Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 10, 2016, 05:50:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 487 488 489 490 491 [492]
12276  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School on: November 25, 2004, 03:27:35 pm
I wish more schools in California did this.
12277  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: swing states...that are swing states no longer? on: November 25, 2004, 03:27:01 pm
Washington, Oregon, West Virginia (a stretch but maybe Minnesota and Wisconsin, as GOP picked up 3% Nationwide; Bush still lost them)
12278  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: What was the results in your city? on: November 25, 2004, 03:26:14 pm
I live in Fresno County, CA

(which itself went 57.9% Bush and  42.1% Kerry)

The City Limits would probably be 53.5% Bush,  47.5% Kerry.
12279  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Racial origin on Atlas on: November 25, 2004, 03:18:17 pm
Persian/North Indian
12280  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Most overrated president on: November 25, 2004, 01:55:23 pm
JFK, Reagan, Clinton
12281  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: IF the 2004 Dem Primaries repeat in 2008... on: November 25, 2004, 01:54:31 pm
Dennis Kucinich like I did in 2004
12282  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: County-by-County shift from 2000 to 2004 (preliminary) on: November 25, 2004, 01:40:32 pm
Republicans should write-off the North-east, Democrats should write off the Deep South.
12283  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Affluence vs. Voting Patterns on: November 25, 2004, 01:35:20 pm
It has become less Republican over the years.
12284  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Re:Bush: We can't win war on terror on: September 01, 2004, 05:08:01 pm
The tom-toms are beating, and the word is going out to neocons worldwide: Save yourselves! Anybody but Bush!

Yes, I know it must be hard to believe, since loyalty is such a big deal to the neocons (as in they dont have any), but the word on the street is that, since the Great Cause of Democracy (and Richard Perle's bank balance) has been betrayed; and the Prez is a goner, come November, anyway it's time for the neocons to go into opposition.
12285  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re:Bush's second term. What's in store? on: September 01, 2004, 05:03:35 pm
Bush already has Iran Contra II, with the Israeli-spy gate mess.

Just hope people dont forget Plame-gate, lack-of-WMD-gate, Chalabi-gate, Abu Ghraib-gate and the rest of the other scandals that have plagued his administration.
12286  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re:Clarke admits Iraq-Al Qaeda connection! on: August 19, 2004, 11:52:22 am
If he boogied to Sacramento, we could link him to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
12287  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 third parties on: August 02, 2004, 12:20:02 pm
Terrorism stems from years of not being isolationist
12288  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Kerry/Edwards vs Cheney/Bush on: August 02, 2004, 11:59:32 am
What would a map look like?
12289  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Bayh vs Quayle on: July 30, 2004, 09:58:39 pm
What would a map look like?
12290  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Republicans Attack Edwards, Stress That Bush Was Not And Is Not Qualified To Be on: July 09, 2004, 02:21:56 pm
Hoping to offset what they acknowledge is the fresh-faced political appeal of Mr. Edwards, Republicans are trying to make the case that in a dangerous new world, filled with marauding terrorists and nations racing to go nuclear, he is not ready to step into the Oval Office should events require. They argue that he does not even have a full Senate term under his belt, that he is responsible for no significant legislation and that his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which Democrats say amounts to far more experience than many candidates have had, hardly amounts to adequate preparation.


On Wednesday, Democrats were ready for the critique that their candidate was a lightweight on national security, and they wasted no time opening a counteroffensive. They asserted that Mr. Edwards's five years in the Senate stacked up nicely with the amount of time Mr. Bush himself served as governor of Texas - his first public office - before moving to the Oval Office. Within hours of the announcement of Mr. Edwards's selection on Tuesday, the Kerry campaign was already offering old Democratic foreign policy hands to testify to the candidate's bona fides as a quick learner if not a longtime player.

In a "dangerous new world"? I guess that means in a post September 11th world, Edwards does not have the experience to be President.

Though, that makes me scratch my head. Because Republicans keep insisting that September 11th was Bill Clinton's fault. Which means the world was dangerous before September 11th and, yet, the Republicans nominated a guy for president who had absolutely no foreign policy experience, a guy who bankrupted like four businesses, paid for by his father and his father's friends, and was a total failure in the private sector, and had served only one term as the Governor of Texas--a state where the legislature only meets once every two years.

You know, meaning that Bush had about two months worth of government experience and no foreign policy experience when Republicans backed him in his losing presidential campaign in 2000.

I mean, George Bush is probably the least qualified president of the United States ever.

And Republicans backed him, not for Vice President, but for President in "dangerous new world".

For Bush and Republicans to attack Edwards for his lack of foreign policy experience is hilarious.
Christ, Bush is the most despised leader in the world. Europeans don't even like him. Canadians don't even like him. Situations have turned so sad that in the mid-east, bin Laden is more popular than Bush.

The English, our number one ally, don't like George Bush.

How can you possibly be any worse at foreign policy?

You can't! There's no nation left to destroy our relations with! Even if your entire foreign policy team consisted of no one but Triumph the Insult Dog, you still could not do any worse.

And, at least Edwards, before he was a politician, was successful at something. Wildly successful. At least Edwards has had a lifetime of competence. Edwards, unlike baby Bush, could stand on his own two feet and face adversity.

In times of adversity, Bush sits passively, reading "My Pet Goat", waiting for someone to tell him what to do.

The best Bush can say is that "Dick Cheney can be president"? Maybe, though I doubt it. But the jury's still out on George Bush. And if it goes to the jury, put your money on Edwards.

Nobody works a jury like Edwards.
12291  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Polls / Re:Media Bias when reproting poll results? on: June 19, 2004, 08:09:04 pm
LA Times was probably a local LA poll.
Pages: 1 ... 487 488 489 490 491 [492]

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines