 
It's interesting that while the Florida electronic system has acquired the most controversy so far, there is another controversy brewing in Indiana over the *paper* ballots. Voters there are annoyed at the problems with the paper system, and upset that the state didn't move to an *electronic* system!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
 
One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.

One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.

One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.

One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.

One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.

One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.

One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.

One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.

One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.
 
One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, now serving a five year prison sentence thanks to the administration you imply was on the take. And speaking of being on the take, Enron was doing the exact same thing under the Clinton administration, which did nothing about it *and* accepted campaign contributions from them. Janet Reno may not have known anything about Enron, but she certainly knew about shady dot-com IPOs, and did nothing about them thanks to massive contributions from the Street.


One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.
Click to expand...

Not a valid comparison, that's just spin. It's valid to say that Kerry was involved in Iran-Contra (I've read the recent stories on that and they seem credible enough), but it's silly to cross-compare that with Bush getting drunk.


One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.
Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. If the reasoning behind shutting up the swift boat veterens is the eyewitness testimony of Kerry's pals, then the reasoning behind Bush not being AWOL because of the eyewitness testimony of his pals is also valid. End of the line.


One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.
Click to expand...

Lol, that's just sad. Well I recently suggested Kerry's wife was a cross between Gloria Steinem and Leona Helmsley, so I guess I can't complain. (chuckle)


One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.
Click to expand...

I shudder at this a bit, because I think it's a little unfair, but I'm afraid I have to agree. That's certainly my problem with Bush in a nutshell.


One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.
Click to expand...

Nah, that's not right. Bush read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" (and commented on it), which is more than I can say for 99% of the posters on this forum.


One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I was reading an article in a French newspaper in where some democrats actually want GWB to win this year.

http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/news/2004/LesEchos/d%E9mocratespr%E9f%E8rentunevictoiredeBush.htm

Now I will only translate the relevant part:

Even if the president Kerry has a solid popular support, you should not expect that the republicans accept defeat gracefully. They would take up probably a vigorous opposition to the Congress to cause to fail any try for instance to cancel it would be only a fraction of diminutions of levies approved by Mr Bush, as Mr Kerry recommends it to pay his plan on health. More in general, republicans' opposition would be more vigorous than pitiful effort provided by the democrats hanging the biggest party of the first mandate Bush. The republican majority in the House of Representatives, disciplined and filled with ideology, will return difficult life to a democratic administration.
-------------------------------------
Then, of course, there is also the conservative, highly efficient tank, ready to fight any democratic proposal fiercely. With the charged calendar which the Bush team is probably going to leave behind her in January, 2005, when Mr Kerry would take up his posts, it seems rather credible that the successor of Mr Bush will perform only a mandate, for lack of being able of solving the colossal problems from which he will inherit.
-----------------------------------------
Even more serious, the huge job of necessary cleaning, consisting of between others the definition of a viable strategy to go out of Iraq and the restoration of a healthy fiscal policy, will be probably difficult and anyway unpopular to the electorate. is for all these reasons that it would be justified - from a democratic point of view - to let Mr Bush stay in the White House for a second mandate. A win of Bush remains possible, as accept it easily behind closed doors numerous democrats in Washington, given Mr Bush's considerable financial advantage in relation to Mr Kerry and resistance of its popularity to poor news of Iraq. In case Mr Bush would really carry off a second mandate, the best screenplay for the democrats would be that the long-term consequences of policies of Mr Bush become obvious for the voters and that the republicans are discredited for numerous years. The voters would be so feeling disgust by the republican Party which they would inaugurate one period of democratic revival not only in the White House, but also in the Senate and perhaps even in the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...


The part that is in red is the most important, another four years of Bush is almost certain to create a very bad outcome for Republicans in the long run, eventually Americans will see the folly of his ways and the long term consequences of re-electing Bush. This does have a historical comparison Herbert Hoover in 1932 lost the white house to the Democrats and the Republicans didn’t get it back until 1952! Why? Because it was Hoover’s inaction during the Depression that caused the GOP wallow in the background for 20 years. So for real republicans, they should ponder, is another 4 years of Bush really all that good? I’d vouch for no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top