Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

More Record Deficits! WeeeeeFollow

#52 Sep 07 2004 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
Quote:
even if Bush does win he has another four years to "drop the ball" and then people will elect a Democrat.. It aint no thang man.


This has to be, by far, in my months on Allakhazam, including the internet ebonics running rampant, the sh*t that comes out of Varus' mouth, and all of the sockpuppets and idiots who post about their respectives game in the wrong forum, the single most idiotic, irresponsible, thoughtless, fatuous, dim-witted, oblivious, incognizant, moronic thing I have EVER been unfortunate enough to read.

Congratulations.
#53 Sep 07 2004 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Prince pickleprince wrote:
Quote:
Relax Pickle, even if Bush does win he has another four years to "drop the ball" and then people will elect a Democrat.. It aint no thang man.


***** that. The damage will have been done.

Actually, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said reelecting Bush may hurt the Republicans in the long run, and conversely electing Kerry will hurt the Democrats.

I'd link to it, but WSJ makes you pay to see articles.

Basically, a second term of Bush wouldn't produce much results in terms of enacting policy, but would upset enough voters to sway the next 2-3 elections in favor of the Dems.

And if Kerry were elected, he'll automatically get the nomination for 2008, and will likely have little-to-no chance against the Rep. candidate in that election, due to Kerry being a weak candidate even in the Dem's eyes.


The article stated how it's the same situation as when Ike was reelected. He had a weak second term, and as a consequence the 1960's went to the Dems.


It also paralleled to John Major in the UK. (only the parties were reversed). Major was such a weak candidate, the conservative party got just one term out of him, and it allowed Tony Blair to come into power and stay there for a long time.

#54 Sep 07 2004 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
I'd like to thank Tricky for acknowledging that four years isnt forever....

My statement that four years isnt that big a deal may sound like idiocy to both of you, but right now I'm considering the source.. It also seems amazing to me that people who I think quite vehemently want to be respected as individuals can look at people with such wide brush strokes. I'm perplexed.
#55 Sep 07 2004 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
Quote:
And if Kerry were elected, he'll automatically get the nomination for 2008, and will likely have little-to-no chance against the Rep. candidate in that election, due to Kerry being a weak candidate even in the Dem's eyes.


Why exactly would the dems put forth a "weak" candidate?

Even still what would the paper know about 2008? Did they put on their special "Romper Room" glasses?
#56 Sep 07 2004 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
BoondockSaint wrote:
Quote:
And if Kerry were elected, he'll automatically get the nomination for 2008, and will likely have little-to-no chance against the Rep. candidate in that election, due to Kerry being a weak candidate even in the Dem's eyes.


Why exactly would the dems put forth a "weak" candidate?

Even still what would the paper know about 2008? Did they put on their special "Romper Room" glasses?


Good question actually. I think they were counting on enough people voting on anyone but Bush to put forth their weakest candidate. Much the smae way the Republicans ran Dole against Clinton. They were convinced that the Americans would vote for anyone but Clinton and ended up having their *** handed to them. This would also explain Kerry's reluctance to speak about the things he woudl do. Instead he talks about all the things he wont do and how bad Bush is.

This is what you get for putting all your eggs in one basket.
#57 Sep 07 2004 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
4 years is long enough. God damn you're a fathead.
#58 Sep 07 2004 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
BoondockSaint wrote:
Why exactly would the dems put forth a "weak" candidate?

You don't think Kerry is kind of a weak candidate?
I'm liberal all the way, but I don't think he's all that great.

Quote:
Even still what would the paper know about 2008? Did they put on their special "Romper Room" glasses?

It's all just speculation of course, but it HAS happened in the past.

2 years into Clinton's term, NOBODY thought clinton had ANY chance of being reelected. He was a joke. But he turned it around and won in a landslide. Kerry might turn it around too, but at this point he's no John F Kennedy.

#59 Sep 07 2004 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
too lazy to fix

Edited, Tue Sep 7 19:43:16 2004 by BoondockSaint
#60 Sep 07 2004 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
Quote:
Good question actually. I think they were counting on enough people voting on anyone but Bush to put forth their weakest candidate. Much the smae way the Republicans ran Dole against Clinton. They were convinced that the Americans would vote for anyone but Clinton and ended up having their *** handed to them. This would also explain Kerry's reluctance to speak about the things he woudl do. Instead he talks about all the things he wont do and how bad Bush is.

This is what you get for putting all your eggs in one basket.


Smiley: rolleyes
#61 Sep 07 2004 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Heh.. I hope Lub was just playing and not a sockpuppet.

Not because I care really about Lub being a sockpuppet (and it would reinforce the fact that Varrus is playing an act) but because it'd be sad, even for Varrus, if the best argument he can come up with for following such a decidedly non-Christian economic mindset was "You're a gay baby killer".


I'm someone elses sock puppet (not really, I just use 2 accounts so I can have a goofy avatar and not offend people in the gaming forums.)

And varus has called people baby killers before, but it was on topic at the time.
#62 Sep 07 2004 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
I really can't say that he is "weak" given the fact that most people won't hear about him until he's the dem's apparent candidate.

Are you saying that John Kerry ISN'T the dem's candidate? Smiley: confused


edit: I think we got wires crossed. I'm saying that if Kerry wins now, he'll be the candidate in 2008, as I don't think any incumbent President has failed to get the nomination, even if someone better was available.

Obviously if he loses now, the Dem's will almost certainly field someone else.




Edited, Tue Sep 7 19:31:21 2004 by trickybeck
#63 Sep 07 2004 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
No. I'm saying exactly how much did the general public know about John Kerry until the Dem's put him forth? My tenses were bad, I'm going to fix them.

Edited, Tue Sep 7 19:36:06 2004 by BoondockSaint
#64 Sep 07 2004 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
You're free to believe what ever you want and thats cool. You still can't say that Bush raised the taxes on the middle class. That would be a lie even if you did say it.


You are right, we can't say that Bush raised taxes on the middle class. He lowered them slightly, and also cut funds to education, home heating assistance to the poor, and the general money that the federal government gave to the states. Guess what happens when states start recieving less money from the federal government? .... Thats right, they raise taxes. So now we have the middle class people paying about the same, the rich paying less, and the poor getting shafted out of services.

Sounds great, huh? Now remember the original post: Record Deficits. Guess who is really getting shated. The rich? No. Small Business owners? No. The poor? Yes, but thats not my point. No, we are robbing from the future taxpayers. It may very well be you and I still when it comes time to settle the tab, but it will probably involve our children also, and our grandchildren.
#65 Sep 07 2004 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Given the economic climate we can't be too sure either way. Nanotechnology and biotechnology look a lot more promising than IT however. The future doesnt seem like doom or gloom, deficits or not. The states have also taken to stockpiling a lot of federal money as well. There needs to be a lot more accountability at that level. I'm from Texas and we dont pay State income tax... Perhas you could tell me more about hw your state income tax has risen.
#66 Sep 07 2004 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Anyway, yeah, the article was just a possible, but entirely plausible, scenario.

Obviously anything could happen in the next four years. It largely depends on the House and Senate races. Bush with a Democratic House and Senate will be largely impotent except for his handling of Iraq. Bush with a Republican Congress could be very dangerous, especially if he manages to get the ban on gay marriage passed, etc.

#67 Sep 07 2004 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Perhas you could tell me more about hw your state income tax has risen.


My states income tax as remained the same, same with the state sales tax. Maine's solution was to just give the towns less money. People are paying higher property taxes in general. The towns that didn't want to pay more taxes have cut programs. School children now have to pay to participate in school sports. Music programs have been eliminated from entire school districts.
#68 Sep 07 2004 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
Quote:
especially if he manages to get the ban on gay marriage passed, etc.


We wouldn't want your Hawaii trip to be all for naught.

I agree with you depending on the majority. President still has *some* influence.

Iraq is a pretty important issue.

Nice avatar btw trick

Edited, Tue Sep 7 20:03:22 2004 by BoondockSaint
#69 Sep 07 2004 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,878 posts
BoondockSaint wrote:
Why exactly would the dems put forth a "weak" candidate?


So they can put "Old Chunky Stumps" to pasture in 2008. With a little luck, Slick will assume room temp and it can come out the flaming lesbian she is dying to be for it too. It wasn't in Nam, but it will have to do!
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 287 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)