Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
For anyone that believes in the Kerry/Edwards ticket, and the platform they are running on, this original post is incredibly inflammatory and insulting. The third and fourth paragraphs are outrageous. Is it possible to write something like that without knowing how much it insults other TFPers?
I frankly don't want to start talking about the irony of that last paragraph.
Do you appreciate that kind of diatribe about the current POTUS? Does it further the mission of TFP? Yet another example of why I'm mainly a lurker now. Frankly not sure anymore about how to handle my own reaction, post or report. I'm obviously posting, because reporting doesn't feel right. Or something - not really sure why it doesn't.
|
I’m sorry you do not like my point of view. This is my honest feeling about the current democratic ticket. Kerry is a gigolo and Edwards is a true shyster, their histories are disgusting, especially Edwards. If I was in a position to save Edwards life somehow I would hesitate, the man has purposefully destroyed many good Doctors lives. I would most likely save him due to my moral upbringing, but I would not feel good about it in the least. If you do not know what I’m talking about please do a little research as it has been done to death on these boards. The Democrats have been wrong and wrong again, and it has cost them most of their power in this country, and in the long run I think this is a bad thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nanofever
short version:
Also, I enjoy the taste of Karl Rove's cock.
On a serious note not involving Ustwo slobbering on Mr. Rove's wang, why was this thread not killed for trolling?
|
I’m sorry you don’t agree with me either, but there is no need for you to be vulgar. Please grow up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Flyguy
Wow, either you have a LOT of confidence in Bush of you just have some HUGE balls to come out with that statement. And I have to agree with Kirk’s post. Bush never mentioned the domestic problems in his speech. His speech was an hour of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. If it weren’t for 9/11 occurring, Bush would be shit out of luck because he'd have absolutely nothing to run on. Think about it.
I’ll be looking for that jobs report tomorrow also.
|
You must not have listened to the whole speech. He spoke for a long time about the domestic agenda. The problem is that the economy is not bad, and has become one of those myths of the left. The ‘jobless’ recovery and all that, when anyone who knows how recoveries go, the economy starts to improve BEFORE you begin to hire. Well now the hiring has been going on for the last year and the latest report was 144k new jobs. I’m sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this. You were correct in one thing, I do have huge balls.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Ustwo, Ustwo, Ustwo...your confidence in Bush is...well, admirable, if nothing else. Perhaps a little dillusional, but admirable all the same. You whooped up on the Democratic Party pretty good there. Some of it, perhaps, justified and defensible. However, I would counter that with very little editing, your post could just as easily reflect the Republican Party. Special interests abound in politics, and Bush is, in my own opinion, a perfect example of pandering at its worst.
|
I don't think so, not to the extent the democrats are basically enslaved by theirs. The Republicans DO have special interest groups, but how the Republicans deal with them and WHY they deal with them are quite different. Lets take the NRA. Obviously this would be a good 'special interest group' to talk about, it’s the bugaboo if the left, and they almost always support Republican candidates. But while this group gives their support and the Republicans are for the most part anti-gun control, the reason Republicans are anti-gun control has nothing to do with the NRA. The NRA compliments the Republicans, but if the NRA were to go away the Republicans would still be anti-gun control. Now lets look a trial lawyers. Trial lawyers give millions of dollars to the democratic party every year, they give almost nothing to Republicans (last I saw was 2million to dems, 18k to reps). If you know anything about the problems in health care you know about the states where doctors are literally fleeing the states due to the insane, frivolous lawsuits which make practicing impossible. I live in such a state. This is a bad thing, its been talked to death for the last decade but all attempts to reform this get shot down, by one political party. Guess which one it is? Now lets pretend that the trial lawyers stop giving money to the dems, do you think the democrats will still obstruct ANY laws which might get in the way of the law suit gravy train? John Edwards made millions and millions of dollars suing doctors for birth defects which has been scenically proven they can not cause. I don’t see anything changing if he gets elected do you? The same goes for the teachers union. You may not agree with the Republican position on the issues, and that’s fine BUT they are at least honest about their position and why they hold it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'd argue, but if he is anything like the ustwo of old, it would be a waste of breath. Welcome back ustwo, do you have a child now?
|
Yes it would be a waste of typing for you, but I keep hoping you will see the light. Child is due Nov 21.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stompy
Is this a problem?
If so, why aren't you also pointing out the vast amount of Republicans doing the same? 
Face it, both sides are easily purchased these days. Laws are often favored or created to those who give the bigger contributions.
I dunno, it's just funny that pretty much everything you stated AGAINST Democrates in your post could also be applied to Republicans... and that's a pretty scary thing. |
So you are saying President Bush doesn’t have strong opinions and is a product of focus groups? I think much of the lefts cries of republicans being somehow bought off by big oil etc is due more to their guilty conscious in having been bought themselves. I see very little proof in the republicans being bought off but I only have to look to the lawyers to see the democrats being bought like cattle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mml
The question that interests me is that any election involving an incumbant is really a refferendum on the leadership and record of that individual. Given the (regardless of what Ustwo thinks) tight race which we have, and given that two years ago, President Bush looked unstopable what does this say about the Bush Administration, the GOP platform and the philosphical stance of the conservative right and the Neo-Con movement?
|
I think the only people who were worried about the unstoppable neo-con movement were people on the left who were shocked and awed by the 2002 senate elections. Conservatism is not an 'easy' philosophy and as such it takes a long time to educate people.