|
Post by Rob G on Jan 8, 2004 18:47:44 GMT -5
Just curious what the political tempo was on the web page.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 10, 2004 11:40:33 GMT -5
As usual, I will cast my vote for a losing third candidate. If I had to pick between Bush and Democrat *whoever* (I really think it's Dean though), I would go with Bush. Ralph Nader is apparently not running and this saddens me. It's not like he ever had a shot in hell anyway, it was just a voice on the horizon thing. Trying to keep them other folks honest. And instead he is wussing out. NOt for nothing, but the Democratic debates are really a lesson in how not to elect a candidate for the party. Too many for one thing, too negative for another. The first debates were entirely anti-Bush. Then they were entirely anti-themselves as they attack one another. It is really pathetic the attacks launched against Dean though, since he is likely to win. Yet, this guy has dubious quotes on his record and smiles like a freak. I think the best one is the black lady, it is just to bad she is a lady and black. Maybe if she were a man she would be a viable candidate? Not like Super AL. I guess any forum that includes him seriously has me for a loss. I do not like this man. I was thinking the other day that the format of the debates is a bad thing too. These things reward public image and quick thinking. I guess for the president you want these things, but there should be a little more focus on the policy side of things. Not sure how to accomplish all this in one format, though I'd say Internet is a great forum for promotion and comparison of policies. I guess I am just not impressed by repeated things like "I will create more job" and so on, without a real explanation, since the debates have a time limit and there is too much room to talk around the question at hand. Or maybe no one cares
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 10, 2004 21:42:51 GMT -5
God Damn right,
Your totally right about the democratic primaries being a good lesson on how not to elect a candidate. Who ever walks out of that mosh pit will be covered in soo much shit it wont matter what he says. The mass public is ignorant and latches onto whatever they hear repeatedly.
I cant believe it. When clark came in he i guess was perceived as being strong and was a threat. As he was not a career politician and was allied commander of NATO he was immediatly targeted. The other candidates just burnt his damn house down. Now as dean starts to rise they try to burn his damn house down. So basically no one can ever rise above the pack. Its crazy. Not to mention that made candidates drop out before we get to any important states. Who gives damn about Iowa or New Hamshire. Iowa has 7 electorial votes, New hamshire has 4. New York and California have a combined 87 electorial votes. But by the time we have those primaries we'll be down to one or two guys. Its insane.
The whole process of electing a president continues to baffle me.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 10, 2004 23:54:22 GMT -5
I still think Wesley Clark could beat Bush, even after they trampled him within the party. He doesn't do well ind debates though. But his record with NATO, as evidenced by recent testimony given against Milosovich, really would have helped Democratic party out with the focus on international terrorism stuff.
Have you seen the Conservative and Republican calls for Dean to be the candidate? They actually want him? They feel they can take him out rather easily, probably by rehashing everything the Demoncrats already have. But as always, the economy will have the final say, just as George Sr. knows and likely told his boy long ago.
|
|
|
Post by The Nasinator on Jan 15, 2004 9:28:49 GMT -5
Buckley, you hit it right on the money my friend. The Democrats are a party fumbling around in the dark. They are totally un-unified, attack each other like crazy, and continue to keep their party fragmented and spiteful towards each other. Sometimes I think that the populace in general won’t give a shat about the issues when they see the disarray the Democratic Party is in. Maybe people want someone who will lead them, strong and steady, regardless.
Not that I don’t think Bush isn’t doing a great job. You all know my stance. I like Bush Jr. I think he has balls, is a great leader, and stands up for himself. In this tumultuous time of terrorism, we need a guy like him.
However, back to the Democrats. I also do not like Dean. He just seems too inexperienced for me in terms of foreign policy and relations. He has admitted this. If I were to vote for anybody it would be Clark although he is prone to throwing blanket statements out there that he can’t back up. I believe Clark has the only chance to beat Bush because of his military background. The populace may take to him b/c they believe he could make a smooth transition as a leader during wartime b/c of his military background and tough talk. The Democratic Party should nominate him. His only problem is that he’s not raising anywhere near the amount of money that Dean is and his message isn’t getting out there enough.
I also agree with you on these debates. They are awful and just disintegrate into shouting matches and insult matches. It’s not very graceful and people are sick of seeing their leaders debased to a “Jerry Springer” level, although no fists have been thrown yet. But if there were, Clark would f*ck them all up.
Anyway, I should be rooting for Dean, b/c I don’t think people want him as a president, and Bush would win in a landslide, but I’m rooting for Clark.
As for my vote? I’m voting for Bush. Republican all the way!
|
|
|
Post by Rob g on Jan 15, 2004 9:43:22 GMT -5
I think the views here encamsulate the entire spectrum. This is so much better then "repiblicans better, democrats better". More then anything though we are all getting ripped off. We the voters are being denied any choice. Dean will be the edemocratic nominee because as my dad put it hes gonna win the first preseason game and all the other candidates will drop out immmediatly. So he goes right to the superbowl. On the other hand. The republians suffer from the exact opposit yet equally as bad a fate. No one will oppose George bush juniror in the republican primaries. So it will be bush vs. Dean. And i think they are the two worst at foriegn pilicy. Clark would be good. Especially with what will be on the plate in the next few years. The democrats just dont want clark. Hes not a democrat. I'm pretty sure he was a republican until recently. He sought the democratic nomination cause he knew the replucblicans would not though anyone against bush. So now we're damned. I would almost always vote democrat (with exception of reagan's second run and if dole had ran against anybody but clinton) but i still want a legitmate option if i go the othe way. I imagine many republicans feel the same way. So the democrats aint only damning the democrats but also teh republicnas. I imagine the same reservations one would have about bush you could have about Dean. I think leiverman is legit but he aint got what it takes. Clark needs to get on his grinbd and stick it out. With his military background he could do uncommonly well in the south. Get the vote of the southern whiteman and all.
I like deans attitude, his approach, and hes from NYC. But that dont mean he should be leader of the free world. However i would have to take him over Bush.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 15, 2004 21:13:58 GMT -5
I miss Bob Dole. It was bizarre how he became more popular after losing his election gambit. He just seemed a real decent guy with assloads of political experience. Instead, he is sitting at home now with a hardon the size of Manhatten and no hand to even pleasure himself with. Poor man.....
Elections always have a last minute play, I think they call it the sucker punch. Release something in the last fleeting moments before the vote and the candidate won't have time to combat it. Even if it's a lie, they can't combat the negative press quickly enough to overcome it. I believe this is why "Embassador" Braun quit. To serve as a positive sucker punch for Dean. I honestly think there is no way you rally for months only to drop out in the last week. Her support of Dean's racial record as governor in the debates now seems infinitely dubious. Is she there to get a promotion or something? BTW, highly dubious of FUCKING Al Sharpton ti shiit on Dean for not having blacks in office. As if there were any to be had. Dean would have had to buy one from NYC and lug him back there on his pick-up truck. New England is creamy white. Brown? Hardly. BS line of attack.
Good point about no one opposing Bush. I do think he means well and that he is trying. I do have doubts about Cheney, mostly because of his demeanor and hearsay about his background. He was Mr. Let's Attack Iraq for years. Paul O'Neill is all over their asses.
I think Clark was #1 in his class at West Point. Is this so? That alone deserves him something.
Agreed, a real spectrum of thoughts here. Better than the boring alternative. Dooooooom. Doooooooom. [with white cloaks in gold trim and white candles in hands]
|
|
|
Post by JBOY on Jan 17, 2004 9:59:59 GMT -5
YOU GUYS ARE BEING WAY TOO POLITICAL. THINK FOR A MINTUE. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WENT TO A PARTY CONVENTION OR MEETING. GO INTO A REPUBLICAN MEETING AND YOU KNOW WHO YOULL SEE MOOSES DAD, MAYOR GOULD,BUSH,DOCTORS, LAWYES, AND ANYONE ELSE WITH MONEY WHO HAS AN IDEA HOW TO MAKE THE POOR PEOPLE PAY FOR THE RICH.
NOW WALK ACROSS THE HALL TO THE DEMACRATIC CONVENTION DO YOU SEE WHOS THERE. MY DAD,YOUR DAD AND 10 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE WHOS TAXES ARE TO HIGH, WHO HEALTH AND MEDICAL BENIFITS ARE ALMOST NOT AFFORABLE. YOULL SEE 500,000 PEOPLE WHO CANT FIND WORK SINCE THE BUSH ADMIN. TOOK OVER.
HOW ABOUT THIS. EVERY YEAR SINCE BUSH HAS BEEN IN OFFICE IVE BEEN TAXED AT LEAST 700.00 IN STATE TAXES YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I GET BACK FOR ME AND MY KIDS. LOWER LOWER LOWER 0. THATS RIGHT ZERO.
HOW ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT BEING AT AN ALL TIME HIGH BECAUSE BUSH CREATED 750,000 PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS WITH PATAKIS HELP THEY RAPE N.Y EVERY DAY. HOW THEIR CLEAN AIR ACT WOULD ALLOW POLLUTERS TO NOW PAY A MINIMAL TAX FOR POLLUTING WHAT IS NOW LEGALLY.
HOW DID CLINTON CREATE JOBS, CUT DOWN POLLUTION, CUT DOWN THE DEFICIT. AND STILL HAVE TIME FOR A BLOW JOB FROM EVERYONE BUT HIS WIFE?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS NO POLITICIAN IS GOING TO HELP THE POOR WORKING CLASS WHICH MOST OF US ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE. NONE OF THEM FISH THESE STREAMS AND LAKES(BECAUSE THEY ALL TRAVEL TO EXOTIC LOCATIONS AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE) SO WHAT DO THEYCARE HOW MUCH A CONTRIBUTING COMPANY DUMPS INTO WHATEVER. THE MONEY THEY SAVE ON HAULING AWAY THIS STUFF CAN NOW BE A CAMPAIGN DONATION.
BEFORE ANY OF YOU GET MAD OR SOMETHING GO AN DO THIS. WRITE TO THREE REP. AND THREE DEMS ONE AT EACH LEVEL. TELL THEM YOU KNOW WHERE THERE IS A TOWNS MAIN 24 INCH SEWER PIPE SPILLS THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF RAW SEWAGE INTO A CERTAIN CREEK AND RIVER EVERY TIME IT RAINS. TELL THEM OF ALL THE FISH AND WILDLIFE THIS EFFECTS AND HOW IT CATCHES UP TO PEOPLE THROUGH CONSUMPTION.(I DO KNOW WHERE THIS GOES ON BUT SO FAR ONLY ONE RESPONSE FROM STATE SENATOR STEVE SALAND HE SENT ME A SURVEY.) SEE WHO CARES AND WHO DONT.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 17, 2004 12:50:33 GMT -5
[Dave Buckley stands up and cheers] Yes, I know what you mean and it is why I support non-mainstream parties and things of that nature. I feel that voting for anyone else is making more of a statement that voting for "the lesser evil". My father studied extensively the waterways in Hudson Valley and could tell you a thing or two. The toxic runoff comes from sources far away and there is almost nothing he or you or me or anyone could to about it. Sad truth is that most people don't care enough to do anything about it. People just want to watch TV and buy jeans at the mall. I gotta tell you though I disadree that Republicans caused unemployment and that Democrats caused employment. When you are talking about goverment position this hold some truth as Democrats increase programs by government, but then the Republicans increase military and national security programs too. Bill Clinton never did squat to create jobs. That came from technological boom from Internet companies. None of which made money and collapsed before 9/11. 9/11 aftermath was an ugly example of people using something as a excuse to clean their closets and dump salary, workers, and the kitchen sink and blame it all on terrorists. 3,000 dead affects 3,000 families. But a few downed buildings does not shirt-cirtuit the economy. A shock to the system is often overcome quickly. Unless there are underpinnings of a house of cards. Everyone knew this is what the IPO travesty was. Yet it continues. Only the NY District Attorney has the balls to prosecute these Wall Street goons robbing ordinary folks of their retirement money. The 100 million dollar SEC chairmen don't care and profit regardless. The one thing I learned best in business college at ND was what a crock of poop the stock market is. But that is where to make the beans. Just follow the heard. Or else you get taken to the cleaners. Little or nothing to do with the businesses themselves and the true value of the company that they stock is in. Stocks run about twice their true value when you divide the business assets by the shares. So if company dissolved you'd get half your money back. Unless it just perpetuates long enough for a happy and safe return. Welcome to America. (Yes, I have the embittered attitude of someone who's been college educated and unemployed for about a year out of the last three and underemployed for about another year and a half. ) I would also like to state that you do get some returns in those tax dollars. Education funds. Police. State parks. It would be better if everyone saw where all the money actually went. But then we would actually want, gasp, a say in how these moneys are spent. What a radical concept - democracy. Maybe someday it'll turn around that way, but not anytime soon. I've said it before, but no one audits the governments. They rob themselves - Beacon school official took the disctrict for estimated million bucks and walked without anyone even being able to prove he did wrong, and the Board turned around and demanded teachers take a paycut instead having to cut programs to recoup losses. SO, thanks Johnny for stirring things up a little. Whenever we get you voted into office you'd better not recant.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 17, 2004 15:39:16 GMT -5
I would love to support non ma9instream parties. Thats the type of guy i am. Ralph nader is the bomb. But i have surcome to that meaning my vote does not get to count. Its messed up. So now i more or less do vote for the lesser of 2 evils. But i basically think i will voting demoicrat forever caus eit seems that any republican who can get my vote cant get the votes of republicans. Wouldn't it be great if clark ran as 3rd party candidate and it was a real 3 way race. Did you know that back in the day they ran for president and the guy with the second most amount of votes became vice president. Aaron burr was jefferson vice and they hated each other. Thats good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by The Nasinator on Jan 17, 2004 18:27:25 GMT -5
Historically, Republicans spend on defense while Democrats spend on expanding government and government programs. If it came down to this and these two things only, which would you choose? Programs and bigger government or defense spending?
Buck is correct once again. You can’t say that Clinton invented jobs. The Internet dot com effect created a lot of jobs and caused the stock market to skyrocket and then boom, nothing. Lots of people lost their jobs, lots of “paper” millionaires lost everything and lots of investors lost their shirts because they forgot that the stock market is nothing more than gambling, not a sure thing. Clinton just happened to be the president and the lucky receiver when all that was going on.
Bush inherited 9/11, a crappy economy, and lots of unemployment. He had no choice but to do something with foreign policy. Many people don’t appreciate his proactive foreign policy, I do. I understand that we are alienating a lot of countries but you can’t please everyone all the time and I’d rather feel safe. Bush is unpopular among democrats, understandably, but any republican president would be, regardless. I think that is a democrat were to be elected now, they would more or less continue the policies he put in motion and/or at least benefit greatly from the chance that this administration took in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. It is definitely having an effect on the Middle East.
Anyway, the economy is showing the beginnings of healing itself. The New York Times, a predominately liberal entity, admits that the economy is growing and all the factors indicate this. Unemployment, unfortunately is the lagging indicator, i.e. the last thing to show recovery. I have heard from some of the leading democrats that the economy is doing better because of increased PRODUCTIVITY, not more consumer confidence, or more people getting jobs. I honestly have no idea how this works or how to even check on it.
Anyway, regarding your vote. I think that the last election shows that your vote counts. Even if the whole thing was a sham as some people claim, nobody has the power to hide a million votes. If there were another million people voting, it wouldn’t have been so close. Our vote counts, I have to believe that fundamentally. Sure the system is flawed. Every system is flawed. What can we do about it.
I’m all for a third or fourth party that actually has a chance to win. Unfortuinately these independents or Green party or whatever only get like 1% of the vote. It's a joke but I'm glad they keep punching away.
|
|
|
Post by The Nasinator on Jan 17, 2004 18:29:18 GMT -5
By the way, how come my vote isn’t posted at the top? What is this anyway? You guys are trying to take away my right as a citizen to stand up and be counted. You fascist Nazi’s! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 17, 2004 21:42:10 GMT -5
I am big supposter of facist governing. One of those smart guys like plato or someone said the best form of government was a sensible dictator. I agree.
Your vote is not counted because you cant vote unless you log in. Once you log in the vote will be precented for you.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 18, 2004 2:42:27 GMT -5
Productivity is basically output divided by employees. So, fewer workers with same output actually raises productivity. When they hire more, it goes down. Likewise, the more they sell, the higher it becomes. And vice versa.
Nation terms I'm assuming would be GDP per estimated total workforce. Or GDP gains per period. USA always leads the globe in it because of tremendous and overwhelming technological advantages. Like we have ten guys with massive machinery running a small farm that a hundred would run in China. That sort of thing multiplied in every sector of the economy.
I dont' mind the stock market being a crock of poo so much as it gives people a chance for quick riches - one they might not have without it. However it is run REAL dirty. REAL dirty. Countless examples. Innumerous cases. Cheating, inside trading, misinformation. Big guys, little guys, the janitor, the mailman, the butler with the candlestick in the den. Everyone that plays there plays to win. Go figure. It's just that the policing is less than stellar. I think because too few people monitoring and the fact that large fish scare away the little fish with threats and grease. The way to profit is to play big, which I can't, follow the prime movers, who don't call me their homey, and monitor constantly, while I work and cannot afford anyone to manage my measly assets. Yet we had Lisa dump $ in IRA mutual fund and kiss it goodbye and hope for the best down the road. haha.
And I am totally for a benevolent king. I just think that guy ain't living and ain't gonna, so we gotta vote instead.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 18, 2004 2:51:37 GMT -5
|
|