Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Things I'm sick of hearing from the left:

shakran · 11-04-2004, 10:24 PM

well the simple fact is that the "evidence" Powell presented, even if it were all true, was circumstantial and shaky at its very best.

"he's got semi trailers! therefore he's got chemical weapons laboratories!"

By that logic, every truck stop needs to be disarmed by Bush.

Wanna know what the real difference between Dems and Republicans is? I'm not talking philosophical -those are obvious. I'm talking about electability. The republicans are better organized. They know what the people want and they make sure to float a candidate that looks like what the people want. They pride themselves on making a decision and sticking to it, even if that decision is disasterous.

The democrats are running around foolishly believing that the country wants leaders who have the best interest of the country at heart.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. We want leaders who have OUR best interests at heart, and we don't want to have to study too much to figure out who they are.

That's why Bush won.

He has the best interest of the elite rich at heart, so naturally he's got their vote.

And because no one wants to educate themselves about anything but playstation and The Apprentice anymore, he was able to trick the poor into thinking he had their best interest at heart, even as he worked to make it even more improbable that they'd ever claw their way up to middle class or even rich status.

The democrats can't run a campaign to save their life. Republicans and democrats alike today are agreeing that Kerry ran a dumbassed campaign. His manager told him not to harp on the war. Why the HELL would you not harp on the hottest issue this election season? Bush fired attack after attack at Kerry and until the final few weeks of his campaign, Kerry didn't respond at all.

What we have here is a leader who lied to get us into a war - you can deny it all you want, but the facts are there. He said there were WMD's, and there weren't. He said Saddam had ties to terrorists who were after us, and he didn't. He said major combat operations were over, and a thousand soldiers died and many more thousands were crippled for life.

We have a leader who is working to concentrate most of the country's wealth in a very small minority of the population - a situation that NO culture has EVER survived in human history. It sunk the Romans, it sunk the Greeks, it sunk the USSR, and it WILL sink us if it's not reversed.

We have a leader who brags about the fact that he doesn't like to educate himself on current events. He brags that he surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does and then believes everything they say. He doesn't like to be informed before he makes decisions. All these facts are irrefutable, no matter how much bleating the neo-cons want to spout.

With all these factors working against Bush, Bonzo the Monkey should have been able to soundly defeat him. The fact that Kerry failed utterly to do so is not so much a Bush victory as it is an indication that the democrats don't know how to win anymore.

If you repeat something enough times it becomes the truth, especially if the other side won't refute it. That's what's happened in the past four years of Bush's presidency, it's what happened in the Bush campaign, and it's what's gonna happen for the next 4 years.

The democrats got very lucky with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy who was an average joe - a Bubba, but he was also sharp, personable, charming, young, and vibrant. He got the whitehouse not because he was a democrat and not because Bush 1 was a republican, but because he was the candidate that was more likeable. That scared the HELL out of the republicans. Finally the democrats were learning what they had figured out with Reagan. Float a candidate who's likeability is at or greater than the level of his capability and you win the whitehouse. Period. They were scared, they were in trouble, and they knew it, and that's why they persecuted Clinton throughout his 8 year presidency (I guess that was before they decided it was unpatriotic not to support the president, eh?).

Fortunately for them, the democrats are idiots and they didn't learn anything from Clinton because they floated Gore (ok, I'll give 'em that one since he was the VP) with Lieberman - - Lieberman for chrissake! - - as his VP candidate. We've got a wimpy guy who sounds like Alf's dad on the ticket and we expect people to like him well enough to vote for him? And the hell of it is, they might have won simply because the country was wrapped in the euphoria from the Clinton years, except that Gore, like Kerry, ran a dumbassed campaign that had no direction, and he was caught in a lie.

There's another difference. Gore gets caught in a lie, the republicans go nuts with it. Bush gets caught in multiple lies, and the democrats want to be gentlemanly about it so they downplay it.

If you're gonna win a fight, you gotta be willing to hit, and the democrats simply arent' willing to do that.

By not fighting back they've allowed the Republicans to convince the country that morality is impossible without christianity (why else was faith an issue in this election? faith has nothing to do with it. It's amazing how we trumpet freedom of religion, as long as it's christianity in this country).

They've allowed the republicans to convince the country that it's OK to screw up royally as long as you don't change your mind once it's made up. Where I come from that's called being a stubborn asshole, but apparantly once you hit D.C. it's a desireable characteristic.

If the dems want to win the 2008 election they need to find a likeable candidate with a squeaky clean history, and they need to have campaign managers that are competent. Had Kerry had 3 braincells when it came to this election he'd have installed Carville as his campaign manager. Carville is THE reason why Clinton won. He is the Rove of the democrat party. Actually he's smarter than Rove because he manages to kick major electoral ass without lying, cheating, or smearing - something that's tough to do in today's political environment.

So that's what the democrats need to do if they want to win. Will they? Dunno, but I'd be pretty comfortable betting that they won't.

11-04-2004, 10:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	well the simple fact is that the "evidence" Powell presented, even if it were all true, was circumstantial and shaky at its very best. "he's got semi trailers! therefore he's got chemical weapons laboratories!" By that logic, every truck stop needs to be disarmed by Bush. Wanna know what the real difference between Dems and Republicans is? I'm not talking philosophical -those are obvious. I'm talking about electability. The republicans are better organized. They know what the people want and they make sure to float a candidate that looks like what the people want. They pride themselves on making a decision and sticking to it, even if that decision is disasterous. The democrats are running around foolishly believing that the country wants leaders who have the best interest of the country at heart. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. We want leaders who have OUR best interests at heart, and we don't want to have to study too much to figure out who they are. That's why Bush won. He has the best interest of the elite rich at heart, so naturally he's got their vote. And because no one wants to educate themselves about anything but playstation and The Apprentice anymore, he was able to trick the poor into thinking he had their best interest at heart, even as he worked to make it even more improbable that they'd ever claw their way up to middle class or even rich status. The democrats can't run a campaign to save their life. Republicans and democrats alike today are agreeing that Kerry ran a dumbassed campaign. His manager told him not to harp on the war. Why the HELL would you not harp on the hottest issue this election season? Bush fired attack after attack at Kerry and until the final few weeks of his campaign, Kerry didn't respond at all. What we have here is a leader who lied to get us into a war - you can deny it all you want, but the facts are there. He said there were WMD's, and there weren't. He said Saddam had ties to terrorists who were after us, and he didn't. He said major combat operations were over, and a thousand soldiers died and many more thousands were crippled for life. We have a leader who is working to concentrate most of the country's wealth in a very small minority of the population - a situation that NO culture has EVER survived in human history. It sunk the Romans, it sunk the Greeks, it sunk the USSR, and it WILL sink us if it's not reversed. We have a leader who brags about the fact that he doesn't like to educate himself on current events. He brags that he surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does and then believes everything they say. He doesn't like to be informed before he makes decisions. All these facts are irrefutable, no matter how much bleating the neo-cons want to spout. With all these factors working against Bush, Bonzo the Monkey should have been able to soundly defeat him. The fact that Kerry failed utterly to do so is not so much a Bush victory as it is an indication that the democrats don't know how to win anymore. If you repeat something enough times it becomes the truth, especially if the other side won't refute it. That's what's happened in the past four years of Bush's presidency, it's what happened in the Bush campaign, and it's what's gonna happen for the next 4 years. The democrats got very lucky with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy who was an average joe - a Bubba, but he was also sharp, personable, charming, young, and vibrant. He got the whitehouse not because he was a democrat and not because Bush 1 was a republican, but because he was the candidate that was more likeable. That scared the HELL out of the republicans. Finally the democrats were learning what they had figured out with Reagan. Float a candidate who's likeability is at or greater than the level of his capability and you win the whitehouse. Period. They were scared, they were in trouble, and they knew it, and that's why they persecuted Clinton throughout his 8 year presidency (I guess that was before they decided it was unpatriotic not to support the president, eh?). Fortunately for them, the democrats are idiots and they didn't learn anything from Clinton because they floated Gore (ok, I'll give 'em that one since he was the VP) with Lieberman - - Lieberman for chrissake! - - as his VP candidate. We've got a wimpy guy who sounds like Alf's dad on the ticket and we expect people to like him well enough to vote for him? And the hell of it is, they might have won simply because the country was wrapped in the euphoria from the Clinton years, except that Gore, like Kerry, ran a dumbassed campaign that had no direction, and he was caught in a lie. There's another difference. Gore gets caught in a lie, the republicans go nuts with it. Bush gets caught in multiple lies, and the democrats want to be gentlemanly about it so they downplay it. If you're gonna win a fight, you gotta be willing to hit, and the democrats simply arent' willing to do that. By not fighting back they've allowed the Republicans to convince the country that morality is impossible without christianity (why else was faith an issue in this election? faith has nothing to do with it. It's amazing how we trumpet freedom of religion, as long as it's christianity in this country). They've allowed the republicans to convince the country that it's OK to screw up royally as long as you don't change your mind once it's made up. Where I come from that's called being a stubborn asshole, but apparantly once you hit D.C. it's a desireable characteristic. If the dems want to win the 2008 election they need to find a likeable candidate with a squeaky clean history, and they need to have campaign managers that are competent. Had Kerry had 3 braincells when it came to this election he'd have installed Carville as his campaign manager. Carville is THE reason why Clinton won. He is the Rove of the democrat party. Actually he's smarter than Rove because he manages to kick major electoral ass without lying, cheating, or smearing - something that's tough to do in today's political environment. So that's what the democrats need to do if they want to win. Will they? Dunno, but I'd be pretty comfortable betting that they won't.