The democratic debate SUCKED

Embs · Embs's Garage

Not that I am a democrat or republican, I couldn't possibly be dedicated to any political party in whole, maybe Independent. No one really answered questions directly accept for the African American lady and I can't even remember her name? The rest of the candidates were for the most part...BAD.
I don't think GW and crew are doing a very good job at all. I would say at this point there is little chance of re-election for George. Who will be the next President?

BGCarrera32 · 09-26-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

The democratic debate SUCKED

Not suprising as most democrats suck...no new ideas there.

dd74 · 09-26-2003, 08:51 AM

Only saw highlights on the news - Dean was good. At least he's agressive. I like Clark only because he's a retired general going after Bush. I can't remember the last time a military man criticized the president.

I wouldn't say Democrats sucked, but in total, they are floundering and quite spineless these days. They complain about Bush's $87B for Iraq - citing they want proof - but they're going to vote it ahead anyway - to show support for the troops, which is a joke. If they want to show support, they should vote the $87B down and disallow any other funding. This way, there will be no other choice but to bring our troops home.

island911 · 09-26-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
. . .
I can't remember the last time a military man criticized the president.

. ..

HAhaha...
So you're trying to forget the Clinton years, are ya?

. . .it was so bad they had military programs to instruct the military personel on how NOT to diss the prez.

Perhaps I'm just confusing being critical with being contemptuous. --my bad

ronin · 09-26-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Embs
Not that I am a democrat or republican, I couldn't possibly be dedicated to any political party in whole, maybe Independent. No one really answered questions directly accept for the African American lady and I can't even remember her name? The rest of the candidates were for the most part...BAD.
I don't think GW and crew are doing a very good job at all. I would say at this point there is little chance of re-election for George. Who will be the next President?

not quite sure I get your point. if the dems sucked, then why is there "little chance of re-election for George?"

tabs · 09-26-2003, 11:20 AM

Kerry....best statement...."Democrats love to creat jobs, but you can't hate job creators"

Al Sharpton..... Not all trade is good trade...refering to the slave trade

Dean...."The enemy is George Bush" "I will repeal the whole Bush tax cut.".......In another words Dean will raise TAXES....

Clark.....May 2001.. "We need George Bush, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfield in Place.".......September 2003.... "George Bush is a failure, I want to be President."

GET THE FEELING YOUR DEALING WITH A GUY WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING TO GET AHEAD, just like Clinton another situational ethics guy...this is the guy that scares me!

George Bush is a failure as a President...gimme a break

1. The economy was slipping into recession when he took office.

2. 911 was a $200 Billion Dollar drag on the economy

3. 911 effectivily put the USA at war

A. We got rid of the Taliban and crippled Al Queda in a remarkably short period of time in Afganistan. We did it surgically...with CIA, SPecial Forces, Air Power and local help...in other words we did it smart.

B. We took out Sodamn Insane...which was funding Terrorists in Palestein if no where else...remember I always said this was a Geo Political move and the WMD were selling points. GW did get a resolution from the UN before he invaded, with numerous european allies commiting troops..Britain, Poland, Spain etc

C. The US still has a problem in the Sunie portions of the country with regards to security....simply that was where Sodamn came from and those were his supporters. The North and Southern sections of Iraq are quiet. We are in the process of repairing the infrastruture of the country...but remember it takes time to repair 30 years of neglect, and destruction.

4. The US economy is coming out of recession

A. Interest rates are at 40 year lows, monetary policy is stimulating the economy.

B. Deficeit spending has been the favorite method of the Democrats since the Great Depression to get the US economy moving again in times of recession

C. Job creation is a lagging indicator in a recovery.

D. The tax cut provides stimulus to the economy as the PEOPLE have more money in their pockets to SPEND.

Thus the engine of time suggests that Prosperity in the US economy is just around the corner...sic

5. $87 Billion spent overseas or another $200 Billion drag on the US economy due to another Terrorist attack...let me see which one is cheaper Hmmmm eine meane mineie mO????

6. Dimunation of Civil Rights under Bush...Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War...doesn't seem to have damaged Civil Rights much???

Bushes biggest problem is that he's just doesn't seem to be that good at PR...he doesn't come out and hold your hand, and tell you he feels your pain....

Oh another criticism is that Bush gave all the oil contracts out on a no bid basis...question is would you rather see a French Company get them? After France surepticiously supported Sodamn for years to the detriment of the US. And how many French troops were put into harms way? There are only a couple of companies that do the kind of work Haliburtobn does..... Bechtel is another one.

Now for the whiners and nay sayers....after 4 months....and continuing bad news...you guys wana honestly pull out, it was all a terrible mistake. NO WONDER THE JIHADIES THINK WE"RE WEAK...one bit of bad news or a rocky road and you guys wana run! If George Washington listened to critics in the winter of 1777, we'd all still be drinking tea and singing God save the Queen. It takes backbone and perseverence to prevail...

ronin · 09-26-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs

Clark.....May 2001.. "We need George Bush, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfield in Place.".......September 2003.... "George Bush is a failure, I want to be President."

LOL. par for the course, man. par for the course.

'situational ethics' for sure

tabs · 09-26-2003, 12:13 PM

The Bill and Hill wing of the Democratic party as explemified by their hiring of Dick Morse...Who gave Bill a blow by blow realtime account of his time with a hooker on the phone. and their situational ethics, win at any cost, the ends justifys the means, Do anything to win, I only care about me attitude...is amoral....sociopathic behavior.

GW is a saint compared to the above mentioned...and we all realistically know that ain't the case.

It's just not that Bill and Hill are Bad that would be something...but they aren't really anything at all...the only thing they care about is power the more absolute the better.

Situational ethics isn't par for the course....if you think it is than it becomes the norm...and if it becomes the norm then it beocmes every man for himself...Which was one of the big reasons why Rome ceased to be a Repblic and became a Dictatorship.

The great men of American History have all stood for something..Lincoln, Wasington, Jefferson, TR, Harry Truman....they are the ones who made a differnce and have stood the test of time....Bill is here today and forgotten by history tommorow.

ronin · 09-26-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Situational ethics isn't par for the course....if you think it is than it becomes the norm...and if it becomes the norm then it beocmes every man for himself...Which was one of the big reasons why Rome ceased to be a Repblic and became a Dictatorship.

not saying that it was par for the course for me, but rather for the democrats.

Embs · Embs's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by ronin
not quite sure I get your point. if the dems sucked, then why is there "little chance of re-election for George?"

Uh..I said the democratic debate sucked, not democrats.

island911 · 09-26-2003, 03:05 PM

dem guys got nut'n.

Hey ronin, post #1000. . . congrat's

speeder · speeder's Garage

In May of 2001, Bush had only been in office for 4 months. Even he needs more time than that to f' things up. Not much more, as it turned out, but the point is that in May of '01 he was not yet a failure and Clark, being a patriot, was giving him his support and best wishes despite political differences. In Sept. of 2003, we can no longer call Bush a sucessful leader. I see no inconsistency in Clark's remarks. I also think that he would make one hell of a great President.

Can't wait for the debate between him and our sissy-hawk Prez.

dd74 · 09-26-2003, 08:42 PM

Denis: very interesting point. I talked to a guy today who explained to me why Clark is so critical of Bush, which is simply because he is not in the military now. Hence, he can do what he wants - he dare not do so while still in a uniform.

BTW: I've been watching CA. polls lately, and not Nat'l (in fact, , being I'm in CA, CA politics is all I see on the news now, and will probably continue that way until 10/7).

Anyway, is it true Clark is annihilating Bush in the early polls, and eclipsing any hope of Dean making it to the White House?

ronin · 09-26-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
dem guys got nut'n.

Hey ronin, post #1000. . . congrat's

you're right, they don't!

and thank you kind sir

tabs · 09-27-2003, 11:14 AM

Speeder...be very very carefull of Clark. Is this guy a win at any cost, say anything guy? U better find out what this guy really believes if anything? I would say in the debate he came off well, and is acting as a spoiler for Dean's canidacy. Probably set up by the Clintons so they can steer the nomination towards their own guy...Clark. Thus keeping control of the Democratic Party which goes to Dean if he is the standard bearer...until 2008 when Hillary will make her bid. Maybe if Clark is the nominee Hill will be the VP canidate which will open the door in 2012 if he wins and if he loses Hill is in the cat bird seat for 2008. I would think Hill needs one more election cycle as Senator to make sure she is a viable Political canidate....Canidate for VP could do it for her?

Bill and Hill were bad because they don't believe in anything, except power. Bill was able to charm everyone while he did nothing for 8 years...at least on the surface...he did everything through Executive Order...the bureaucracy. That and never doing anything the polls said were unpopular kept his rating high.

Being in the military didn't stop MacArthur from bad mouthing a Prez. or you don't have to kiss up U can stay quiet.

tabs · 09-27-2003, 11:33 AM

If U boyz think this country is in bad hands...U need to listen to an interview with Colin Powell...he's the most reasoned balanced guy out there...and that reflects well on GW because he picked the best guy in the country for the job. My guess is that Colin Powell is the 2nd most powerfull man in the world behind GW. Why because he has the State Department behind him and he knows the DOD and all the officers in command. So Rumsfeld can't BS him on military matters in cabinet meetings.

Rumsfeld is like a Pitbull, if he decides to bite you stay bit. He's tenicious, dogmatic no nonsense type of guy. Which is a good trait for a Sec of Defense. To be taken with a grain of salt. Wolfowitz is the guy that I don't care that much for....he's a little too ideological for my tastes. I would say he was the one who really pushed for Iraq, with the backing of Rumsfeld.