What Do Dem's need to do...

Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last
  1. Board Supporter
    MaDmaN's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Age
    55
    Posts
    997
    Rep Power
    20139
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    92.29%

    What Do Dem's need to do...


    First off this is not to piss off anyone but to discuss why the Dem's are finding it hard to win the whitehouse.Try to remove yourself and be objective.Lets face it no president with an approval rating below 50% ever won re-election until now,and by 4 million votes is pretty high in my opinion..I think a libearl from massachusetts will never win the whitehouse.Maybe a southern Democrat that is more in the middle like scoop jackson was .I thought Joe Liberman would of appealed to alot of conservatives I would of supported him if he was the nominee.Unlike most I do not vote strictly based on party.I supported Paul Tsongas and a few others in my day Im not overjoyed with Bush but at least you know where he stands and where his passion is.Kerry failed to ignite any passion at all,alot of kerry votes were protest votes against Bush.The south used to be democratic country but not anymore.This gay marriage thing was huge, it enraged alot of people in the south and west people said no way to this.Can you imagine Moral values was most important amongst voters.If that does not send a clear message to the left ten IMO they will never learn.Lets not just say 58 million people are stupid because that is a cop out.The first thing they should do is get rid of Terry Mcauliff at the DNC and Nancy Pelosi needs tm live in Nebraska for a little while.What I see happening is the further left the Democratic party goes this in turn makes a case for the Republican party to be even more conservative,which may open the flood gates for independents.Im willing to bet some Democrats are going to start wearing their religion on their sleeves in upcoming contests...These are just some thoughts I had if you would like to chime in great..Take a look at this county by county You cannot tell me all these people are wrong..Red being republcan and blue being democrat..


  2. Elite Member
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,714
    Rep Power
    513546
    Level
    59
    Lv. Percent
    89.72%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Well I think first off that some good will come to the Dems from the Bush presidency part 2. The dems have rested on their laurels for a long time and this has made them weak. They've taken many groups for granted and this has left them wide open to attack.

    Additionally, Dems have allowed the more liberal aspects of the party to take the lead, particularly once Bush was elected. They went with the "bipolar opposite" approach in resisting the Bush agenda when clearly they should have employed a subtler approach.

    I think we'll start to see the Dems shift a bit more towards centrism during the next 4 years as the American public has made it very clear that far left leaning agendas are no longer en vogue.
  3. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.54%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I think one of the major problems with the Democratic party is that they don't realize there's a problem. The places where the majority of their base tends to be located are liberal echo chambers where so many people hold similar opinions that ideas they consider moderate are in fact far, far to the left, but they never know. There's always this "who farted" look on liberals' faces when faced with the idea that significant numbers of people disagree with them. First they have to deal with the fact that not everyone who disagrees with them is a hundred gun toting redneck just shy of throwing a white hood on, and then perhaps some progress can be made towards reasonable compromises. Until then, nothing.
    •   
       

  4. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Just an interesting observation. Utah is overwhelmingly Republican. However, Salt Lake City has by far more people on welfare percentagewise than anywhere else in the United States (has to do with polygamy; 1 income for a family with multiple wives and sometimes over 20 children). God I wish they would abolish welfare. Offer free childcare, but welfare is bull####.
  5. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    bump what bioman said, the Dems in this country have done exactly what the Labor party in Australia has done, ignore the common working person and grabbed ahold of every whaco fringe group out there. You don't win voters when you don't distance yourself from **** like this
    http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/
    the Mike Moores, and from the Cynthia McKinneys of the party.
    Kind of like the republicans did, with the Pat Buchanon (sp?)
    Yet most of the lefty blog sights and even parts of MSM are blaming the loss of Kerry on the evengelical mouth-breathers in middle america.

    America's left today is dominated by Hollywood and academia, and their values don't resonate with actual, American voters. What's more, if the Democratic Party did represent the views of actual American voters, it's values wouldn't mesh very well with those of Hollywood and academia. That's reality. I would have love to have a better choice then the two that we got. But of the two, I choose the man who does what he says and says what he does over the guy that changed his mind, or had Jimmy Carter or Mickey Moore make up his mind for him.

    I truely hope the democratic party realizes its mistakes and make changes. Is there even such a thing as a Conservative Democreat anymore, apart from Joe Leiberman?
  6. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Just an interesting observation. Utah is overwhelmingly Republican. However, Salt Lake City has by far more people on welfare percentagewise than anywhere else in the United States (has to do with polygamy; 1 income for a family with multiple wives and sometimes over 20 children). God I wish they would abolish welfare. Offer free childcare, but welfare is bull####.
    Good point!
  7. Board Supporter
    DieTrying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    909
    Rep Power
    12961
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    74.67%

    WOW- Those pics are amazing.I am amazed at how good of a job the left has done to brainwash some people into thinking that this country is so terrible. An 18 year old kid that I work with (that is pretty well off) says he now plans to move to Canada b/c this country is so terrible.

    I think a lot of people are tired of the left crying like babies. No matter how well developed the film was, brining the negative Michael Moore on the campaign trail DOES NOT help your cause.
  8. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    I truely hope the democratic party realizes its mistakes and make changes. Is there even such a thing as a Conservative Democreat anymore, apart from Joe Leiberman?
    The problem with Joe Leiberman is that most of America ignorantly views him as "Jew Jewberman". Btw I can say this because I'm Jewish.

    You know how the Democrats can get someone elected? It's simple. He has to be from the South. That's it. If he is from the North, he will NOT get elected. Republicans can be from the North, but Democrats cannot. Oh irony of ironies. You see, southerners will vote for only 2 types of people for President:

    1) A Republican
    2) A good ol boy

    If you don't fall in one of those two categories, you won't get any votes in the south. Merely having a VP who falls under one of those categories won't help.


    Of course it also helps if your candidate doesn't come across as a dick. For example, my girlfriend doesn't pay any attention to politics at all. She said she was glad Bush won. You know why? She said Kerry seemed like an *******. Without paying any attention to what he said at all or any of the issues; she made a judgement based on how he carries himself. She is an average American citizen. That's why Gore lost so many votes too. The only reason he got as many as he did in Florida was because the Jewish vote in Florida wanted Joe Leiberman to be the first Jewish VP.
  9. Board Supporter
    DieTrying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    909
    Rep Power
    12961
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    74.67%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Of course it also helps if your candidate doesn't come across as a dick. For example, my girlfriend doesn't pay any attention to politics at all. She said she was glad Bush won. You know why? She said Kerry seemed like an *******. Without paying any attention to what he said at all or any of the issues; she made a judgement based on how he carries himself. She is an average American citizen. That's why Gore lost so many votes too. The only reason he got as many as he did in Florida was because the Jewish vote in Florida wanted Joe Leiberman to be the first Jewish VP.
    I agree totally! I think lawyers like Kerry and Edwards are a big reason why people don't like politicians. Even though both candidates have money and everybody knows that, Bush seems more like the guy next door.

    I hated watching Kerry in the debates when Bush was speaking..He has this nasty, rich-boy face..
  10. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    The problem with Joe Leiberman is that most of America ignorantly views him as "Jew Jewberman". Btw I can say this because I'm Jewish.
    The democratic party needs to distance themselves for the Racheal Corrie, Isreal is the devil, Palestinian can do no wrong crowd. Right now, the republican party is the best friend the israeli's have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    You see, southerners will vote for only 2 types of people for President:

    1) A Republican
    2) A good ol boy
    I could take offense to that since I am from the south . **** have you ever been to the south? There are a assload of 'hillbillies' and white-trash in NY,NJ,ME,PA,MN,MI,WI? This is the type of Nascar-mouth-breather-sister-****ing-no-teeth-a-havin-hee-haw-watchin
    steroetype **** that need's to stop. Go ahead a disenfranchise a whole segment of the county and then wonder why they don't vote for you.

    You mean a northern democrat like, oh I don't know, let's see John F Kennedy . I would like nothing more then to see the dem party put a man out there like that and I think Lieberman is the closest thing that they have, right now. You know who seems to be a pretty good guy is Obama (no not Osama). Gulliani/Obama (Obama/Gulliani) might be something to look into The biggest mistake the democratic party will make is to push hillary as there candidate for '08.


    DT: Are you a gator?
  11. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    If you think Edwards was a prick, you never saw him do any public speaking. Edwards has some serious charisma. He also is a HUGE hit with female voters. If Edwards had won the primaries that map would have been significantly more blue. Edwards grew up poor. His father was a millworker for goodness sake. He definitely connects with the common man. Unfortunately he wasn't as wellknown as Kerry and he didn't run a good enough campaign in the primaries.

    I have no doubt that if either Edwards or Clark had been nominated they would have won. In the back of my mind I knew Bush was going to win right when Kerry was nominated.
  12. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by DieTrying
    WOW- Those pics are amazing.I am amazed at how good of a job the left has done to brainwash some people into thinking that this country is so terrible. An 18 year old kid that I work with (that is pretty well off) says he now plans to move to Canada b/c this country is so terrible.

    I think a lot of people are tired of the left crying like babies. No matter how well developed the film was, brining the negative Michael Moore on the campaign trail DOES NOT help your cause.
    I really thought the guy holding the sign that says "Immigrants against democracy" needs to be shown the door.
  13. New Member
    serengo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    48
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    223
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    40.64%

    The following article by Jane Smiley sums up why Liberal Democrats (not all Dems are Liberal, so I don't mean to paint them w/the same brush) don't "get it". They think most American's are too dumb, ignorant, and incompetent to think or do for themselves, we need the government, run by them of course, to do it for us. Case in point is Hillary's thesis on government child rearing, because we can't be trusted to do it of course.

    Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
    The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
    By Jane Smiley
    Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 3:24 PM PT


    The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.


    I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

    Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.

    Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

    Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

    Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.

    The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?

    Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.
    All the while Republicans and Conservatives are called the elitists. This is the most elitist crap I've ever read, but it typifies Liberal Dems.
    Last edited by serengo; 11-06-2004 at 02:05 PM. Reason: cut and pasted wrong article
  14. Board Supporter
    DieTrying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    909
    Rep Power
    12961
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    74.67%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    If you think Edwards was a prick, you never saw him do any public speaking. Edwards has some serious charisma. He also is a HUGE hit with female voters. If Edwards had won the primaries that map would have been significantly more blue. Edwards grew up poor. His father was a millworker for goodness sake. He definitely connects with the common man. Unfortunately he wasn't as wellknown as Kerry and he didn't run a good enough campaign in the primaries.
    Charisma means absoluetly nothing to me. Thats actually exactly what I was talking about. In the debates, I really felt like Bush was talking from his heart, and Kerry was well rehearsed and knew exactly what he was going to say. Kerry looked better and sounded much, much better, but I don't feel that the genuine substance was there. Kerry and Edwards with their charisma reminded me a lot of used car salesman in nice suits who knew exactly how to sell the worst car on the lot. And I'd be willing to bet that even Edwards' charisma wouldn't win over the "security moms" (yes, there is such a thing). I'll take a President with a deep set of moral values and beliefs over a guy with tons of charisma that sounds really good (Clinton comes to mind).

    If you really want to see a politician grab millions of people, go watch old videos of Hitler. The man was amazing! I think you get my point.
  15. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Kerry? Charisma? The too words shouldn't be in the same sentence except with the word NOT. Kerry comes across as a snobbish jerk. Sure he sounds smarter, more collected, but NOT charismatic in any way shape or form. Let me take a quote from you:

    I really felt like Bush was talking from his heart
    THAT is charisma. BUSH has charisma. He seems like the guy next door. You can relate to him as a common man. THAT is why he wins. Most people who vote don't vote on any issue. They vote for the guy they like the most. Bush is far far far far more likeable in appearance than Kerry. Likeability is why Clinton won. Likeability is why Gore lost. Likeability is why Reagan won. The only time people vote the issues is when you have two uncharismatic people up for election. Even then, it is usually just a matter of voting for the guy who seems like less of an ass.
  16. Board Supporter
    wastedwhiteboy2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,990
    Rep Power
    3016
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    59.37%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DieTrying
    WOW- Those pics are amazing.I am amazed at how good of a job the left has done to brainwash some people into thinking that this country is so terrible. An 18 year old kid that I work with (that is pretty well off) says he now plans to move to Canada b/c this country is so terrible.

    I think a lot of people are tired of the left crying like babies. No matter how well developed the film was, brining the negative Michael Moore on the campaign trail DOES NOT help your cause.
    I have to agree with all of the above posts.
  17. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    820
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.37%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    There have been alot of good points made in this thread. Personally I feel that major political change for the better isn't a question of democrats or republicans. I feel that there are better ways to do things than either of these parties alone have to offer. There are positives ideas in both parties as well as negatives. And having these two major parties fighting for control divides this country more than anything else. Unfortunately nothing short of a major political reform will change this. And also , I agree with dietryings sentiments- as much as this country needs fixing, I love it and wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world....except Amsterdam.
  18. Board Supporter
    wastedwhiteboy2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,990
    Rep Power
    3016
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    59.37%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    the democrat party is not what it used to be. now it has too many left extremist that view everyone else as a right extremist. its not about making things fair and right its about screwing the govt or the rich guy because they are screwing us. or so they say.
  19. PC1
    Guest
    PC1's Avatar

    One interesting opinion I heard about Kerry from someone who really doesn't follow politics at all: Kerry looks like a prick, and his wife is an a**hole. If perception is reality, there may have been many others who don't follow politics closely and voted against him for the same reason.

    I thought Kerry presented himself very well in the debates. He looked smart, presidential, etc., and I say that as a conservative. By any neutural and reasonable standard, Kerry beat Bush in each of the 3 debates..... yet it hardly mattered.

    I think his campaign suffered a critical blow from the Swift Boat Vets. During the campaign he vowed NOT to follow in the footsteps of Mike Dukakis, who was too slow in responding to negative ads from the Republicans (remember the Willie Horton prison early release debacle?) There seems to be a fine line between not giving an issue or attack any validity by responding to it, versus nipping it in the bud before it gains any traction. John Sasso, who also managed the Dukakis effort, also was involved with Kerry. Given that, I can't imagine why Kerry wanted to bring Sasso in. As a conservative, I was actually glad to hear it. With respect to the Swift Boat Vets, Kerry made the same mistake as the Dukakis campaign in the Horton matter....... responding too slowly. I'm assuming Kerry wanted to distance himself from some of Clinton's advisors like Paul Begala and James Carville, just to avoid the perception of standing in Clinton's shadow. Yet toward the end of his campaign, he made up some ground, at least in the polls, by following their advice and waging a more aggressive campaign. I'm sure he now wishes he did so much earlier on.

    Another problem I see in the democrat party right now is that they're a very splintered group. Many Dems from different areas of the country have different politics on any given issue. The Republicans on the other hand are more in agreement about most issues. In this previous primary the dems tripped all over themselves to appear to be the furthest to the left because of the early popularity of Howard Dean and his anti-war stance. Once Kerry won, he had to cross dress back to the center. Of course the electorate and press remember what was said during the primary and it comes back to haunt them. It was very easy to paint Kerry as a liberal in moderate clothing. It didn't help that he was independently voted the most liberal senator as well. And while the most progressive (extreme) liberal was viewed as the most desireable candidate, Republicans these days usually chose someone who is more moderate, which is an easier sell come the general election.

    The pendulum swings both left and right over time. Right now, Americans largely distrust the far left, about as much as they distrust the far right. While Kerry had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mass Supreme Court ruling establishing gay marriage in Massachusetts, and even tried to distance himself from it during his campaign, he nonetheless is from Massachusetts, the land of gay marriage, and so was associated with that issue, and with far left ideology. In all 13 States in which a referendum question was posed against gay marriage, the measure was passed. It was very easy for Karl Rove and Co. to successfully paint Kerry with the liberal left brush over and over again. I don't feel that right now anyway, this country "trusts" a far left leaning liberal democrat to be president. Who knows where that pendulum will be in 4 years.

    I've heard it said that in the presidential race between Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan, Reagan's personality was so cordial and friendly that he could have won the race even if their respective platforms were reversed. I'm not sure if I beleive that, but I do see the point, and maybe that race wouldn't have been such a landslide. In Kerry's case, he's no Reagan, nor is he a Bill Clinton. Apparently, the ability to just be able to connect with people of differing backgrounds and personalities isn't something that can be taught. George Bush, while also not a Reagan/Clinton, is at least likeable and affable. He does connect with people, and is able to win their trust and confidence with handshake and smile.

    I think there was a resentment by the electorate against moveon.org, CBS/Dan Rather, Michael Moore and the media generally who really overdid the attacks on Bush. In spite of some rather unpopular moves Bush has taken pollitically, voters didn't like the personal attacks on the likeable Bush.

    Lastly, and most importantly, Rove brilliantly was able to motivate the usually apathetic Christian right to get off their butts and get to the polls. To the Dems utter shock, "Moral Values" was the highest ranking issue among voters.

    Given all of this, it's pretty easy to see in hindsight why Kerry lost by almost 4 million votes.

    How do the Dems change this? Would this election have a different result if Hillary Clinton had run? I doubt it very much.

    Dems aren't going to change their stripes. In the general election they need someone from the South who is far more charismatic and moderate and respectful of traditional conservative values. I just don't know how that person wins the Democrat primary? Hillary Clinton today would probably win the Democrat primary, yet she is NOT electable in a general election as she is such a polarizing figure, IMHO, and if that's the best the Dems can do in 2008, they're going down yet again in flames.

    And yes, I agree, Terry Macauliffe has GOT to go.

    Otherwise, I have no strong opinions in pollitical matters.

    : )

    Be well.
  20. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.44%

    The problem with Joe Leiberman is that most of America ignorantly views him as "Jew Jewberman". Btw I can say this because I'm Jewish.

    You know how the Democrats can get someone elected? It's simple. He has to be from the South. That's it. If he is from the North, he will NOT get elected. Republicans can be from the North, but Democrats cannot. Oh irony of ironies. You see, southerners will vote for only 2 types of people for President:

    1) A Republican
    2) A good ol boy

    If you don't fall in one of those two categories, you won't get any votes in the south. Merely having a VP who falls under one of those categories won't help.
    You are missing the point in once of the reasons why the democrats lost. Leiberman can't get elected because he is a moderate and is unwilling to pander to the extreme left wing of the democratic party. In order for a democrat to get the nomination they have to run to the far left wing of the party to get the nomination and then pretend they are moderate after they get the nomination.


    Just an interesting observation. Utah is overwhelmingly Republican. However, Salt Lake City has by far more people on welfare percentagewise than anywhere else in the United States (has to do with polygamy; 1 income for a family with multiple wives and sometimes over 20 children). God I wish they would abolish welfare. Offer free childcare, but welfare is bull####.
    Socialized child care is as bad idea as socialized medicine and welfare. It is not my responsibility to pay for your child's day care. If your not in a position to have one of the parents to stay home with your child or can't afford to pay for your own daycare don't have kids.
  21. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.44%

    Kerry lost for a few reasons
    1. He failed to differentiate his plan for Iraq from Bush’s. His plan was identical to Bush’s, other than his assumption that he could get allies that were not helping us to change their minds. The problem was France and Germany said that no matter who is president they wouldn’t help us. He also failed to take into account that the UN, France, Germany, and Russia were being bribed by Sadam.
    2. Kerry failed to separate the war in Iraq for the war on terror. In instead of doing this he frequently linked the two which is a mistake.
    3. The subject mainly stayed of security issues instead of domestic issues such as Health care ect.
    4. There were ballot initiatives on gay marriage that overwhelmingly passed in 11 states. The questions were in several of the swing states causing a higher than normal conservative turn out. 5. Kerry really failed to get rid of the Flip flopper label. Instead he really made it worse. He changed his position so much in Iraq no one really knew were he stood.
    5. The democrat party is now controlled by the far left socialist wing of the party. It is imposable for a moderate democrat to get the nomination. The party will probably implode for a while by pointing fingers at each other. The moderates (what is left of them) will blame the extremist and vise versa. What they need to do is return to the democrat party of JFK. The problem in doing that they will loose some of there base such as far left minorities, woman's movement, and the gay movement. On the flip side they will more likely win elections in that way.
  22. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.44%

    WOW- Those pics are amazing.I am amazed at how good of a job the left has done to brainwash some people into thinking that this country is so terrible. An 18 year old kid that I work with (that is pretty well off) says he now plans to move to Canada b/c this country is so terrible.
    Wait untill he actually move there. They have a 50% income tax, a 15% sales tax, and thier medical system is a mess.
  23. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.54%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DieTrying
    I agree totally! I think lawyers like Kerry and Edwards are a big reason why people don't like politicians. Even though both candidates have money and everybody knows that, Bush seems more like the guy next door.

    I hated watching Kerry in the debates when Bush was speaking..He has this nasty, rich-boy face..
    I have to disagree here with one point: the Republicans have just as many lawyers in congress. In both cases it's the fox guarding the hen house. Lawyers are the worst people to trust with the job of actually writiing and enacting laws.
  24. New Member
    serengo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    48
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    223
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    40.64%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Edwards grew up poor. His father was a millworker for goodness sake.
    Just to clarify on this point. It was tossed out there during the campaign that his father was a millworker, making you think he was a regular dirt-under-the-fingernails guy. He was an an advisor and analyst who helped mill companies cut costs. He was white collar.
  25. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Socialized child care is as bad idea as socialized medicine and welfare. It is not my responsibility to pay for your child's day care. If your not in a position to have one of the parents to stay home with your child or can't afford to pay for your own daycare don't have kids.
    Wow, that's a really dumb statement if I ever saw one. What are you going to do about reality? You know, that place where kids are born into poverty every day? Oh I know, you'll let them starve to death. Excellent idea.


    Here's why childcare is a good idea. A large number of poor families have only 1 parent. Many families with 2 parents can't afford to function on the paltry minimum wage of one of the parents so both have to work. You can't leave kids alone at home. And if you are demanding people to pay for childcare on minimum wage, you're a retard.

    If people have to stay home to take care of their kids then they obviously can't work. If they can't work they can't make money and if they can't make money they wind up evicted. So if you take up your plan we'll have a rise in homelessness that is positively unprecidented. Or worse, I rise in people killing their kids.


    Btw, as for Edwards father being white collar, his father started out as a laborer. Over a long time he worked his way up the ladder to foreman and then finally to that position.
  26. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    820
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.37%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Wow, that's a really dumb statement if I ever saw one. What are you going to do about reality? You know, that place where kids are born into poverty every day? Oh I know, you'll let them starve to death. Excellent idea.


    Here's why childcare is a good idea. A large number of poor families have only 1 parent. Many families with 2 parents can't afford to function on the paltry minimum wage of one of the parents so both have to work. You can't leave kids alone at home. And if you are demanding people to pay for childcare on minimum wage, you're a retard.

    If people have to stay home to take care of their kids then they obviously can't work. If they can't work they can't make money and if they can't make money they wind up evicted. So if you take up your plan we'll have a rise in homelessness that is positively unprecidented. Or worse, I rise in people killing their kids.


    Btw, as for Edwards father being white collar, his father started out as a laborer. Over a long time he worked his way up the ladder to foreman and then finally to that position.
    Wow someone has a different opinion than you so they're a retard? More like- if you're on minimum wage and you have a kid, doesn't that qualify you as a retard? Or how bout this brilliant concept- DON'T bring a kid into a world of poverty. Or this one- Pay attention in sex ed and learn how to put on a freakin rubber. I didn't follow that advice, I had a kid when I was 19. And guess what? I GOT A FREAKIN JOB AND TOOK CARE OF IT. NOBODY is responsible for me except ME. Was it hard? Yes. Can other people do it? Yes, and they do every day. Are other people responsible for my mistakes? NO. If you need to get a second job to pay for day care, then do it. There are already government programs to assist low income families with daycare. Don't try and give us this crap about people killing they're kids, homelessness etc. If you're a responsible person you won't have kids until you can afford and if you do before then, you'll find a way to take care of it. If we follow YOU'RE plan evryone will be sucking on the governments tit.

    P.S .-Edwards dad's background probably helped Kerry win the election. Oh wait.....
  27. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I'm sick of talking to people who live in lala-land.

    Give advice and demand people not have kids all you want, it won't change the fact that it is going to happen. You have 2 choices:

    1) increased homelessness
    2) government sponsored childcare

    And when you chose number 1, I don't want to hear you whining when one or more of the homeless folks mug you on the street and leave you naked, robbed, and broken on the pavement.


    Take a good long look at reality. Things don't stop happening just because you want them to.
  28. PC1
    Guest
    PC1's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Kerry lost for a few reasons ..........
    If I had to prioritize the reasons, they would be as follows:

    1. Republicans had Karl Rove,

    2. Dems had someone OTHER than Karl Rove.

    : )
  29. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    820
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.37%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    I'm sick of talking to people who live in lala-land.

    Give advice and demand people not have kids all you want, it won't change the fact that it is going to happen. You have 2 choices:

    1) increased homelessness
    2) government sponsored childcare

    And when you chose number 1, I don't want to hear you whining when one or more of the homeless folks mug you on the street and leave you naked, robbed, and broken on the pavement.


    Take a good long look at reality. Things don't stop happening just because you want them to.
    Seriously, we have to get you in touch with someone who can put you in a position of power because you obviously know EVERYTHING, and the rest of us are retards for not sharing you're views. Oh and you can predict the future, which can can in handy. If I'm in lala land AT LEAST I'M TAKING CARE OF MY OWN ASS and not coming up with reasons why the government should do it for me.Your words are lost on me, because I've been in the position you're talking about, and I didn't kill my kids, ain't homelss, and have yet to "mug" anyone. THAT'S REALITY. You say I have the 2 choices as you listed them:1-increased homelessness and 2- government sponsored childcare. How about option #3- I be a freakin man and take care of my own ass and my kids. You might need help, but I managed just fine on my own thanks. Or do you just believe that noone can take care of themselves without handouts? Great message for our youth pal.
  30. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    I'm sick of talking to people who live in lala-land.

    Give advice and demand people not have kids all you want, it won't change the fact that it is going to happen. You have 2 choices:

    1) increased homelessness
    2) government sponsored childcare

    And when you chose number 1, I don't want to hear you whining when one or more of the homeless folks mug you on the street and leave you naked, robbed, and broken on the pavement.


    Take a good long look at reality. Things don't stop happening just because you want them to.
    Just because I want people to be responsible for their own actions I am in lala land. I got my own children to worry about. A good protion of these people are not delinquents because they are poor, they are poor because they are delinquents. How is me giving them more of my paycheck going to change the situation.

    Adivce for fellow democrats , from The Backseat Philosopher:
    Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."
    Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.
    And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?
  31. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.54%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Wow, that's a really dumb statement if I ever saw one. What are you going to do about reality? You know, that place where kids are born into poverty every day? Oh I know, you'll let them starve to death. Excellent idea.
    Whereas your answer is to vote to use someone else's money to support them? I'd say that's just as dumb. You don't curb irresponsible behavior, such as giving birth to children you can't afford to care for, by subsidizing it.

    Here's why childcare is a good idea. A large number of poor families have only 1 parent. Many families with 2 parents can't afford to function on the paltry minimum wage of one of the parents so both have to work. You can't leave kids alone at home. And if you are demanding people to pay for childcare on minimum wage, you're a retard.
    No, the retard is the person who decides to have kids in those circumstances. The bigger retard is the one who rewards them for it. Now, instead of calling someone who disagrees with you a retard perhaps you'd like to debate the issue civily rather than engaging in the exact type of behavior that's causing the Democratic party to become more and more marginalized?

    And as to your assertion in a later post that it's "going to happen anyway," why didn't it start happening at such incredible levels until people started getting money for doing it and a free out from having to take personal responsibility for their own behavior? People who for whatever reason do end up having kids in less than perfect circumstances can take responsibility for their own actions and support themselves, and they should. In our current world with a billion different options for birth control and relatively cheap and easy abortions to be had, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone in such a position isn't there of their own choice. If they need help let them ask someone and get it on their own merits. Over time charity given without question or qualification becomes charity expected and demanded. That's why socialized child care is a bad idea.
  32. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Just because I want people to be responsible for their own actions I am in lala land. I got my own children to worry about. A good protion of these people are not delinquents because they are poor, they are poor because they are delinquents. How is me giving them more of my paycheck going to change the situation.

    Adivce for fellow democrats , from The Backseat Philosopher:
    No you aren't in lalaland because you WANT people to take responsibility for themselves. You are in lalaland because you believe they WILL.
  33. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    No you aren't in lalaland because you WANT people to take responsibility for themselves. You are in lalaland because you believe they WILL.
    Really, I don't give a **** whether they take resposiblity or not, why are fighting natural selection? I just don't want them to be my responsibility. How much do we 'owe' them, childcare? healthcare? a house? a bmw? send their kids to college? make sure they can retire (from what)?

    I don't mind giving people a helping hand, the problem is that the helping hand become the incentive not to do anything. Fine pay for childcare and make sure they get some vocational training/education, but put a time limit on it.
  34. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    820
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.37%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    No you aren't in lalaland because you WANT people to take responsibility for themselves. You are in lalaland because you believe they WILL.
    You obviously think along the lines of people who sue McDonalds because their coffee was too hot, or they ate their food and got fat or smoked and got lung cancer. " Oops I'm pregnant, the government OWES me some ****!" PULEASE.
  35. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.54%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    No you aren't in lalaland because you WANT people to take responsibility for themselves. You are in lalaland because you believe they WILL.
    And one could just as easily point out that you two are in lala land because you don't realize that they don't because as long as the government is there to cover their asses, they don't have to. There are a myriad of social programs to help such people and the problem doesn't disappear, it keeps growing. Make a service available 'for free' and demand for that service will skyrocket. That's basic economics. Make health care 'free' or a right and every moron with a hangnail ends up in the doctor's office, same reason.

    The bottom line is every decision has attendent costs, responsibilities and rewards, and in a free society the only person who can justly be expected and forced on any level to bear those costs and responsibilities and reap the rewards is the person who made the decision.
  36. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Sorry but I'm not talking about giving free money. Heck I'm not even talking about friggin food stamps. I'm talking about for people in single parent families below the poverty line, subsidize their childcare so the mother can actually work and be productive in society while making sure her kids don't grow up to become antisocial psychopathic criminals.

    If the family has 2 parents but both are working and they are still below the poverty line then you could make a case for them as well.


    Think about it for a second. They'd have to have proof that they are gainfully employed. If they aren't, sorry no childcare. Their tax statements also have to show they are below the poverty line (btw, you can't just outright cut it off at a certain point; rather what you do is slowly ramp up the cost from 0 to full as their income increases).


    What many who are fortunate to have a good job and to live above the poverty line don't understand is that when you are below the poverty line the climb above it is excruciatingly difficult, especially in areas where jobs are few and far between. For a single parent in this situation it is quite literally impossible to both take care of a child and get out of poverty. In order to take care of the child adequately that means they can't work since they sure as heck can't afford childcare. But if they don't work they can't pay the rent and they wind up on the street. So what happens is they work and don't take care of the child and the child becomes neglected. In almost all cases these children become criminal members of society because their only influences growing up are the ones around them during the day; which are not positive influences.
  37. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.96%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Wow, that's a really dumb statement if I ever saw one. What are you going to do about reality? You know, that place where kids are born into poverty every day? Oh I know, you'll let them starve to death. Excellent idea.


    Here's why childcare is a good idea. A large number of poor families have only 1 parent. Many families with 2 parents can't afford to function on the paltry minimum wage of one of the parents so both have to work. You can't leave kids alone at home. And if you are demanding people to pay for childcare on minimum wage, you're a retard.

    If people have to stay home to take care of their kids then they obviously can't work. If they can't work they can't make money and if they can't make money they wind up evicted. So if you take up your plan we'll have a rise in homelessness that is positively unprecidented. Or worse, I rise in people killing their kids.


    Btw, as for Edwards father being white collar, his father started out as a laborer. Over a long time he worked his way up the ladder to foreman and then finally to that position.
    You obviously didn't read VG's post. He said specifically, if you can't take care of your kids, don't have kids. He didn't say "f*ck those homeless kids, let them rot in hell.". He only said people should be responsible enough to have kids when they can afford it, not only for them, but for their children. Now, I agree there. If he tries to go off on a hardcore anti-abortion statement right after this, then I'd harass him. That would mean people shouldn't have sex That's one of my human rights I'd fight tooth and nail for till the bitter end...mmm....sex
  38. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.96%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    And one could just as easily point out that you two are in lala land because you don't realize that they don't because as long as the government is there to cover their asses, they don't have to.....
    Ex-freggin'-actly!!! This is exactly what I try to tell all of these damn social program advocate morons. I try to show them worldwide figures for unemployment, productivity, etc on socialist countries but they just don't get it.

    Make them work to survive and they will...let them live for free off of your back and they will. You choose.
  39. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.54%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Sorry but I'm not talking about giving free money. Heck I'm not even talking about friggin food stamps. I'm talking about for people in single parent families below the poverty line, subsidize their childcare so the mother can actually work and be productive in society while making sure her kids don't grow up to become antisocial psychopathic criminals.
    That is giving them free money. Someone has to pay for it, and it sure as hell isn't going to be them, get it?

    If the family has 2 parents but both are working and they are still below the poverty line then you could make a case for them as well.
    You'd be better off making a case for getting rid of a terminally inflationary economy where the cost of living never falls as the result of what is essentially a continually devaluing currency. Two parent homes would be a lot easier to come by if the government weren't taxing and inflating them out of existence. But then that's kind of hard to avoid when, after collecting taxes for the few legitimate government functions, taxes must then also be collected to subsidize child care, health care, education, social security, etc.

    Think about it for a second. They'd have to have proof that they are gainfully employed. If they aren't, sorry no childcare. Their tax statements also have to show they are below the poverty line (btw, you can't just outright cut it off at a certain point; rather what you do is slowly ramp up the cost from 0 to full as their income increases).
    Think about this for a second: no government program in the history of the planet has ever, ever, ever maintained such restrictions. Once you start giving people free ****, or even discounted ****, they want more ****, and they organize and vote themselves more ****. In order to keep their jobs politicians have to give them more ****. And, as I said above, someone has to pay for it.


    What many who are fortunate to have a good job and to live above the poverty line don't understand is that when you are below the poverty line the climb above it is excruciatingly difficult, especially in areas where jobs are few and far between. For a single parent in this situation it is quite literally impossible to both take care of a child and get out of poverty.
    THEN DON'T HAVE THE ****ING KID.

    It's THEIR decision. Acknowledgement that people aregoing to make ****ty choices doesn't justify rewarding them for those choices, that's insanity.

    This has to be my last point on this issue because you really don't seem to be "getting it," as liberals say.
  40. PC1
    Guest
    PC1's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    The problem with Joe Leiberman is that most of America ignorantly views him as "Jew Jewberman". Btw I can say this because I'm Jewish.........
    I doubt this. When he was choosen as Gore's running mate, I heard very little in the way of complaints because he's Jewish. To the contrary, he was viewed as a person of strong moral character which had a tremendous appeal to people who were repulsed by Clinton's lack of moral character.

    However I do agree with previous posts that in the present Dem environment, he is unelectable in the Dem primary.

    I think Leiberman might have beaten Bush in this general election.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 09:57 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 02:47 PM
  3. Need To Do This For Real
    By Ekse in forum Bulking
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-02-2007, 05:04 PM
  4. Do I need to do Legs (as often)
    By Giantz11 in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-07-2005, 08:38 PM
  5. Any one know what i need to do to get a PM
    By Dr. Death in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-30-2005, 09:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in