Which Dirty Democrat is gonna win?

[Killing Ape]

I thought this would be a good topic...

I say Kerry

[Unlimited]

Dun really know.. What's that guy who has a big head & real skinny? He's a good talker, He gonna win.

[Killing Ape]

that''s kerrrrry... he looks scary when he smiles though

[Unlimited]

Yeah that's him.

[Trained]

kerry

[Ancient Power]

Dean all the way

[FunkmastaD]

Well even though I'm from Canada I'm keeping up with this mostly because I have no choice

By that I mean flipping through TV channels I p!@#$%^&* at least 1 American news broadcast about these primaries

 

Well If everything goes as what the media is predicting

And it usually does because the media can influence pretty much anything it looks like Kerry will be the new Democratic presidential candidate with Dean in second mostly because of how the media has portrayed Dean in recent weeks

I mean if you are reading this you've probably seen the clip where Dean is naming off states after getting beaten in the earlier primary

Looked like Ric Flair WOOOO!!!!!!!!

So Dean will be the #2 guy but he won't be asked as a VP candidate

I think that the #3 guy in the primaries, probably Edwards would be asked

 

Although in the end they don't stand any chance in -*BAD WORD*- to beat Bush

[talion]

all i know is that the term joementum has come to exist.

 

enough said about that.

[Manual]

its Dean,

 

Bush might "think" he can win, but one of his cabinet members said he sits in a meeting just listening to everyone adn doesnt speak a word, he like stares into space or something (Source: ABC News or CBS)

 

so yeah hah

[FunkmastaD]

Dean doesn't stand a chance too many people have been making fun of him and his Iowa Primary speech

Just watching CNN for a second today I saw a clip of comedians parodying the speech,re-mixed songs and even a weatherman was parodying it

You know you don't stand a chance when a weatherman can make fun of you

There is even a Howard Dean doll that has the speech and then says "YEAAAAAAAA!!!!!!"

It's actually kind of funny until you realize that this guy wants to be in charge of the worlds most powerful country

There could be a hypothetical scenario where Dean is about to bomb a country for some reason and then all you would hear is edited clips of Jon Stewart on the Daily Show asking if Dean would bomb a country and all you would hear is "YEAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!"

It could happen if only he had a hope in -*BAD WORD*- of winning

[Killing Ape]

i think lieberman's gonna merge with dean and campaign for the vp slot

[talion]

yeah did you guys see that "interview" the daily show did with dean? i thnk we can safely say he's out of this race.

 

unfortunately i dont see how kerry can beat bush. the guy looks like a zombie.

 

seriously though, looking past the joementum factor, i think edwards or clark are the better candidates. i dont get the charisma from kerry, or any other candidate for that matter.

 

edit: i know that saying "he look slike this or that" is extremely shallow but it's how i feel. and i cant help but feel/hear a little bit of kennedy when edwards speaks. but he has alot of time yet so maybe this isnt his race to win, just priming him for 08

[Aileron]

Bush might "think" he can win, but one of his cabinet members said he sits in a meeting just listening to everyone adn doesnt speak a word, he like stares into space or something (Source: ABC News or CBS)

Um, despite they way you worded it, that is a good thing. It is wise to listen to both sides of an arguement before coming up with your own opinion. A President should spend most of cabinet time listening to advisors, that is why they are there.

 

 

Well, its tough to say who is going to win. I wouldn't assume anyone will not win the Democratic primaries, because the winds have already changed several times already.

 

However, all of them except Lieberman have virtually no chance of beating Bush, and Lieberman has virtually no chance of winning the primaries. Kerry and Edwards might be able to compete with Bush somewhat, but won't appeal to the center enough.

 

The problem with the Democrats can be summed up with Dean's embarrasing speech. The speech actually was very moving to all those in the room. Like all Democrats however, Dean forgot that he already has the vote of the people in the room, and that he has to appeal to the people out of the room.

 

Its the same with the whole party. All of them try to be appealling to other Democrats, but forget that they should be trying to carry the swing voters and even a few Republicans.

[Tipme]

WE'RE GOING TO ARIZONA THEN CALIFORNIA THEN NEW HAMPSHIRE THEN NORTH CAROLINA..THEN.SNAP INTO A SLIMMMM JIMMMM!!!!

[Guest Killer86]

I dont really care about who wins the Democratic as long as it isnt Dean.

[Tardy]

Same here.

[2pac]

democrat's OWN~! i vote for bill clinton again he was the best PIMP President!

[Killing Ape]

JFK was a bigger pimp than clinton

[mr. scruff]

Clinton sucked as a president.

I really hope Kerry wins the election. Bush is an incompetent -*BAD WORD*-.

Like the man himself said "it's amazing i won, i was facing peace, prosperity and integrety" (bush said that after an interview, when he thought the cameras had stoped filming). But your democrats are just lieing republicans, they dont stand up for the poor, they dont make health care free. they do jack -*BAD WORD*-. ur entire political system is totally -*BAD WORD*-ed. the fact that a man as stupid as bush can be ur -*BAD WORD*-ing president is amazing, the most powerfull nation in the world is being run by a man who said his favourite childrens book was a book that was first published after he had graduated (haha) from yale

[Killing Ape]

ok maybe i'm off topic or alittle late but why the -*BAD WORD*- do you care about politics overall if your not even from the US?

[2pac]

clinton owns all period

[Aileron]

Clinton was awfull, and set a very bad policy. Every problem Bush faced during his term could be viewed as something Clinton left over.

 

Bush hasn't found Osama Bin Laden? Clinton didn't look.

Bush went into Iraq against world opinion? Clinton convinced the world to give Hussein the second chance he frankly didn't deserve.

Bad economy? It started in the Clinton years.

 

 

Those who think Bush is a moron are wrong. We have no idea how intelligent he is, because the democrats are so stupid that Bush doesn't have to apply any effort to beat them. Bush could be anywhere from stupid to genius, but we won't know until he has some real compe!@#$%^&*ion. He looked really good in 2000, when the compe!@#$%^&*ion was fierce, but today, he really doesn't have to. If you think Bush is a moron, then you are looking at the bottom possibility of a very wide range of possibilities.

 

The problem here is the democrats. They have no policy, are just now building a leadership, and do not know what the American people want. They claim to support the poor, but they really just want to attack the rich. They want to promote job opportunities and be anti-big business at the same time. The list goes on and on.

 

Face it, Bush is going to own this election if things don't change. Kerry and Edwards do not have any policy but an anti-Bush one. When one of them is declared candidate, all Bush has to do is go on the offensive. While Kerry looks good when he attacking Bush, I'll wager he will look pathetic when Bush starts attacking Kerry.

[Petrajs_Killer]

Agreed.

 

Right now, the Democrats only look good since they are all bashing Bush, and the liberal-dominated press just loves to eat whatever garbage the Democratic party puts out.

 

There are so many facts that underlies Kerry's faults. For example, he made a declaration last year about the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But what rhethoric to you hear from him now? They opposite, excactly what his supporters want to hear. He says that he will do a better job in defending our country. Yet he was in favor of actually reducing the budget for the Pentagon, and even voted to try to dissolve the FBI. More rhethoric that his supporter will want to hear? You bet!

 

Kerry has no concrete platform to base his presidential campaign with. He is willing to sell himself out just to get the votes of certain groups. And in effect sell out America if (and it's a big if) he becomes President.

 

Unfortunately, I voted for Gore in 2000. I was young, stupid, and ignorant. Now I realize that Gore would have sold America out just to get the votes that he needed. To the same effect, Gray Davis also tried to appeal to special interests to help him stay in power.

 

Bottom line: the press wants Kerry to run, with Edwards being the VP.

 

End result: hopefully Bush owning Kerry's -*BAD WORD*- comming this November.

[Killing Ape]

I thought this would be a good topic...

I say Kerry

pwned!

[Vile Requiem]

Bottom line, both parties are in the special interests pockets wading in -*BAD WORD*- deep.

(and this post is definitally not pro-kerry)

 

However, that's not the problem here. The political process as it stands today has one major issue: Manipulation of the Media

 

Fox/FNC is owned by Rupert Murdoch (billionaire/FCC republican hoar)

NBC is owned by GE (billionaire)

MSNBC is co-owned by NBC and Microsoft (billionaires)

CNN is owned by Time-Warner (billionaire)

CBS is owned by Viacom (billionaire)

ABC is owned by Disney (heavily republican billionaires)

Papers vary, but some biggies like the Washington Post are Republican.

Radio has jack!@#$%^&*es like Limbaugh on it, not to mention ClearChannel owning a -*BAD WORD*-load of stations now.

 

Now, unless these billionaire buisnesses are ignorant, they know where their bread is buttered, and it's certainly not on the side of anyone other then GWB, who has eased up logical FCC regulations against merging and ownership of % of sources (something murdoch in paticular was against but all of these companies love). Therefore, where's their coverage going to slant? That's right, mostly pro-GWB, and I don't hear anyone calling him a bleeding heart liberal. They can't ignore the democrats now that there's only ONE candidate vs bush (excluding nader), therefore Kerry and what he says gets airtime. They destroyed Dean to -*BAD WORD*-, the "scream" was a mic that drowned out the crowd noise he was SHOUTING over (they later apologized, but it was much too late to stop Kerry). And why did they? He advocated breaking up these very same monopolies they'd love to convince you don't exist.

 

Fox News Channel has done more to perpetuate this 'liberal' myth then anything else. Hannity and O'Reilly are the main perpetuators of this, they badger anyone who beats them in an argument (including more then a few notable mike-cut-offs), no matter who they are, usually followed up by a 'final word' that 99% of the time includes something to the effect of 'bigotted liberal'.

 

Now, the enemy here isn't republicans. Most republicans are perfectly decent people. It's the 'anti-liberal', the neo-conservative.

 

Neo-Cons are for the following:

Pro War (War = Money for their companies [eg: Cheney and Haliburton])

 

Pro Big Buisness/Getting Rich (the tax cuts plus bush's attempt to allow aliens to work legally). Now, Bush & Cheney have millions of dollars. The tax cuts allow them to keep a -*BAD WORD*-load of that cash. Meanwhile, Joe Shmoe gets 300 bucks on average. Don't let the ads fool you, the average is NOT 1,100 dollars per person. That takes into account all the rich people's tax cuts, and odds are you're not rich.

 

Pro Bin-Laden. This is more bush then the neo-cons in paticular. The Bin-Laden family is uber-rich, and highly influencial in Saudi Arabia, where we get OIL from. Now, 99% of the Bin Ladens are perfectly legitimate buisnessmen, so this is fine. However, what they don't want you to know is their wonderful brother Osama has a stake in the family fortune totalling somewhere around 200 million dollars. Ever wonder how he finances his Al-Queda camps? Now you know. And do we cut off ties with the family and say "Remove this evil man from his money?" No, because we're indebbeted to them up the -*BAD WORD*- due to the connections and the oil. OBL would NOT be a threat without cash to finance himself. Bush comes into this due to his family connections with the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Ladens. He even was so kind as to fly EACH AND EVERY ONE of them out of the country in the hours after 9/11, instead of questioning them about their brother's whereabouts (someone's gotta know something, no?)

 

And they're anti:

Jobs - Sure, the amount of jobs in america has grown, but barely (Whereas under Clinton the economy was booming and jobs were everywhere, unemployment was down to record lows). Clinton's one mistake in this department was NAFTA, but not because of anything he invisioned. Buisness is taking the oppurtunity to outsource jobs for peanuts helping prolong this crappy economy. But still, if Bush cared he'd revoke NAFTA/WTO like he did the Kyoto Treaty, the ABM, and the UN's authority.

 

New Deal/Education - Notice in the past few days how Greenspan said there's no cash for Social Security? Add that into the growing defecit and you can see how many government programs will be slashed. Bush isn't even funding NCLB enough to do what it said it would do, making the public education system a mockery of itself and raising your LOCAL taxes.

 

Poor/Middle Class - Sure, you got your 300 dollar refund not once, but twice. However, if you're in college (like me) you notice one thing...the tuition is going up because states are going further and further into debt. So in essence your taxes/overall payments will be HIGHER then before

 

Demonstration - Americans/Most of the rest of the world have a right to peacefully !@#$%^&*emble. However, not around Bush, cause it might hurt his feelings. Most notable is the anti-war protests (which were millions more then the pro-war people, yet the pro-war people were the ones who got on CNN). Another example is when Bush went to celebrate MLK day not too long ago in Atlanta, and the police parked BUSES in front of the protestors. In Britian they lined up a parade route and didn't allow protestors on it. Protestors were lined up in front of Parliment but couldn't get in. In the Phillipenes they threw out anyone who had an anti-bush sign. Bish himself admits he doesn't read the paper, he gets his news from his advisors. Frankly, they hide the guy from the truth as much as he hides himself from it.

 

The government has to collect money in order to fund programs.

 

Bottom line: The neocon media gave Kerry the nomination and is setting up Bush to kick his -*BAD WORD*-. The only reason bush is being blasted atm (I live in NYC area) is that he's using 9/11 images in his ads. Add this to the sheep who watch Fox News Channel 24/7 and you have a growing majority of americans who believe even normal everyday americans are 'liberal pro-terrarists who will take away my guns'.

 

It's a wealth distribution curve. Despite your pleas to the contrary, you do NOT make 100k a year, and therefore are not even remotely rich. A tax cut will give more money to the rich (quite logically) and thus they become more rich. Meanwhile, your 300 bucks is gone with one or two nifty purchases. They'd love to make you believe that the rich will magically sprinkle this wealth upon us. -*BAD WORD*- no, rich people love getting richer and do NOT care about you. Tax levels under clinton produced a booming economy and why? Because the government had more money to spend, even SURPLUSES. You can freely give away a surplus to people, it's like a holiday bonus check. However, when you try and do the same thing with a tax CUT, you cause recessions due to the lower intake of cash. The government is one of the biggest spenders in the world, if they have money to spend everyone benefits, the education level goes up, and fees for government programs go DOWN.

 

The bad economy started in Bush's Term. Bad economies begin with rumors of things, paticularly things the government is going to do (such as a insanely large tax cut promised by -*BAD WORD*-lad when he entered office). 9/11 didn't exactly HELP the situation either. To blame it on Clinton is ignorance.

 

Gore lost 2000 because of the supreme court stopping the recount (which Gore would have won as shown much later), media painting (inventing the internet, love canal), and in general, because he didn't do well in the debates. He STILL got more votes then Bush, even after all that. The election was mostly based on the tax cut, which is a disturbingly stupid reason to elect anyone.

 

Wow, nice ramble I did there Hopefully it's coherent