DescentBB

Sooo Kerry's statement that if he were pres. he would handle Iraq by getting more of our Euro allies to help out seems have been brilliantly outdone by Bush:

"The US and the EU have pledged strong support to the new Iraqi government ahead of the 30 June transfer of power."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3842599.stm

I tell you the Dems keep underestimating Bush. So where now JFK?

Wood have you seen the article about the Dems trying to stop nader from running? it seems like this is what the democrats need to do to win the Presidency. they want to take away our most prized and basic right. the right to vote for the candidate of our choice. now mind you I have no intention of voting for Nader. but to try and prevent him from getting on the ballot?!?!?!? personaly I think that the Democratic party have become a bunch of hate mongers. My word listen to Kennedy, Gore,& Dean. they all need to take a prozac!! WTF with the maniacal tyrades???? and I know that its politics in general but do those 3 EVER say anything truthful? well enough rambling heres the article about trying to stop Nader in AZ, I understand they are doing it in several other states as well, maybe its selective memory on my part but I dont remember the GOP trying to stop Peroe (sp?) when he ran for prez
link

I can't help but think of the old story about the little red hen who planted the seeds and raised the wheat...and ground the flour....and baked the bread...and THEN everyone wanted to help eat it!

As to the common theme of democrat contenders acting emotional...
Consider who they are trying to relate to. It shows that the demo-leadership think it's support comes from their supporters raw emotional reactions instead of a logical thought process.
Electing Kerry has become a 'premeditated crime of passion'

CUDA wrote:the right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

Implicitly, isn't that what happens in every party? Surely, I don't think Bush was the best candidate the Republicans had. But with his father's name and backing, he easily ousted the candidate I would have voted for, McCain. So, my "choice," as it were, was superceded by similar logic.

By being the incumbent, Bush silences any other Republican candidates from entering the ring.

I still don't think Kerry is the strongest democratic candidate and I have no clue how he won over his opponents in such a landslide. Nevertheless, he is silencing any other Democratic candidates that might have run.

Only Nader can decide if Nader won't run. Barring the Green Party nomination, the word is he would run as an Independent a la Ross Perot.

So, no, the "right to choice" is nothing more than a illusion. We never really had it.

Kyouryuu wrote:So, no, the "right to choice" is nothing more than a illusion. We never really had it.

Word!

We've gone from choosing from anyone who can create enough interest based primarily on their own merits, to 'choosing' from a short list provided by a two party system that considers the potential candidates merits only if he meets the party requirements first.

We elect from a list of the lower common denominators!
It's as if we recieve the quality of a low-bid product but pay the manufacturer the highest possible price.

ok maybe my choice of wording could have been better, but my point is that the democratic party is try to remove any form of choice at all, they know that as long as Nader runs they have little or no chance to win. so they are trying to have Nader removed from the election in what ever means they can. they are trying to re-write election laws so that the ONLY candidate will be a Democrat. its behaviour like this that worries me

Putting aside the candidates qualifications, what troubles me more than anything else is that the two main pres. contenders both belong to the same secret society. Does this bother anyone else here?

You guys and your secret societies. Do you know Kimble?

woodchip wrote:Putting aside the candidates qualifications, what troubles me more than anything else is that the two main pres. contenders both belong to the same secret society. Does this bother anyone else here?

it bothers me greatly.

woodchip wrote:both belong to the same secret society

... and it's so secret that we all know about it. :P

I just can't get worked up about frat boys or any other club from that period of someones life.

Not that they couldn't form some evil orginazation that could cause us trouble, just that there is no evidence that they've ever done anything other than get drunk, spank each other in their secret meetings and think they are somehow better for having done it.

but Will, you have to realize, this society is *filled* with influential figures from all over the world. There *has* to be a conspiracy. I mean, if you just took the top 15 students from Yale each year, there's no *possible* way they'd end up being that influential, so it *must* be a conspiracy.

I'd be far more concerned about how they handle the country and its affairs rather than what they did as a fraternity.

O.K. Lothar, you're the mathematician. Calculate the odds that 2 members from the same little "fraternity", found only at one university, wind up as the main pres. candidates. The odds would have to be comparitive to any man being a candidate of course.

woodchip, if it was both candidates every election, I'd be concerned. Being both candidates during one particular election is no big deal, and in particular, when you consider that the 15 "best and brightest" out of Yale every year are likely to end up in pretty high places anyway, it's not much of a surprise that you could occasionally end up with 2 of them as the 2 major presidential candidates one year.

Lothar wrote:...when you consider that the 15 "best and brightest" out of Yale every year are likely to end up in pretty high places anyway,...

If Dubya is one of Yales "best and brightest" I think they need to rethink their standards.

CUDA wrote:ok maybe my choice of wording could have been better, but my point is that the democratic party is try to remove any form of choice at all, they know that as long as Nader runs they have little or no chance to win. so they are trying to have Nader removed from the election in what ever means they can. they are trying to re-write election laws so that the ONLY candidate will be a Democrat. its behaviour like this that worries me

If the shoe were on the other foot the Reps would be doing the same thing. It's politics as usual. Don't sweat it. Relax, sit back, and have a beer. You will feel much better. No worries, Dubya's going to win.

Dedman wrote:

Lothar wrote:...when you consider that the 15 "best and brightest" out of Yale every year are likely to end up in pretty high places anyway,...

If Dubya is one of Yales "best and brightest" I think they need to rethink their standards.

Based on... what? His public speaking difficulties? The fact that you don't agree with his policies?

It's easy for us to sit here and say "Bush is dumb" or "Michael Moore is dumb" or whatever, but I'm pretty sure neither of them are nearly as stupid as we'd like them to be.

Back on topic: I said a couple years ago, the Democratic party was going to lose this election becacuse they keep harping on the wrong issues. Back then, there was a lot of complaining that "this war in Afghanistan is a quagmire; it's been like 3 whole days and it's not over" and "the economy is tanking" and things like that. And I said it was stupid to harp on those things, because a few weeks or months down the line they'd change and the Dems would've wasted their breath for nothing. Well, so a few months passed, the war in Afghanistan went pretty well, the Taliban fell, and the economy started showing signs of recovery. So then "the war in Iraq is a quagmire; the economy is still tanking" they said. And I said it was stupid to harp on those things, because a few weeks or months down the line, they'd be totally different. Sure enough, a few months passed, and Saddam's army was gone, and the economy showed yet more signs of recovery. But "we haven't caught Saddam yet" -- and we all know what I said, and we all know what happened a couple months later. But "we haven't given enough control to other nations yet" -- and so on.

The Democratic party blew this election a couple years ago, by deciding it was going to complain about things that were going to change by the time the election rolled around. It comes as no surprise that more and more of their talking points are disappearing out from under them, and they're having to react by creating new ones.

Lothar wrote:Based on... what? His public speaking difficulties? The fact that you don't agree with his policies?

He was a 'C' student, Lothar. Usually the "best and brightest" at any particular university can pull a slightly higher GPA than Bush Jr. maintained.

Give the devil his due, Bush was stone drunk 24/7 at Yale. A C average then becomes all the more impressive.

Lothar wrote:woodchip, if it was both candidates every election, I'd be concerned. Being both candidates during one particular election is no big deal, and in particular, when you consider that the 15 "best and brightest" out of Yale every year are likely to end up in pretty high places anyway, it's not much of a surprise that you could occasionally end up with 2 of them as the 2 major presidential candidates one year.

Well, if you factor in that Bush senior was a member of the Skull and Bones Club (you ever how outlaw motorcycle club that sounds?) and now Bush junior is a member and Kerry is a member...doesn't that start tweaking the odds a bit much?

It rubs me the wrong way, but there is unfortunately nothing concretely bad or good that can be said with the current information.

Other skull members include JFK's dad, Taft,

Chip, maybe you should get hot and bothered about freemasons too. Many presidents have been masons:
Gerald Ford
William McKinley, assassinated by an anarchist.
James Garfield, assassinated President.
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Warren G. Harding
William Howard Taft, the fattest President.
Andrew Johnson, the first impeached President.
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
James Knox Polk
James Buchanan, the only bachelor US President.
Lyndon B. Johnson was a first degree Mason.



There's a lot of talk about the fraternal organizations that seem to hold power, but I've never read anything that shows some sort of proof of anything against either.

It certainly is an irritating situation, however (i.e. we'll never know either way).

Birdseye wrote: Chip, maybe you should get hot and bothered about freemasons too. Many presidents have been masons:
Gerald Ford
William McKinley, assassinated by an anarchist.
James Garfield, assassinated President.
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Warren G. Harding
William Howard Taft, the fattest President.
Andrew Johnson, the first impeached President.
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
James Knox Polk
James Buchanan, the only bachelor US President.
Lyndon B. Johnson was a first degree Mason.

You forgot one. Hint: his initals are GW.





Yessir, George Washington was a freemason. As was Rican's beloved Thomas Jefferson.

And hey didn't all these guys claim to belong the same religeous group too! Some crazy 2000 year old cult of mushroom eaters or something.

Except for JFK... he belongs to a religion that's at least 1400 years older than all the other Presidents'.

Most of the founding fathers were masons

All of them were men!
I'm surprised no lawsuits have been brought against the two major parties for what is obviously sex discrimination.

And hey didn't all these guys claim to belong the same religeous group too!

They're all Americans and probably have JCPenny cards, as well *gasp*

I think the Freemason society once upon a time had a mysterious edge and substantial power. Today, I think it's an extension of "playing fort" and "girls are icky." At least that's my take based on Masons I've talked to.

Except for JFK... he belongs to a religion that's at least 1400 years older than all the other Presidents'.

Sorry I'm not catching on to that one. John F. Kennedy the first Catholic president or John F. Kerry democratic hopefull. And Catholocism or am I missing something else. OMG don't tell me Kerry is Jewish!! That would seem a stretch even for the 21st century.

Julia Gorin wrote:John Kerry... found out back in February that his paternal grandfather was Jewish and his grandmother had "Jewish roots."

Original Boston Globe story

Well if it is good enough to make him wear the yellow star in the bad old days I suppose it will be good enough for a certain faction of the population to brand him a member of the infamous "jewish communist conspiracy" that ride around in the black helicopters or whatever they are supposed to do.

Lothar wrote:

Julia Gorin wrote:John Kerry... found out back in February that his paternal grandfather was Jewish and his grandmother had "Jewish roots."

Original Boston Globe story

So does this mean that Kerry is related to M. Albright?

[quote="Ford Prefect"]Sorry I'm not catching on to that one. John F. Kennedy the first Catholic president or John F. Kerry democratic hopefull. And Catholocism or am I missing something else.[quote]

I'm referring to Kennedy, and the fact that he was the first (and only) Catholic president. I hope it stays that way for the next 4 years.