PDA

View Full Version : What? No U.S. Presidential Debate Thread??



Spark
10-01-2004, 05:22 AM
I thought one would be raging by now - or did one get moved??

David Jamieson
10-01-2004, 05:36 AM
Kerry dominated Bush in the Debate. I imagine the repubs dont wanna talk much about it. :D

Vash
10-01-2004, 05:47 AM
Indeed. I was going to stay away from the polls this November, but now I've got a candidate.

He's still a politician, though. And that means he suxors balls. But at least he's better than the other guy.

TaiChiBob
10-01-2004, 06:01 AM
Greetings..

Kerry stepped-up as a viable candidate

Bush stayed on point.. offered mantras instead of answers..

Both kept it pretty clean and showed statesmanship..

Both highlighted their positions so we know where they stand..

Bush accused Kerry of sending mixed messages.. Kerry accused Bush of failing to change the wrong message..

The next big agenda, N. Korea, made its debut..

Bush was clearly rattled a few times..

Basically:

Bush.. screw the rest of the world, America needs to be safe..

Kerry.. We're all in this together, lets find a solution..

Bush.. single-minded focus, regardless of consequence..

Kerry.. Cooperative efforts..

So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.

If you favor change with a flavor for good diplomacy and the resolve to back it up.. vote Kerry.

Although Bush will likely get quick results in foreign policy, we may not like the results.. already we are losing many long-time allies..

Kerry favors working solutions, not imposing doctrines..

Good luck and Be well..

David Jamieson
10-01-2004, 06:16 AM
and let's not forget poland! :D

lol, that was the best line in the whole thing.

Here's what I think would happen if Kerry was elected.

The rest of the world would get on board with bringing Iraq back to sovereignity. This won't happen with bush in the whitehouse.

Your economy down there would improve because people would have trust in making investments in america, which the market trends show they currently do not have under Bush.

Some of you might get your 65K a year jobs back instead of working those two new jobs for half the money that happened to you under the Bush admin.

good luck down there. Do you really want 4 more years of war and the rest of the worlds disdain for you because of a the Bush admins transparent hegemonic ways?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not certain either one will make much of a difference, but I think Kerry would have a stronger grip on the warhawks in the pentagon and wouldn't be such a yes man to them.

On the other hand, both of them are elite rich kids, so what will the real difference be beyond the rest of the worlds perception?
Probably not much I guess, but perception plays a lot into how reality becomes.

Spark
10-01-2004, 06:37 AM
My favorite part was when Kerry said proliferation and then it became Bush's new favorite word!

Ben Gash
10-01-2004, 06:41 AM
It's all a bit Coke or Pepsi (http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/skullbones.htm) isn't it? Those warhawks will own Kerry just as much as Bush for the above reason.

Ben Gash
10-01-2004, 06:43 AM
"Membership Has Its Privileges:

Inside the Order of Skull & Bones



Your Next President Masturbated in a Coffin!"
What a line!

Judge Pen
10-01-2004, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by TaiChiBob
Greetings..

Kerry stepped-up as a viable candidate

Bush stayed on point.. offered mantras instead of answers..

Both kept it pretty clean and showed statesmanship..

Both highlighted their positions so we know where they stand..

Bush accused Kerry of sending mixed messages.. Kerry accused Bush of failing to change the wrong message..

The next big agenda, N. Korea, made its debut..

Bush was clearly rattled a few times..

Basically:

Bush.. screw the rest of the world, America needs to be safe..

Kerry.. We're all in this together, lets find a solution..

Bush.. single-minded focus, regardless of consequence..

Kerry.. Cooperative efforts..

So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.

If you favor change with a flavor for good diplomacy and the resolve to back it up.. vote Kerry.

Although Bush will likely get quick results in foreign policy, we may not like the results.. already we are losing many long-time allies..

Kerry favors working solutions, not imposing doctrines..

Good luck and Be well..

That's the best summary of the debates that I've read. Nice Bob.

MasterKiller
10-01-2004, 06:53 AM
Apparently, running the country is hard work.

ZIM
10-01-2004, 07:04 AM
Bit early to say anything substantive about results now, but overall I'd say Kerry did well & Bush held to his positions.

Kerry needed to show himself as presidential [which he did] and to explain [in part] what his positions were. That second part is where he did damage to himself.

For instance, he was insistent - throughout the election - that multilaterism is the way to go, yet for North Korea, oddly, he wants to go it alone.

Also, he confirmed everything Zell Miller said when he stated he'd cancel yet another weapons system.

Last, when Bush spoke of his close relations with Putin, I instantly started to think about what kind of relations Kerry might have with Putin - and I realised he wouldn't be half as effective in that instance.

But, again, too early to tell for sure what the end results will be. The Debates are more important to swing voters than they are to commited partisans.

Spark
10-01-2004, 07:22 AM
From where I was watching there seemed to be a majory disparity between the two. I'm sure some agree, but I find it a bit annoying how inarticulate President Bush is. I think Kerry's best assets are his experience and ability to put full sentances together. Although there were points in the debate where it did in fact seem like he was flip flopping between stances on issues. I think his best moment was when he said "just because you are certain, doesn't mean you are right." I thought that was well put.

I think the part about Bilateral talks with N. Korea was because, as he pointed out, talks between US and N. Korea have all but ceased in the last two years thanks to Mr. Bush, and in this time they have now armed themselves with Nuclear Weapons - and the best way to get back on track and show US commitment with diplomacy would be to have one on one discussions.

Zim - what did you think of Kerry's statement about what is going on with Russia today?

David Jamieson
10-01-2004, 07:22 AM
yet for North Korea, oddly, he wants to go it alone

not exactly zim.

what he said was that he thought that instead of using China as a proxy to speak to North Korea, they should speak directly with North Korea.

What Bush is doing is speaking to china in order to get a message to NK. Which China has quickly used to show that America is too weak and needs Chinas help to deal with Kim Il Jung.

If I had my druthers, I would take Kerry's choice on this and go speak with Kim Il Jung as opposed to using China as a moderator in any way shape or form.

ZIM
10-01-2004, 07:53 AM
Transcript here (http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71504)


I think the part about Bilateral talks with N. Korea was because, as he pointed out, talks between US and N. Korea have all but ceased in the last two years thanks to Mr. Bush, and in this time they have now armed themselves with Nuclear Weapons - and the best way to get back on track and show US commitment with diplomacy would be to have one on one discussions. I don't, personally, think there's much sense in talking to North Korea by ourselves when its clear they've no intention of respecting any agreements we might come to. This was made clear when they began development of nukes with the materials they gained from the Clinton Administration in contravention to their specified use. Kerry's proposals all go the "Saint Bill" route- hold summits, give fissile materials to various countries "for peaceful purposes" after gaining agreements they might not abide by, etc. I don't know if he'll be as capable as Clinton was at it- and then, Clinton got snookered a couple of times, too, so there's always that risk.


Zim - what did you think of Kerry's statement about what is going on with Russia today?

Which? The nuclear materials or the centralization of authority?


KL- China will say whatever they'll say. The point, I think, was that China has more leverage currently than we ourselves do in that part of the world. If we're eager to have the question of Rogue States with nukes settled, then I'll take that help. I surely do not want a repeat of the same process that resulted in the current situation.

China and "entire international community" seem to agree that the 6 nation talks are the way to go. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm)


That's it for me. Gotta go. I'll get back to this later.

red5angel
10-01-2004, 07:55 AM
I predict Kerry fukks it up just as bad as anyone else. He's not strong enough to lead the country where it's at right now.


So, if you favor Capitalist Cowboys with a knack for "smoke and mirrors" and you like the status quo, vote Bush.

that's right, cause Kerry - the politician - would never use smoke and mirrors to get to where he wanted.

LEGEND
10-01-2004, 09:53 AM
Nothing new was brought to the point...same advertisement.

NK was a new spot...but it was addressed that the previous democrat administration dealt with NK but NK backstabbed it. Simply put...NK is tricky...no one can dictate or control them. Hell China has more influence than any1 and they are tired of this. One on One talks hasn't done accomplish anything since the Clinton administration when it was revealed the NK had already gotten the nuclear process started. What's to trust them now if we talk to them again?

TaiChiBob
10-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Greetings..


that's right, cause Kerry - the politician - would never use smoke and mirrors to get to where he wanted.

It's kind of like when i'm getting screwed i'd at least like dinner first.. GWB just looks you in the eye, lies and dares you to do something about it.. maybe Kerry will buy us dinner first..

In short, red5angel's "4 part plan" is morally and socially irresponsible.. poorly thought-out.. and ignorant of human nature.. it is, however, a well conceived troll..

Be well..

red5angel
10-01-2004, 10:31 AM
It's kind of like when i'm getting screwed i'd at least like dinner first.. GWB just looks you in the eye, lies and dares you to do something about it.. maybe Kerry will buy us dinner first..

I'm not sure where that's any different from any other politician, and personally it makes me sick that this country would settle for any of these losers. It's the same guy with a different haircut.


In short, red5angel's "4 part plan" is morally and socially irresponsible.. poorly thought-out.. and ignorant of human nature.. it is, however, a well conceived troll..

Who defines' what is moral? or even morally responsible? I wasn't born with a sense of "morality". I'm just proposing a re-adjustment of our morals to be more honest with what it is to be human and part of the human race. It' snot ignorant of human nature, it's acknowledging the darker side and propsoing we acknowledge it and use it for the good of the many instead of just the good of the few, while denying who we really are. That's what these puppets who got up to debate last night are doing, they're promising you the stuff you want to hear, and doing the things you want done, but only half assed because they are two different things. Sort of like several "moral" aristocracies and free populations that have existed, sitting at home comfy and able to frown upon the evil's of war all the while their militaries are out their doing exactly what they want. suddenly when the war or the fighting comes to your front door, it's ok to kill and to fight for what you really want - survival of yourself and of all you identify with.

darkholme
10-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Perhaps if Kerry wins British tourists wont be treated as potential criminals or terrorist by having their photos and fingerprints taken on entering the country just so they can visit Mickey Mouse land. After all we are supposed to be your country’s closest ally

ZIM
10-01-2004, 11:44 AM
Oh, we'll be sure to take your convenience into account when casting our votes. You betcha. :rolleyes:

WinterPalm
10-01-2004, 12:42 PM
I think if the US has talks with North Korea, the goal this time would be to hold what the US says accountable and go through with their side of the bargain. And their side of the bargain isn't to not blow them up, it was originally to build those nice hydrogen based nuclear facilities that never materialized. The North Koreans continued with their nuclear programs.
I think the bigger picture is that when Bush came out and said who he was going to attack, the "axis of evil" bit, he basically told these countries to prepare for war and to do everything they can to prevent it. Now with the example of Iraq, the countries know that nothing short of becoming lapdogs for Bush will suffice. Nuclear power has put India and Pakistan at the talks, they will never go to war, just as Russi and America never did, they come to the table as equals, not as stratified members of the global community. The US needs to start taking these countries seriously and get this whole war thing out of their minds, they are just saying the same stuff over and over again, war, war, and more war.

red5angel
10-01-2004, 12:44 PM
Perhaps if Kerry wins British tourists wont be treated as potential criminals or terrorist by having their photos and fingerprints taken on entering the country just so they can visit Mickey Mouse land. After all we are supposed to be your country’s closest ally

we hit everybody, and it's only fair.

ZIM
10-01-2004, 12:52 PM
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
What Kerry's saying is, he wants everything about the Korean peninsula on the table, not just the issue of nukes.

And he's speaking of bilateral talks- not inclusive of the South Koreans. It's possible that he misspoke, but we can't be sure right now.

Regardless, this leaves a lot of possible endings up in the air- from a re-adjustment of the borders, to the opening of a new war. I *think* I understand his reasoning, that is, to re-nogotiate the underlying stresses, but I seriously have doubts that North Korea, now that they *have* nukes, are going to be more reasonable than they were in the past.

Aside from that, if the Peninsula is going to be re-negotiated, I should think that Japan, at the least, would be interested in the outcome & should have a voice.

Meat Shake
10-01-2004, 01:10 PM
"I predict Kerry fukks it up just as bad as anyone else. He's not strong enough to lead the country where it's at right now."

Actually last night he ballsed up more than I expected him to about the war... He just wants to be smart about it by gaining allies instead of losing them...

"and personally it makes me sick that this country would settle for any of these losers"

When the only choices are bread and biscuits you cant ask for steak and lobster.

red5angel
10-01-2004, 01:32 PM
Actually last night he ballsed up more than I expected him to about the war... He just wants to be smart about it by gaining allies instead of losing them...

Of course, he's got no fukking choice, the wars on and he can't do anything about that, he has to stick it out.




When the only choices are bread and biscuits you cant ask for steak and lobster.

In theory, you are supposed to be able to in this country. It's just not enough people vote for anything but dem or rep. As a matter of fact the only people who vote really any more are kneejerk voters who already know what side their voting for.

red5angel
10-01-2004, 01:41 PM
"John Kerry Enlisted in the U.S. Navy; November 1968 through March 1969, Served in Vietnam; 1970-1978, Served in U.S. Navy Reserves.") In other words, when Kerry was protesting the war and holding private meetings with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives in Paris, he was still a Naval officer in the reserves. The folks at AP and the Globe might not think that matters, but they ought to report this so that people can make up their own minds."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196369/posts

and just so you understand where this though comes from
Article 104—Aiding the enemy... UCMJ

Text. “Any person who—
(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy.


Article 80—Attempts



http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm
You can look that one up at the link provided.

Being in the reserves, or inactive, or anything, As an officer, still counts while you still have your commision.


And that and his actions with "Hanoi Jane" is enough reason for me.

David Jamieson
10-01-2004, 04:10 PM
Um, didn't the shrub declare an end to the war a year ago now?

So what exactly is it that it is called now?

Don't know how that got under the radar.
IMO, you guys down south are still at "war" seeing as you haven't exactly captured the hearts and minds of teh Iraqis...or the country for that matter.

anyway, just wanted to point out one more little bump in the road o'bushie. :p

rubthebuddha
10-01-2004, 04:47 PM
intercourse with the enemy **** -- james bond would have never made it in the us military. :(

i have yet to see anyone here enthusiastically throw support for either of these candidates. since it seems few around here actually support these two as individuals, who else would we like to see run, and why?

CaptinPickAxe
10-01-2004, 07:08 PM
Rosie O'Donnel...

We need a big, butch lesbian to make the rest of the world her *****, while still giving us tips on how to stay warm for the winter.

Kerry ruled Bush, plain and simple. Its hard to make a puppet dance when the strings have been cut...

I gotta agree with who ever posted that "Don't forget Poland" quote as the funniest thing of the night...

G.W. was never the brightest crayon in the box...hell, I he might just be a bit of wax with paper stuck to it.

GLW
10-01-2004, 09:10 PM
Red5 - not too clear on the era of Viet Nam there....

Nixon - you remember him, the guy with COINTELPRO and teh plumbers...the list of the enemies of the president...the same administration that got Scifi writer Harlan ellison BLACKLISTED because he wrote an expose of TV that was less than flattering of some of Agnew (and Nixon's friends)...

This was the same one that trotted out folks in the commissions that were aimed at discrediting folks like Kerry...

Trust me, at that time, if there had been a legal way to arrest, try, and convict someone like Kerry for violation of Military code...it WOULD have been done.

ZIM
10-02-2004, 08:24 AM
Nixon - you remember him, the guy with COINTELPRO and teh plumbers...the list of the enemies of the president...the same administration that got Scifi writer Harlan ellison BLACKLISTED because he wrote an expose of TV that was less than flattering of some of Agnew (and Nixon's friends)... Yep. Looking for a replay on that. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002051443_webbush01.html)

jun_erh
10-02-2004, 10:34 AM
I would put it somewhere between a shelacking and a bloodbath in favor of Kerry. and Bush should be ashamed of all that swiftboat **** when he dodged the draft via his $$$$.

David Jamieson
10-03-2004, 04:18 AM
zim-

"State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance called it a "Watergate-style break in" and said he suspects Democrats are behind it. "

bwahahahahahaha. Talk about paranoid. I'll bet this guy could blaim the dems because his stool is too wet and loose. "They took all the fibre from my food somehow" he would say.

Holy geez, that's rich calling it "watergate" style. A big rock through the window. G.G Liddy would be offended at that I think. :p

ZIM
10-03-2004, 06:06 PM
The question is what they took, not the style of how they took it. I should think that you, being mr. canadian fair play and all, would appreciate that. And this does make it along the same lines as watergate, sorry to say.

But maybe I've misjudged, and you are, in fact, quite comfortable with illegal activities in support of whatever you might want to come to pass.

red5angel
10-04-2004, 06:57 AM
I would put it somewhere between a shelacking and a bloodbath in favor of Kerry.

apparently you're not paying attention to the same race the rest of us are.....

David Jamieson
10-04-2004, 07:02 AM
-you spin me right round baby right round, like a record baby right round. -

this is Rove's theme song.

ZIM
10-04-2004, 07:17 AM
Yes, of course. Rove.

We ought to have him be the Secetary of Defense, he's such a devious genius. He'd have it all sewn up so quickly.

MasterKiller
10-04-2004, 07:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

Rove is known for his political tactics when he was a protege of Donald Segretti, convicted Watergate conspirator. In 1970, he sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead. He printed fliers on the letterhead promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" and distributed the fliers at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank." [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm) [2] (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010305&c=2&s=dubose) [3] (http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html)

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no proof, and it was later alleged he had bugged his own phone for the media coverage the incident generated, but there was no proof of that, either, and no charges were ever filed. [4] (http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html)

After dropping out of the University of Utah in 1971, Karl Rove started his political career as the executive director of the College Republican National Committee. He held this position until 1972 when he became the National Chairman of the College Republicans (1973-1974). As chairman, Rove had access to many powerful politicians and government officials during the Watergate scandal, including then CIA director George H. W. Bush. For the next few years, he worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign. Rove's greatest claim to fame at the time was that he had introduced Bush to Lee Atwater. A signature tactic of Rove's was to attack an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue.

In 1993, according to the New York Times, John Ashcroft's campaign paid Karl Rove & Co. over $300,000 to aid his Senate race. In 1999, the George W. Bush campaign effort paid Karl Rove & Co. $2.5 million for July through December. According to Rove, "About 30 percent of that is postage."

In early 2000, during the Republican primary, Senator John McCain led George W. Bush in the race for the Republican presidential nomination and won several state primaries. A push poll was allegedly launched against McCain: telemarketers were allegedly hired to place calls throughout South Carolina asking potential voters how they may react about a candidate, in this case McCain, had they known some negative, possibly untrue fact, about the candidate. In this particular instance, voters were asked “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” A reporter, Wayne Slater, suggested in print that Rove might be behind the whisper campaign. Rove denied any involvement. McCain's support subsequently dwindled, and Bush won the nomination. (There were other factors in that primary contest as well, including a long exchange of negative television advertisements between the two candidates.)

After the presidential elections in November 2000, Karl Rove organized an emergency migration of Republican politicians and supporters to Florida to assist the Bush campaign during the recount.

George W. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001. Karl Rove accepted a position in the Bush administration as Senior Advisor to the President.

In March 2001, Rove met with executives from Intel, successfully advocating a merger between a Dutch company and an Intel company supplier. Rove owned $100,000 in Intel Co. stock at the time. In June 2001, Rove met with two pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. At the time, Rove held almost $250,000 in drug industry stocks. On 30 June 2001, Rove divested his stocks in 23 companies, which included more than $100,000 in each Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer. On 30 June 2001, the White House admitted that Rove was involved in administration energy policy meetings, while at the same time holding stock in energy companies including Enron.

On 10 April 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Rove to discuss whether the actor should run for Governor of California in 2006.

On 14 May 2003, during a meeting with South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun, President George W. Bush brought only Rove and Condoleezza Rice.

On 29 August 2003, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson named Rove as the White House official who leaked to the press the identity of a CIA operative as the wife of a prominent journalist and Bush administration critic. The White House denied the allegation. See Valerie Plame.

MasterKiller
10-04-2004, 12:25 PM
Fox News Lies... (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_media_041003210627)

red5angel
10-04-2004, 01:15 PM
yawn...so does CBS, what's your point? It turns out that's what people do in politics, they lie, ALL of them.

jun_erh
10-04-2004, 01:42 PM
red5- I was referring to the debate, not the race

MonkeySlap Too
10-04-2004, 02:29 PM
Well, I hate to say it but GWB was owned... a shame because Kerry continues to get away with lies and mistruths. My favorite was the claim that we didn't rotect Iraq's nuclear facilities, right after he said they didn't have any...

Kerry does have a few good things in his platform, but his voting record points right back to the bad old days of Jummy Carter. I simply beleive he is only saying what he has to in order to get elected. Then will return to form if his manchurian candidate first lady and he get in office. I firmly beleive we will lose the war on terror if Kerry is elected. Remember, this is the guy that 'helped' end the Viet Nam war - resulting in millions and millions of lives being lost in Ho Chi Mins gulags. B@stard. Go talk to some Vietnamese immigrants and see what they think of John Kerry...

And KL - the markets are decidely against Kerry. His 'tax on the rich' actually targets S corps. This is the people who use personal income tax forms for thier business. His tax plan will crush the recovery by crushing our biggest job creators - small businessfolks. If you track the markets, you'll see Kerry is not wanted.

red5angel
10-04-2004, 02:55 PM
red5- I was referring to the debate, not the race

then my bad, you may shelack at will....

GLW
10-04-2004, 03:03 PM
Kerry was referring to the facilities that had to do with Iraq's nuclear reactor (power generation). Although it was built by the Russians and destroyed by bombs from the Israelis in 1981, there were still contaminated materials and other things that SHOULD have been checked out. The UN inspectors maintained they did this and there were no items that could be used for a weapons program. Bush's folks maintained that Iraq had enough things to be able to reconstitute the program...and this facility (o ruins thereof) was part of Bush and Company's smoking gun...

Kerry was referring to their NOT setting up a guard on it.

jun_erh
10-04-2004, 03:03 PM
The Vietnam war was a mistake. John Kerry's testimony was in 1971. Woostock was in '69. Protests had been going on for years before Kerry did his testimony ( for which he recieved a standing ovation if you see the tape). My dad was in vietnam. People were being drafted to go there. It was hell on earth.

Kerry's taxing the rich - Businesss boomed during the Clinton years AND we had a surpluss. David Stockman, who was a Reagan economist, admitted trickle down economics was a scam. See SUpply Side Jesus in Al Franken's "Lying Liars"

MonkeySlap Too
10-04-2004, 03:11 PM
As far as Al Franken goes: http://www.frankenlies.com/

Clintons fiscal policies were decent. It helped we had a Republican congress that swept out a very corrupt Democratic senate and congress. Clinton was prevented from screwing things up too bad. He benefitted from a stupidity bubble, where millions lost thier lifes savings investing in tech companies with no profit model.

John Kerry is of the Jimmy Carter mold, I really hope we don't return to that...

Viet Nam was hell on Earth. Largely because we did not prosecute the war effectively. It became a greater hell for the people we abandoned. Don't the Vietnamese count also?

jun_erh
10-04-2004, 03:20 PM
monkeyslap- posting a website does nothing to refute my point about supply side rip-off policies. It was in spite of fat hypocrites like Newt Gingrich that Clinton accomplished what he did. Jimmy Carter wasn't a great president but he's a thousand times better than Bush. 120 billion in Iraq and more casualties each monththan the month before. and we'll probably got attacked again because of it. Merry Christmas Osama love george Bush.

ZIM
10-04-2004, 04:15 PM
posting a website does nothing to refute my point about supply side rip-off policies
Seems to be about as valid as making the "point" by using a cartoon to begin with

Christopher M
10-04-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by jun_erh
David Stockman, who was a Reagan economist, admitted trickle down economics was a scam. See SUpply Side Jesus in Al Franken's 'Lying Liars'

Supply-side economics is one very specific type of capitalist theory. Rejecting supply-side economics does not mean rejecting capitalist thought generally. I'd strongly advise against getting your economic theory from Franken -- he's a comedian and a propagandist, not an economist.

jun_erh
10-05-2004, 10:30 AM
I was offereing that as an easy way to understand a complex idea. When did I say I was against capitalism?