Republicans not walking party lineFollow

Voting before the war before voting against it seems like a pantheon of understanding....

Clinton had contracts with Haliburton too

Actually, I think it's a little bit of both. The party has polarized into the "We hate everything Bush and Republican" camp, and the "Maybe we should look at the issues objectively" camp.

It's also the most unified it's been in a long time because right now, the only voices you are hearing in the party are of the first camp. If Smash is even a vague indication of the Dem party right now, anyone who doesn't rabidly attack the entire policies of the Bush administration will be labeled an appologist.

This is why I'm not joking when I say that people like Smash may just be in for a rude awakening come election day. You are so sure of victory because you've surrounded yourselves with people who are all saying the exact same thing. What you don't relize is that you've driven all the moderate Dems away from the party.

If the Dems don't moderate their voice during this election, that's going to be a lot of the undecideds that will decide that a president that they maybe don't agree with 100% is better then a guy who's primary platform is "I'm not Bush". Votors get scared when they hear nothing but negatives from a party. They also get worried that throwing out real political issues in favor of following a tide of dislike could hurt them a lot more then dealing with a known quantity like Bush.


Usually the last people to be aware that their "you're either with us or against us" party line has dwindled their ranks instead of growing them are those within that group.

This is why I'm not joking when I say that people like Smash may just be in for a rude awakening come election day. You are so sure of victory because you've surrounded yourselves with people who are all saying the exact same thing. What you don't relize is that you've driven all the moderate Dems away from the party.


Hahaha.

Yes, the Democrats are the party with the echo chamber problem, the GOP is the party of dissent and diversity.

I guess waking up hungover from all the celebration of the Kerry victory might qualify as a "rude awakening" but I really doubt it. I imagine I'd still be pretty upbeat.

I'm so sure of victory because of the polling pattern, the state of the economy, and many other factors.

There's still time for you to accept my wager, however.

I still find it sort of disheartening to find smoeone who claims to have $1m in net worth who isn't willing to back his guy with $5.

Then, of course, you'll never actually say that you think Bush is going to win, because when he didn't it would be clear that you were wrong.

No, you'll just talk around untill after the election and then claim that it's clear you predicted the winner regardless of who it is.

I'm calling you out, Skippy. Go on record right now. Who do you think's going to win it in November?

You forgot to call the winner, Gbaji.

I won't make a wager on the election for the simple fact that it's so close. Noone's come out clearly on top yet. It does appear that Kerry had a very small bump after the DNC. It would seem that those who have already decided to vote against Bush have had their say. The upcoming months will be awarded to Kerry on the merits of "Why am I voting for Kerry." as opposed to "Why am i voting against Bush."

Not to say that Kerry won't come out on top, but I think he hasn't convinced the people sitting on the fence yet. Neither has Bush. This should be an interesting election year.

Um. I have read the party platform. Oddly, I don't see a single line that says: "Allow Christian fundamentalism to take over the country", or "put prayer in schools", or "overturn Roe v Wade".



Yeah. As opposed to Kerry who's made *nothing* clear. Normally, we could look at his Congressional record, but he's not called a flipflopper for nothing.

The overwhelming message coming from his Campaign is "Vote for me cause I'm not Bush", and "Look! I'm a war hero and Bush isn't".

The issues haven't been about the economy, or heath care, or education because the challengers (that's the Dems in case you aren't following along) haven't made those the issues.

The Dems, as the challengers, get to pick the issues Smash. They've chosen to backburner real issues and focus on irrelevancies: "Bush lied about WMD". "Bush was AWOL from the Guards". "Bush isn't as good of a military leader". "Bush is at fault for 9/11". "Bush hasn't reacted to 9/11 as he should". "Bush still hasn't captured BinLaden".

That's what the campaign has become Smash. And that is 100% the choice of the DNC. They are not giving the voters a choice between two known entities, one of which they may not agree with. They are giving the voters a choice between a known entity that they may not agree with, and one that they know nothing about except that he wants to be president. Despite all the hoopla about "getting to know Kerry" at the DNC, he did little to change that perception. That will be costly in the long run.



Really? Then what views are those of the guys who "don't follow the party line"?

Ever think that the party line they supposedly don't follow is the one concocted by the Dems as the "boogieman" they want people to believe make up the entire Rep platform?

Isn't it strange to you that the two most vocal Rep supporters (I'm not counting Varus) don't fit into the "party line" you believe makes up the party? Sounds like diversity to me...




Ah. So he tossed a few bones to some of his constituents. Oh. He'll support a ban that will never, ever, under any circumstances pass though Congress. Big deal. Free points there Smash. Are you suggesting that the Dems would support Isreal less then the Reps? That support is a federal policy that goes way beyond the two parties Smash and you know it.

And the partial birth abortion ban thing was going strong long before Bush came along.

Faith based charity initiatives? You mean like not discriminating against charity organizations because they happen to be funded primarily via church donations or are run by a religious program? Look. I draw sharp lines when it comes to prayer in school and teaching things like creationism in classrooms as a science. However, I don't think denying federal charity status to an organization purely because it's tied to a religious organization is a huge violation of separtion of church and state. The state doesn't send people to charities. They end up there. If St. Donovan's soup kitchen is helping people out, then they should have the same status as a non-religious organization doing the same thing.


The real issue with those faith based charity initiatives is that the Dem/socialists in this country would really like to see the federal government be the one's "taking care" of the poor instead of the private organizations that do a pretty good job of it right now. And since most of those private organizations happen to be attached to religions for historical reasons, well.... Let's stretch the definition of separation of church and state a bit and see if we can squeeze them out of business.

And hey! If that hurts the poor people who are just trying to get a hot meal on a cold night, what do we care? We don't really care about the poor, we just want to use them as a political tool to gain more power for the state. After all, if we just socialized more, and put the government in charge of everything, we wouldn't even have poor people anymore, right?


Brilliant. Way to gloss over complex political issues in a single soundbite Smash.

Eh? I don't know who's going to win. I think it will be close. I do think that some of the actions taken by the Kerry campaign have hurt them badly, but that's not to say that Bush&Co haven't made some mistakes as well.


My whole point is that I'm not the one posting a thread every couple days crowing about how positive I am that my candidate will win. You'd have to look in Smash's direction to see that.

I'm just pointing out that it's not nearly as cut and dried as he thinks it is. And I'm perfectly comfortable with waiting until the election happens and then finding out who wins. I don't feel some huge urge to predict things so I can make a big deal out of being "right". That just leads to ugliness.

If Smash is right, then he'll post incessantly about how incredibly brilliant he was to have predicted the win. If Smash is wrong, he'll post incessantly about how the Reps truely are brainwashing the country, and everything's going to hell in a handbasket, and how we now know with absolute certainty that the US is doomed because Bush won instead of Kerry. Either that, or there was some sort of conspiracy that rigged the election, complete with suggestions of corruption or tampering.

From my perspective, it's a no win situation. Ever heard someone who was so sure their favorite team would win that they placed bets and "guaranteed" the win to the same extent that Smash is doing for this election, but when their team lost just kinda went "Gee. Yeah. I guess those guys really weren't the better team"? Nope. They always talk about how they should have won, but something unfair happened. The refs made some bad calls, or they got robbed on a technicality. Same guys jump up and down and get in your face when they're right though. It's childish, but it's an open forum. I'm just trying to avoid that particular level of stupidity if I can.

Isn't it strange to you that the two most vocal Rep supporters (I'm not counting Varus) don't fit into the "party line" you believe makes up the party?


Not all.

It just makes you suckers.

That's the whole point, thanks for proving it for me.

Totem:
Ok, I've read it front to back and have no burning issues with it, Smash. What was your question concerning it?


None, if it's what you belive in, you should vote for that party. If you find that you disagree with most of it, as Gbaji does, and you still vote for that party, you're a sucker.

That's the point. You, Totem, are a married Christian ex military man with kids who is anti-abortion, pro aggressive drug policy, and someone who wouldn't take issue with Roe V Wade being overturrned or prayer put back in schools.

Gbaji isn't. That's the point. I understand why you'd vote for Bush. Why a middle class, agnostic, IT flunky who is pro-abortion and against a gay marrige amendment would vote for them is the part I don't understand.

You and I can agree to disagree. Gbaji and I agree on most issues, but he votes against his beliefs because he's convinced that rich people should pay less in taxes than the middle class.

My whole point is that I'm not the one posting a thread every couple days crowing about how positive I am that my candidate will win. You'd have to look in Smash's direction to see that.


No, you're the one responding to every single one of those threads, arguing against the fact that Kerry will win.

When it comes right down to it, however, as allways you hedge your bets because you're terrified of being wrong.

You're also a gutless coward, but we all knew that allready.

BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL OVER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RESERVISTS AND VETERANS. As part of the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations for security and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, the Senate passed an amendment that provided an additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Foxnews.com, 10/21/03, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html; BVA legislative bulletin, http://www.bva.org/aut03bulletin/l_update.html; CQ, 10/20/03]

Wow, so Bush threatened to veto the bill before he supported it....hmmmm makes you wonder =)

BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money." [Wash Post, 10/30/03]

Doh he threatened to veto it not once but twice, my bad =P