Washington Post: Kerry may want to run in 2008
- 12-25-2004, 03:21 PM
Kerry’s a bitch. He didn’t know what to do. He wouldn’t take a stand. 'I didn’t really mean that/ I didn’t really vote that way/ I really respect your beliefs... blah blah blah' it’s BS! So yeah he did play to the warmongers. The whole dem party has been staying very close to the conservatives, sure, they bitch allot about the republicans but they don’t do **** about it. I wish we could go back to the days when senators fought outside of bars with each other about the issues, at least then they cared one way or the other. At least they believed in something other then money.
somethings gotta give.
- 12-25-2004, 03:28 PM
and uhh deoudes, i dont know if you know this or not but the cold war is over. you dont have to worry about the big bad communists anymore lol
12-26-2004, 02:51 AM
AG.... conservatives stand for small government, low taxes, and strong defense. Liberals/ progressives or what ever they want to change the name to, stand for large government, high taxes, and basically want to turn American sovereignty over to the UN. If you look at the democratic candidates that ran for president and listened to their rhetoric they hardly came close to acting like conservatives. They aligned them selves with the likes of liberal propagandists like Michael Moore. He sat next to former president jimmy carter at the DNC. That again indicates that the core of the democrat party isn't acting like conservatives. The problem that the democrat party has is they have become basically a socialist party. In order for a democrat to get the nomination they have to pander to the far left of the party to get the nomination, then sprint to the middle after the nomination. As we can see by the map of the counties in the past election most of the country voted republican. What you seem to be saying is the democrats need to run and stay with the hard left. If you are trying to just win votes in san Francisco, NYC, and Boston that would be a good approach. However if you are trying to win an election it's simply a bad idea. Democrats are loosing elections like it's going out of style. Jimmy Carter won the election mainly because of the corruption of the Nixon administration. Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot ran and split the conservative vote. In this past election anti gay marriage proposal past overwhelmingly in all of the 11 states that they were on the ballots. The American people aren't buying what the democrats are selling. They can either accept this or continue to delude them selves by thinking that they need to go farther to the left.Kerry’s a bitch. He didn’t know what to do. He wouldn’t take a stand. 'I didn’t really mean that/ I didn’t really vote that way/ I really respect your beliefs... blah blah blah' it’s BS! So yeah he did play to the warmongers. The whole dem party has been staying very close to the conservatives, sure, they bitch allot about the republicans but they don’t do **** about it.
12-26-2004, 02:53 AM
That's not true Hillary will be running in 08.you dont have to worry about the big bad communists anymore lol
01-04-2005, 10:32 PM
Democrats repeatedly lose because they are out of touch with most of the citizens. Many would rather have lower taxes than socialized health care. Many would rather see their nation defended well than become a tool of the UN.
The Democrats tried hard to bank on the Anti Bush idea. That and they thought that they had a reserve of tens of millions of voters who didn't vote that will somehow vote Democrat. This happened in 1984. The end result is that Reagan mopped the floor with Mondale. The same happened in 2004.
The only reason why Clinton won was because he was a Moderate Democrat. Liberals will not get elected into the Presidency. The only exception I knew of was Carter and Reagan soundly defeated him in 1980.
For 2008, the only Republican candidate to throw in his hat was Chuck Hagel. I imagine there will be a Hagel/Giuliani ticket for 2008.
01-05-2005, 04:07 PM
Actually, Clinton would have lost against Bush even though Clinton was considered moderate; it was the Bush campaign's little crisis during that last weak that took away their 5pt lead. I don't remember the guys name, but he was in a world of **** and that killed the Bush campaign. Had they more time, they would have recovered, but it was just too sudden. Oh well...
I think the most important four words you typed were "tool of the UN". That's exactly what they want us to be, and exactly why I hate them. We're supposed to be sovereign nations joined together for a cause, and they want a world of nations under one rule. I find it scary...but, that's MHO.
01-06-2005, 03:08 PM
I'd want to see McCain run, but I'm concerned that supplements may come under even more fire if he's elected. Other than that, I think that he'd be an excellent candidate.
01-07-2005, 05:26 PM
Yeah but still, the only Democrat that has a chance of victory is a moderate Democrat. Republicans can bank hard on conservatism because people wouldn't like to admit to being amoral, against protecting their own country, and for the government to take more of their money. This is why Republicans don't really need to aim in the middle. Their base is always big. I thought it was great that Bush got 60 million votes, when Democrats were so sure that Kerry had victory.
01-09-2005, 09:58 AM
funny thing i noticed.... hillary is now sorta removing herself from the 08 run a lil bit more.... reason why could be this.... Bill ALWAYS wanted to stay as pres. he even looked into how he can loophole the term limits and run for a 3rd... obviously it would have been too fishy ( but he would have won) anyway... so yeah if hillary won.. bill would get to be pres. but now.. HAVE YOU SEEN CLINTON ON LARRY KING LAST NIGHT... he looks like pooo. he really doesn't look like he has more than a couple of years to live... so NOW i think because he knows he is going to die. hillary wont run, and so that leave only a Kerry/ Obama
PS there is no true support to this claim.. i am just really bored and bloated from cookies last night....
01-10-2005, 07:30 PM
The Democrats have no really good candidates to run in 2008. Just a lot of the same people that tried in 2000 and 2004 plus a couple more like my state's governor, Tom Vilsack. Lets be honest, Hillary running for President is a big mistake. Her approval ratings right now are very low and only seems to be favored by the Socialist Left. She will not win. Republicans have a lot of good choices to choose from and will probably run away with the election. I doubt the 2008 elections will set voting records like 2004 but in the times where security is considered important, Republicans will be the ones who ultimately triumph. Plus I don't know anyone who really thinks Socialism is a good idea.
I don't think Bill would have won in 2000 if he chose to ran for a third term. His approval was kind of slipping towards the end of his second term. Clinton succeeded in 1996 mostly because the economy was doing the best that it has for a few decades and there were no major **** ups by the administration. In 2000, the tech bubble had burst, Bin Laden was attacking the US continually, and it just seemed to be a mess overall. That is the reason why Al Gore did not win the election. Yeah, he won the Popular Vote but there were still a lot of votes for George W. Bush. Al Gore = Clinton's 3rd Term. People were getting tired of Clinton's adminstrative tactics and wanted nothing more to do with them.
01-10-2005, 08:16 PM
McCain is basically a democrat who supports the military. His campaign finance reform bill is totally unconstitutional. He is a total media whore, which is why you see him throwing himself in front of the baseball steroid scandal. I don't like the guy at all.I'd want to see McCain run, but I'm concerned that supplements may come under even more fire if he's elected. Other than that, I think that he'd be an excellent candidate.
01-10-2005, 08:20 PM
Hillary is in the process of reinventing herself. She is trying to be perceived as a moderate. She came down hard on illegal immigration a few weeks ago. She is also trying to keep talk of her presidential run contained. This is because when she does run the media will pee all over it's self in excitement and act as if it was a big surprise.hillary is now sorta removing herself from the 08 run a lil bit more.... reason why could be this.... Bill ALWAYS wanted to stay as pres. he even looked into how he can loophole the term limits and run for a 3rd...
01-12-2005, 12:25 PM
The left does not like Hillary because she's too conservative (in terms of her record). That's her main problem, she's a conservative (for a democrat) that's perceived as a liberal by the right - that's the worst combination. The right hates her and the dem base thinks she's too rightwing. What the dems need is a liberal that's perceived as mainstream.Originally Posted by The Experiment
I think Republicans will probably go with Jeb Bush for 2008, otherwise W would have chosen a vp that could run after he's out. I think Wesley Clark would make a good candidate for 2008 and there's still time for many good alternatives to emerge. With a lackluster economy and things going south in Iraq I think dems have a good shot at it in 2008, but a lot can change in 4 years.
To be honest though, I dislike both parties - I think the democrats are wimps and the republicans are crooks, but those are the only viable choices right now.
01-12-2005, 01:26 PM
Young people don't vote. You know what 'Rock the Vote" did? It mobilized the conservative base that weren't going to vote. Billy Bob and Martha Jean MacDonald in rural Kentucky didn't want some teenage punks on MTV to decide who the President was going to be so they went out and voted instead of doing what they normally do on election day; sit on their porch and watch a plethora of local insects fly into their bug zapper.
So you had those people voting, but the young people who were supposed to vote, didn't. The votes were record numbers, but not from young Democrats, they were from Southern and Midwestern Republicans.
01-12-2005, 02:48 PM
??????????? The left loves Hillary and she sure as hell is not conservative at all or perceived as one. She tried to rail road threw socialized medicine for god's sake. The reality is that Hillary is a socialist. That is the difference between Bill and Hillary. Bill would pretty much do what ever a poll shows is the popular opinion. Hillary is a far left ideologue and is currently trying to change the perception of that because of Bush's victory in this past election. You will see her say more moderate things and she will probably distance her self from the NY elitist crowd / label and make more frequent trips to Arkansas as 08 approaches. Hillary has the nomination when ever she wants it. I agree with you that democrats need to keep putting up liberal candidates, because they will keep loosing. If they were smart that will run a moderate southern dem in 08. Unfortunately for them the Clintons still control the democrat party. I think who is installed as the head of the DNC will tell allot. If it's a Clinton crony she will have a lock on 08. If it's someone else such as Howard Dean, it means they have lost control.The left does not like Hillary because she's too conservative (in terms of her record). That's her main problem, she's a conservative (for a democrat) that's perceived as a liberal by the right - that's the worst combination. The right hates her and the dem base thinks she's too rightwing. What the dems need is a liberal that's perceived as mainstream.
They will probably wait awhile for jeb to run. There is some talk that Rudy or McCain will run. McCain will probably run judging by the way he likes to keep his name in the paper. Arnold is trying to run in 08 as well. The problem with all three of them is that they are all liberal republicans and will have a difficult time getting the nomination. There has also been some talk of Mitt Romney running in 08.I think Republicans will probably go with Jeb Bush for 2008, otherwise W would have chosen a vp that could run after he's out. I think Wesley Clark would make a good candidate for 2008 and there's still time for many good alternatives to emerge. With a lackluster economy and things going south in Iraq I think dems have a good shot at it in 2008, but a lot can change in 4 years.
01-12-2005, 02:59 PM
I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids. The only way to gain power in this country is to be a part of a special interest group who votes only on 1 issue and that 1 issue alone.
Well, it is high time we had a pro-anabolics special interest group. Hence, from now on I will ONLY be voting on this issue.
01-12-2005, 03:04 PM
Would it be a good thing if young people or anyone for that matter listened to puffy or eminem for political advise? I love how rock the vote is supposedly non partisan yet it's transparently obvious who they want to win the election. MTV and thinking are the antithesis of each other.Young people don't vote. You know what 'Rock the Vote" did? It mobilized the conservative base that weren't going to vote.
01-12-2005, 03:12 PM
Which are liberal. They guy is a media whore. He jumped in front of juice bandwagon because he saw it gaining momentum and he could keep his name in the paper. Maybe we will see a mixed ticket with McCain and Biden running together.I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids.
01-12-2005, 03:50 PM
Nonetheless, if any of us are going to get anabolics legallized we need a lobby. In order to have a lobby there needs to be a special interest group backing it. We need to vote ONLY on this issue if we are to have any voice at all. There is no anti-steroid special interest group that I know of, so we'd have no direct opposition. The only opposition would be from people who vote on more issues than just steroids. If the pro-steroid group gets large enough and more importantly gets active enough in voting, then you can be darn sure they will change the laws. Just look at gun control. Every member of Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban didn't get re-elected. The NRA did that. They vote only on gun control. That's why when the ban came up for renewal everyone let it die even though the overwhelming majority of America was for the ban. Those Congressman knew they could get away with letting the ban die and still get votes from all those people because those people vote on other issues but if they voted to renew the ban they would be guaranteed to lose the votes from the NRA.
I strongly urge to others on this board, if you want the demonization of steroids to end, then vote pro-steroid and ONLY pro-steroid. Make it known, spread the movement.
01-12-2005, 03:51 PM
01-12-2005, 04:27 PM
I second this! I cannot stand McCain!Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
And, ROFLMAO @ MTV quote!!
01-12-2005, 04:50 PM
01-12-2005, 04:54 PM
I guess anything is possible but he has been demonized so much I can't see him getting the nomination. The press hates him as well.I read about Newt making a run.
01-12-2005, 05:00 PM
If you want to know what the liberals think then listen to Air America: http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp , the liberal talk radio channel - you won't find anyone that supports Hillary there.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Her senate voting record is moderate, quite similar to that of Joe Lieberman actually. And the young people did turn out to vote in record numbers. The problem was that other demographics also turned out to vote in record numbers and thereby negated the youth votes contribution to Kerry. Still, it bodes well for the future.
01-12-2005, 05:45 PM
The trick is to choose someone that is liberal but does not come across as such. Take Wesley Clark for example. He's a liberal, yet I doubt the average American perceives him that way, and furthermore there's no voting record that the Republicans could use against him.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
I like the guy a lot and he has a lot of charisma to boot. His only problem is height, or lack thereof - I think he's just 5'6" - there's never been such a short president.
As for Rudy, he's tainted now by the Kerik incident - he cannot be trusted if he'd appoint people like that to important positions. Some say Rove let Rudy burn on purpose because he was too liberal to follow the Bush mold.
I like McCain, but he's getting old. I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.
Similar Forum Threads
- By rms80 in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 213Last Post: 04-08-2008, 06:43 PM
- By csunkramer in forum Training ForumReplies: 34Last Post: 06-27-2007, 08:36 AM
- By IronMarc in forum Training ForumReplies: 4Last Post: 10-06-2006, 12:29 AM
- By bigrich954rr in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 08-22-2005, 11:57 PM