Democrats leaderless
 

LINKY



All I have to say is the facts stated in this article make me laugh! http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/rofl.gif

:D :D :D :D That's too bad!:D :D :D :cool:

I hate to say it, but it's true. The dems don't seem to have a single viable candidate as of yet. Unless one of these guys takes the ball and runs with it and starts making some waves george jr. is gonna win it in a cakewalk.

Maybe one of them needs to get some balls! That might help even more!:D

I seen this on Fox or Cnn, last night, so i asked some ppl at work if they knew any of the canidates, 2 out of 5 both mentioned Al Sharpton. Thats not good.

Actually, I think that's great! http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/yelclap.gif

The savior of the Democrat party! Can I have an Amen!

Well, how many people could have named Bill Clinton at this point 12 years ago?
Still, its definitely true that the Democrats lack a unified vision, much less a leader to help them achieve it.

Can I get a Hallelujah?

i love to hear this kind of stuff, as a hardcore conservative....

they'll get their act together before the general election.

Well, the mainstream media isn't going to be helping them out very well. The only anti-Bush story that they've been beating to death lately has been the "Waah, Bush looks good in an Air Force outfit, and that isn't fair!" story.

meh
 

Being a hardcore democrat it pains me to agree with you. I hate to say it but the republicans are a political machine. They are efficient and behind one *cough*stupid*cough* ;) man. I really hope that the dems shake thier heads come out of the fog and put some rubber down. Bush can be beaten pretty easily (IMO) but we have to have some one step up to do it.

I remember watching an SNL from early 91 with a sketch of the Democratic primary, dubbed "The race to avoid losing to Bush." It featured such people as Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Bill Bradley, etc trying to avoid the nomination. Clinton wasn't there. Everyone expected Bush to clean up in the 92 election. He got his clock cleaned instead. While I don't hold out much hope for someone like Slick Willy to come around again, I think it's ironic how well "It's the economy, stupid" could work against the son as well as the father. When we actually start 2004, I'll see what the Dems have, and then I'll worry or not.

The rest of that same poll was questions regarding health care, education, social services, the economy, etc. and the same responders placed the Democrats in the laed each time. Since the Democratic constituency is composed of hard-working, blue-collar citizens it stands to reason that a) they're too busy to watch CNN, FOX, or whatever else right now and b) when it comes time to vote, it doesn't matter who's name is on the ticket--they'll vote their party.

um? I'd like to see some numbers on this, as I have serious doubts. :P

Actually, Nebraska is overwhelmingly a Republican state. The Nebraskan economy is primarily agricultural based. (at least the western 2/3 of the state) I don't know of many that work harder or are more blue-collar than farmers and ranchers. Being neither myself, this is just an observation on my part. By the way, I'm Libertarian, so no bias either way for R or D.

You hit the nail right on the head.

In 91 who had ever heard of Clinton in public circles.

By November 2004, 4 weeks in March and April of 2003 will be nice and all, but hey, I am unemployed or my wife is unemployed and babysitting to make a bit of money will hold allot of weight.

If the GOP wants to pat itself on the back and congratulate itself on its victory in 2004 go right ahead.

Too bad Clinton couldn't run again. He would destroy Bush.

I thought he looked damn good in the NAVY flight suit. Anything involving airforce on that ship would have been a bit alien. But one can forgive the press when the voice of the KKK Senator What's his name Byrd denounced his arrival in a Jet fighter plane Ah! the intelligence of those Demo spokespersons. You'd think the mouth of the senate would at least know what a fighter is?

I'd like to point out the distinction between intelligence and knowledge. I've no knowledge of how to farm, but that doesn't make me stupid, just ignorant of that topic. You've also perhaps heard of rhetoric? The senator was likely attempting to emphasize the aggressive image of the president in military uniform(nitpick that term if you like) by referring to the plane as a fighter.

For a canadian you know what you're talking about ;P

well I hope they do, I want more than 1 real opinon for President..
And true Clinton wasn't heard of till late in the game, but whats the odds of another no namer coming out the blue like that?
And I wonder if Gore is going to indorse someone

This is Black and this is White.

hehe pardon me.

let's get one of the demy's from texas! then, if the President gets upset, he can run to Arkansas!

And this is Grey. Learn to see the world in its shades.

i just cant believe that all these people are running for presidency, this is just splitting the party up.

I personally don't see what americans see in Bush. The man just does not inspire me.

To me, since he took over, it feels like the world has descended into a dark ages.

I respected Clinton as a statesman. He was intelligent, and the US seemed to really shine under his watch. Sure there were some screw ups, but the man was liked abroad. Everyone I know, and I mean everyone up here in the great white north liked him and thought the world was a better place.

Conversely, EVERYONE I know, excpet one, feels that the world under Bush is a very dark place. It's hard to put a finger on other than it feels like stagnation.

Now some of you might argue it's because I am more liberal than yourselves, which may be true. But I didn't feel this way under Reagan, just this guy.

If you guys want to elect him, fine, but I really don't think he's a good leader. I guess i have to ask - just what has the man done??

We're big fans of "downhome country boys" being president. Just look at the past few we've had.

I completly agree. I honestly think that he makes our country look stupid and naive about the way that the world works. I think this because of his actions (including his inability to name certain world leaders that he would be dealing with, and his backing out of important world treaties). This is my opinion, I understand if some of you disagree. I just view our country with a mullet and buck teeth when I think of Bush leading us.

i agree too, but i dont think we should hijack this thread

So now it's the dark ages because of one guy. That is without a doubt the most uneducated statements that I have ever heard anyone say. I'm not saying you or anyone has to like him, but to say the world is a dark place because of one guy is just not smart.

What exactly has Canada ever done to help ot the world? http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well shit, that's reason enough to get rid of him. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between causing the world to "descend into a dark ages", and shining a light on the horrible things and people that no one wants to talk about. I'm sure Canada would be just fine and dandy twiddling their thumbs in suburban Toronto while Hussein fills another mass grave and Bin Laden drops a few more airliners into our skyscrapers. To blame Bush for this is somewhere between ignorant and ridiculous.

Clinton was a scum-bag. There is really no way around that. The only success economically that he benefitted from was the result of Reaganomics, not of his own policy. As for him winning popularity contests, that means very little since he had virtually no impact during his eight years other than soiling his title, stealing furniture, and filling up the front pages of tabloids.

Again, Bush isn't making it a dark place, he's just lifting up the rock to bring attention to the foul things lurking beneath it. Don't blame Bush for waking you up from your silly utopian dream.

His handling of the worst terrorist attack on our soil in the history of the country, was commendable. He was honest to the American public about the difficulties of the war in Iraq. And most importantly, he didn't back down to the broken UN and helped make very clear who our real allies were. In the end you don't just elect the President -- you elect his advisors and staff. Bush is a strong figure alone and Powell, Rumsfeld, and Cheney sweeten the deal.

hmmm,

How bout this one kiddo...

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resourc...981/61681c.htm

- Why is it that you immediately launch into an insult of the fact that I am not american? Is this some form of xenophobic reaction on your part? Do you feel that by me stating my opinion of bush that I am somehow criticizing the United States (which i am not.) Rather then debate the issues, you launch into an ad-homonym discussion.

I am criticizing the man because i "feel" like we are in a dark ages.

As far as "suburban toronto" goes, well, i live pretty much in the inner city there bub. Unless you are from New York, or Chicago, you don't live in as urban a place as i do. This is truly a city that never sleeps.


This is a very tired old line put forth by a few republicans who don't understand economics in the least. Please explain to me exactly which "Reaganomics" policies that Clinton owed himself to? For that matter, why is it George Herbert Walker Bush (who suceeded Reagan) didn't benefit from these great policies? I mean bush sr. was hot on the heels of ronnie reagan. Logically, if there was any carry over of Reaganomics, it would have been felt under Bush's watch and not Clintons.


Explain my "silly utopian dream" please.


Hmm, that's very debatable.

1. Where is Bin Ladden.

2. 911 happened while Bush was president

3. If you read time magazine last summer there was a very in depth article on how Rumsfeld vetoed millions of dollars earmarked to fight Bin Ladden prior to 911, and how the Bush administration dismantled the entire anti-terrorist network put in place to fight al-quada prior to 911 almost out of spite.

Of the three gentlemen you name, I respect Powell because i see him as an honourable man.

4. Bush had no intention of going through the UN, it was all a smoke screen to buy time to deploy.

WOW! One thing in the last 20+ years! You sure did prove me wrong. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm not gonna get into another pissing match. I just got done with one last night and I'm not gonna let that become a trend.

No pissing contest here, this is just a classic "America vs. Canada" discussion, and presented to you, by an American no less, is Canada's achievements:

Things that were invented by Canadians:

· AM radio
· IMAX projector and system
· panoramic pictures and camera
· telephone
· transceiver (walkie-talkie)
· world's first commercial motion picture
· butter substitute
· electric cooking range
· instant potato flakes
· Pabulum
· hair tonic
· measure for footwear
· paint roller
· portable high chair
· Robertson screw
· washing machine
· zipper
· degradable plastic
· kerosene
· oil well
· sewage recycling system
· dental mirror
· electron microscope
· insulin
· electric hand prosthesis for children
· fog bell or gong
· personal distress device
· ear piercer
· Abdomenizer
· basketball
· hockey goalie mask
· roller-skate
· ski-binding
· tabletop hockey game
· Trivial Pursuit
· air-conditioned vehicle
· electric car
· guardrail
· snowblower
· snowmobile
· lacrosse
· ice brewed beer
· hockey
· back bacon
· Superman
· Beano
· baseball
· Red Rose Tea
· Smarties
· the wonderbra
· V-chip
· cable TV
· Geiger Counter
· beer cases with tuck-in handles
· flight simulators for pilot training

But we Americans invented the MOAB, obviously the greatest contribution to mankind ever.:confused:

Yoda, you amaze me. I knew some of those, but i am amazed that you would know so much.

Some americans find Canadians very perplexing.

We speak the same language, stem from more or less the same background, live on the same continent, are more alike than not, but yet we are different country.

And what really blows some americans' minds is that we don't want to be american, and they can't understand that for the world.

There also does seem to be a cross boarder fascination i must admit. I find americans an interesting lot, and i can see from this board even that there are some americans who find canadians an interesting lot. I have to admit though, that even the most conservative canadian would probably be labelled a candy ass liberal in the states.

Besides, I think i told lebell this, if we were all the same hard core conservative type, what would all the hard core conservative types do for fun? Just sitting around agreeing with each other is no fun. :p