Printable View
[QUOTE=Stowe]Bush was a only a governor (only 4 years in a political office I believe) with zero foreign affairs experience (as is so apparent now) and with little fiscal experience given that in Texas the legislature is much more powerful than in most states (like California)
I would say he is nearly so or at least as experienced as Bush was in 2000.[/QUOTE]And how's that "no experience" guy working out so far?
Not looking to be a GW Bush apologist here - as I have plenty of axes to grind with him, but which of the previous 42 US presidents had 3000 of his citizens (civilians) murdered on US soil?
How much foreign policy experience did a former governor of California have? "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down", "Evil Empire". Success or failure - you decide.
The Democratic Party has a "death-wish" regarding Presidential candidates; evidence 2000 & 2004. They picked the only 2 people in the entire country who could not beat George W. Bush. Will they repeat in 2008: Probably, but considering what they did to Joe Lieberman this year - they deserve to lose, if they do (the same as the Republicans deserved to lose decisively this year)
Goodbye, John McCain. Hello Obama!
Hillary and the Clintonistas are going to cut him off at the knees. If he plays nice he might get a VP nomination. If not - well, remember Vince Foster?
It doesn't matter anyway. President Rudy Giuliani is going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. I say this because I percieve that people want a strong, competent leader who can effectively crush America's enemies. Of all the potential candidates, nobody comes close to Giuliani in this regard.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]Goodbye, John McCain. Hello Obama!
President Rudy Giuliani is going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009. I say this because I percieve that people want a strong, competent leader who can effectively crush America's enemies. Of all the potential candidates, nobody comes close to Giuliani in this regard.[/QUOTE]Great, thanks Hunt, I am going to have nightmares now. I think you are probably right though, if the Dems don't get their shit together, they are going to lose this election. And I fear, you are correct about Giuliani, he seems to be the most popular scandal free choice in the Rupublican camp, but he isn't as squeeky clean as Barak, I believe Giuliani had an extra marital affair with one of his co workers or something, he is also a Roman Catholic and is Pro Choice, so all that evangelical christian support that supported Bush in his election won't back Giuliani. I would hate for that guy to win, he is a total attention ***** and whats worse, I don't think he is any good, he has only been a mayor and he doesn't know the first thing about diplomacy, I believe his foreign policy would be very similair to Bush's and he will also too closely tow the Isreali line.
With all that said, Hunt is probably right, if the Dems don't get their shit together and either pick what they would consider a more electable candidate or get solidly behind Barak. Still wondering what people really think about this guys electability.
Badboy
You can't be serious, BB13. If the Democrats really have a death wish, they'll nominate this guy. He's an empty suit. Can you name one single real accomplishment the guy has ever achieved? Even one? Me either. If he's the nominee he'll get 40% of the vote and the GOP will carry 49 states like they did in 1984.
Hillary actually stands a chance of being elected. Not a great chance in my judgment, but a chance. And her only significant accomplishment is being married to the right guy.
There are some substantial Democrats who could be much better candidates than either of these two. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, for example. But they won't get the nomination. Hillary will.
And as for Giuliani, you are right, there are people who say he won't get the Republican base vote. But I disagree with this assessment for one very important reason: 9/11. The guy proved that he has balls of steel - earning the kind of respect which causes people who might not agree with him on everything to want to vote for him.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]You can't be serious, BB13. If the Democrats really have a death wish, they'll nominate this guy. He's an empty suit. Can you name one single real accomplishment the guy has ever achieved? Even one? Me either. If he's the nominee he'll get 40% of the vote and the GOP will carry 49 states like they did in 1984.
Hillary actually stands a chance of being elected. Not a great chance in my judgment, but a chance. And her only significant accomplishment is being married to the right guy.
And as for Giuliani, you are right, there are people who say he won't get the Republican base vote. But I disagree with this assessment for one very important reason: 9/11. The guy proved that he has balls of steel - earning the kind of respect which causes people who might not agree with him on everything to want to vote for him.[/QUOTE]Well I think you are right about Barak not having international experience and also having very little experience in domestic politics, and that is what I said was one of the arguments against him. Do I think he has a chance of winning? Maybe. As far as Hillary goes, if she gets nominated the Dems will lose for sure. Dennis Kucinich would get my vote, and before you start the anti-Dennis tirade. I understand he is very progressive and it will be hard for him to win the nomination, but alot of people in the US agree with his politics. He is another good candidate, and remember Hunt, Bush didn't win (even though that is debatable) because he was conservative or liberal, he won because he was radical and he energized his base with all his crazy talk. The Dems need to stop acting like wanabee republican douche bags, they need to stop all this bi-partisan bullshit. That won't energize the base that voted the Republicans out of House and Senate. I agree though, the Democrats don't yet have a strong candidate, we will see, there is still time to maybe find someone better, and then, Barak might get the VP token spot.
As far as Rudy is concerned, I still don't get what that motherfucker did during 9/11 that was so awe inspiring, he showed some spine? Aren't all leaders supposed to show some spine? And didn't they? Giuliani took alot of credit for bringing the city together but the truth is the tragedy brought the people together. That motherfucker was just a camera whoore. His foriegn policy reaks, let's just elect Ehut Olmert, it would be the same thing. Middle East WWIII anyone? And you have a good point, if the Republicans get their way, they will frame the issues in a way that will glorify Giuliani because of 9/11, although the truth is he and the government fucked up. The only hope I have is that the Dems understand how to frame the issues to favor them and not to play into the Republicans hands. If they frame the issues around the current Deficit, current foreign policy nightmares, Current war in Iraq, possible war with Iran (even though I am seriously doubting we have the money or manpower for that) complete non conservative federal spending, the fact that 7 years on the Taliban is still going strong in Afghanistan and their " democratic " government that was US installed is little more than a small city-state feifdom, Osama is still calling shots from his mountain hideout, what ever happened to dead or alive? The Dems have the fire power, the only question is, will they use it apropriately and will they choose the correct daring duo to maximize their advantages and capitalise on the Republican fuck-ups. Or will the choose the wrong people and allow the Republicans to frame the issues to their advantage.
I usually don't vote Democrat, but if they have a person I can believe in then I would vote for them.
Badboy
Something's not jibing in your comments, BB. First you say that you love Obama, and in the next breath you say the Democrats have to stop being wannabe-Republican douchebags.
As I assess Mr. Obama, there are three things that highlight his media-driven boomlet of popularity.
One, he's not Hillary Clinton. Everybody loves a horserace, nobody likes a coronation except the Queen-to-Be.
Two, he's black. Actually he's half-Irish, half-Kenyan, and not really a "black American" but it's the media who's doing the cheerleading here, and they're definitely whiter than white, so they can't tell the difference.
Three, his rhetoric is just the opposite of the Hate Bush / Let's Kill All Republicans stuff that the MoveOn.org crowd loves (more on this in a moment)
I think the country's swing voters are not happy with the partisan divisions that have been in evidence in 2000-06. A "centrist" Democrat who explicitly appeals to Republican voters and campaigns on some conservative issues (a la Bill Clinton 1992-96) has a better chance of election than a Left-Wing fire breather.
A perfect example is Jim Webb, a Democrat who won the Senate seat in very conservative Virginia running on just such a platform. In fact, I think this is Hillary's strategy too, but she brings a lot of baggage with her in presenting this message, and she has alienated her party's core voters over her support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama, for all his Mister Smooth rhetoric, is closer to the MoveOn.org base of the Democrats than Hillary is. They're going to coalesce around a left-wing candidate not named Clinton, the way they did in 2004 behind Howard Dean. But like Democrats did with Mr. Dean, the primary voters will realize such a candidate is not electable and move to the "electable" alternative.
About Giuliani and Israel - again, outside the left-wing base of the Democrats, most Americans support Israel very strongly, instinctively knowing that a friendly democratic state is worth supporting against the hateful thugs and killers that surround them.
Two years from now the same bunch of thugs and killers will still want to murder every American and every Jew they can get their hands on. A strong candidate committed to competently crushing them will attract wide support among the American electorate. While supporting Afghanistan and Iraq may hurt Hillary's chances at the Democrat nomination, it will be a net plus after she wins the nomination. And frankly, the Republicans will compete amongst themselves in producing a candidate that promises to kill even more Muslim terrorists than his opponents.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]Something's not jibing in your comments, BB. First you say that you love Obama, and in the next breath you say the Democrats have to stop being wannabe-Republican douchebags.
A perfect example is Jim Webb, a Democrat who won the Senate seat in very conservative Virginia running on just such a platform. In fact, I think this is Hillary's strategy too, but she brings a lot of baggage with her in presenting this message, and she has alienated her party's core voters over her support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/QUOTE]First off Hunt, you are starting to believe your own spin I think, please, with all due respect, reference the quote where I profess my love for any democratic candidate. I was actually pretty un-biased in my assesment of his pros and cons and said if he was nominated I would vote for him. That is all. Maybe that is what isn't " jibing " the memory, recollection, or comprehension was flawed to begin with. I don't love any Democratic candidates, I personally think they are the same as republicans, some are better than others. And there are some I would vote for. Fsio.
As far as your assesment regarding a " centrist " cadidate, the first question is would YOU vote for him? No I don't think so, the second question will be, with all the mud slinging the Carl Rove Republicans are known for, will a " castrated " umm I mean " centrist " Democrat have the will to use the firepower at his or her disposal? No, they will allow the Republicans to frame the issues to their own advantage. I think the Dems learned their lesson, they could have chosen Dean in 2004, but they went with the boring centrist who didn't start growing political balls until the end of the election, when it was too late. Wans't it the military comanders in Iraq that said it best, Go Hard, Go Long, or Go Home. And I agree. In a different context, the Dems can't GO LONG, they can either GO HOME, and let the Reps win or Go BIG, energize their own base, use their political ammo and mop the floor with whats left of the Republicans.
I personally don't think that will happen. I think the the candidate with the most money will win the democratic nomination (I. E Hillary) I think she will try too hard to emulate the Republicans in regards to foreign policy. I think she will lose. But maybe I am way off, maybe a good centrist will get all those Dems off the couch and maybe bring some disenchanted Republicans with them, doubt it, but maybe.
Badboy
Ok I just got the part about Isreal, first off man, to call Isreal " friendly ", they are about as friendly as my cousins ball biting pit bull. And that is the point we need an independent foreign policy not one that is based around one small country of 2 million people, with a history of agression and terrorism of it's own, Hunt , I understand your political views , but do you and have you studied the history of Isreal ? Do you know the meaning of the Stern Gang ? The King David Hotel Bombing ? Shebron and Shaetila Massacre ? They are anything but friendly, to say they are ultra nationalists would be a better assesment, When was the last time you were in Isreal ? It is a police state, and they are also practicing a certain level of aparteid within their own borders. But enough about that " friendly " regime. And lets get one thing straight, I don't think the Palestinians are a bunch of innocent nancy boys either, but I wouldn't call either of them friendly. Thats for sure.
The point isn't just Isreal ( and note I make a clear distinction between jews and the Isreali government policies ), the point is whatever person we elect to be president won't be someone that will follow isreali foreign policy, it must be someon who can dictate isreali foreign policy, we can't have a follower but a leader. And I can't seriously think that the person we elect will be the one who promises to kill more muslims, I mean do you agree with that kind of foreign policy ? Then my statements regarding growing american fascism have been correct.
[QUOTE=Badboy13]
As far as your assesment regarding a " centrist " cadidate, the first question is would YOU vote for him? No I don't think so, the second question will be, with all the mud slinging the Carl Rove Republicans are known for, will a " castrated " umm I mean " centrist " Democrat have the will to use the firepower at his or her disposal? [/QUOTE]Me? Wrong person to ask. I'm a Republican base voter, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war, and anti-tax voter. I've never voted for a Democrat. Not that I would never vote for one, but it would have to be a race like Lincoln Chaffee versus Jim Webb before I would vote D. But I do know Bush voters who voted Democrat for Congress in 2006, for example. And they didn't do it because the Democrat was running a left-wing campaign.
But truthfully, I'm trying to frame this in a neutral way, not in terms of my own preferences. Ideologically I'd probably like to see one of two GOP governors - Mike Huckabee of Arkansas or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota win the GOP nomination, but I know they can't win (Pawlenty will be the VP nominee, I bet) so I wouldn't support them for the nomination.
[quote=Badboy13]Go BIG, energize their own base, use their political ammo and mop the floor with whats left of the Republicans.[/QUOTE]That's the way to lose, I think. There's an interesting book I just finished, called "The Way to Win" by Mark Halperin. He's a Washington rarity, an honest Main Stream Media political reporter. His book is largely a comparison between what he terms "Bush Politics" and "Clinton Politics." Not in ideology, but in methodology. Your strategy is definitely "Bush Politics" personified.
Thanks for at least answering that honestly Hunt. It also sounds like you ultra rights aren't that different from most Independents I know, most like myself are pro life, pro gun, anti tax (but also anti frivolous government spending) It seems the main bone of contention between us is you are pro war and I most definitely am not.
I think the main problem with those that love war, is first they don't understand just what it is like to live in a war torn country, to have your family live in a war zone. Once you have experienced that, it will be alot harder to vote for a war that will destroy families and kill children. There are always better options. And second of all, war breed hate, no matter how many people we kill, all that will do is breed more hate filled americans and more hate filled anti americans. You see, if you say, I want to kill all the hate filled anti americans, you are just like them, because they are just like you, sitting around somewhere saying they want to kill all the anti muslims or anti whatever.
But whatever, I agree my politics have been influenced by Bush n Co, it seems the US is more influenced by radical statements much more than measured politically responsible ones. Clinton or someone very similair to him sans the intern addiction, would be the almost perfect candidate. But their is no one out their like him.
Badboy
This war was forced on America on September 11, 2001. We didn't have a choice. I'm "pro-war" because we can either win, or surrender. Your analysis omits this fundamental point.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]This war was forced on America on September 11, 2001. We didn't have a choice.[/QUOTE]First of all, what war was forced on us on 9/11? If you mean Afghanistan, an argument could definitely be made in your favor, though if you outline the main goals of that war, you will see that none of the objectives were accomplished other than sating US bloodlust, however justified. Osama? Still out there, still running things, Mullah Omar? Also still out their and still publishing monthly religious edicts. Zawahiri? Still out their, still doing all the idioligical theory. The Taliban? Still out their, and slowly gaining power, they have 10 times more money now that heroin is flowing freely from the afghani border.
If you mean Iraq, you are 100% wrong, just about everyone even Kissinger admits that, even he said if he knew then what we know now, he would have never gone into Iraq, and that we can no longer win militarily, he said very clearly that there were much better ways to deal with Iraq. Not my words but his. Iraq was a royal fuck-up, just about everyone in the world agrees with that one, and the Iraqis are paying for it.
Again if you meant the war against the Taliban, you have a point, even I thought that something needed to be done, looking back, we handled things in a way that guaranteed we would not attain our objectives, but I guess it was just the wisdom of a youthful nation. Guns won't solve our problems, for such a civilized nation, it seems we always resort to the most medieval methods of resolving our conflicts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To solve dificult problems we need to think creatively and never close ourselves off.
Badboy
New bill for blind Texas hunters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting is hugely popular in Texas.
Blind hunters would be able to use laser-sighted rifles to hunt animals in Texas, if a bill introduced in the state's legislature is successful. Republican Edmund Kuempel proposed an amendment to existing law that would permit "legally blind" people to use a laser-sighting device when hunting.
Current Texas law prohibits the use of laser sights, spotlights and headlights for hunting purposes. A sighted person would be legally required to accompany the blind hunter. "This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great," said Mr Kuempel.
Sighted guide.
Blind hunters are not a new phenomenon in Texas. Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger. However, hunters say that without a laser pointer it is difficult to time the shot. Laser sights, spotlights and headlights are banned in hunting in Texas, because they can make the animals freeze in their tracks. If the bill is passed in when the state legislature reconvenes in January, it will probably not become law until 2008. Mr Kuempel's bill would give the state until 1 January 2008, to come up with a definition of legally blind so the law could be enforced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am all ProGun, but could we limit that right to motherfuckers who can see ?
Badboy
While I agree that, unfortunately, the Repubs will probably hold the WH. Guiliani will have trouble with the base because he is pro-choice, gun control, separation of church and state and at least 1 other thing the right wing extremists cannot support.
The only way he will get the nomination is if the Repubs begin to ignore their extreme base.
I do not support either party controlling the WH and both houses of Congress. That just invites corruption and arrogance so if the Dems keep the House and Senate and the Repubs keep the WH. I am cool with that.
BTY- correction to an earlier post. Pakistan did not have a woman president. I though Benazir Bhutto was president back in the 90's but she was the prime minister. Forgive my error.
Suerte.
Stowe