Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Alarming presence of genocide in the world? You remind me of an acquaintance who recently belted out this gem, "You know, the bad thing about plane crashes is....um....so many PEOPLE die."

You are a simplistic, annoying little fuck. If in fact you were having a conversation with Bilmore, then I must remind him to stop feeding the trolls. I don't mind a good debate with Ty, and certainly not with Atticus. You are the ONLY poster on this board who, in my view, contributes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value. It is painful to read your posts. I would like for anyone who can cite to something of value you contribute on this board to go ahead and do so now.

I do not post often on here. And when I do, I expect some respect, Sonny. Now drop, give me 20 mountain climbers, and then get back to your "sammiches".

I have three suggestions on how you might play with your Sig-Sauer, Diane, and only one of them involves pulling the trigger.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Can someone who is objective weigh in?

Note: I called the first debate for Kerry and the second a draw.

I don't know how you really find an objective opinion for something like this, unless you get one of the lobotomized undecideds. I think the blogs below, written while the debates were happening, are instructive. Read from the bottom up.

From the Left: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...3/begala.blog/

From the Right: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...13/novak.blog/

From someone who probably more accurately reflects voter attitudes than the 2 clowns above: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...13/klein.blog/

From the last: "Does Bush have some creepy spittle in the corner of his mouth? Rove should whisper to him to wipe a bit."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by mmm3587 And I can't believe that you're critiquing *Kerry* for pronunciation of words.

Right, because he is beyond critism, yet Bush language problems are talked about ad nauseum.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's "idea" not "idear"

Is that worse than nu-cue-lur?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Is that worse than nu-cue-lur?

No, if you want the JFK mantle to stick.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I love these sort of posts. They get no substantive response. Dead air for about a half an hour, until someone posts somehing about how Hussein threw kittens into ceiling fans for fun.

The chief frustration of the GOP neocons and chickenhawks with the left (and the reason they take to insulting the left as "elites" and changing the subject all the time) is because, as far as I can see, at least on Iraq, they've got no rebuttal. They're throwing haymakers all over the place while the left ducks and weaves and flurries them with body shots.

The GOP should throw its one good punch - "Hey, stupid, the war is over there now, not here!" Sure, that'll anger the Mideast and the French, but fuck it... you can repair those rifts after you get re-elected.

That's my biggest intellectual disagreement with the GOP today and the neocons who support it blindly. Jesus, talk about the issues a little bit. It's so obvious from all the "Freedom, freedom, faith, stay the course, support our troops, no dissent, terror, terrists [sic], freedom, freedom, Laura" crap that Bush just can't talk about the issues.

Kerry laid out his position on pre-emptive war: "We should be threatened and we should be able to justify it to the world with a straight face." He never said anything close to what the administration is claiming he said, and Bush just ridicules him for actually having standards.

If Iraq was so threatening, what are we going to do about Iran and North Korea? If the atrocities were so bad, what are we going to do about the Sudan and Chechnya? At least make an effort to try to justify your actions without obfuscation. In my mind, Kerry was on the wrong side of both the votes regarding war in Iraq. But at least he has been honest about it. I can disagree, but respect his honesty. Same with McCain. He will be the candidate in 2008 regardless of what happens in three weeks. But Bush is just a joke. Everyone knows it, and it's clear that history will look on him that way. History has smiled on Reagan and George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush will be regarded as a joke and a failure.

Also, I think that the whole assault weapons ban thing needs to be hammered more by Kerry. It's obvious that Bush made his statements about signing it because his colleagues in Congress told him that it woudln't get to him. Kerry and his cronies also need to respond to all this vote count nonsense. Something like, "If George Bush had been serving his country in the Senate instead of mismanaging businesses, he would understand how voting in the Senate works."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I just figured, she's there, she's rich, everybody knows about her, so there's no downside with that joke, and it came off well.

I don't think it had anything to do with money. I think he was making self-effacing joke about having fooled a woman who by all rights should have been out of his league to marry him. This is reinforced by the fact that he prefaced the joke with the phrase, "like all three of us." It's an old, old joke and seldom has anything to do with money.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think it had anything to do with money. I think he was making self-effacing joke about having fooled a woman who by all rights should have been out of his league to marry him. This is reinforced by the fact that he prefaced the joke with the phrase, "like all three of us." It's an old, old joke and seldom has anything to do with money.

2

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My understanding is that Social Security is relatively OK, but Medicare/caid is in dire straits.

Both Social Security and Medicare are "funded" through trust funds, which lend cash to the government throught the purchase of bonds. The people saying that SS is in trouble are pointing out that in the next several years, we will reach the point that federal govt. intakes of cash will not be adequate to pay off the bonds that are maturing. Thus, SS will not have the necessary cash to make the required payments to recipients.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think it had anything to do with money. I think he was making self-effacing joke about having fooled a woman who by all rights should have been out of his league to marry him. This is reinforced by the fact that he prefaced the joke with the phrase, "like all three of us." It's an old, old joke and seldom has anything to do with money.

Disagree. The whole laugh came because of the CW that he married the billionaire.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, Kerry mentioned it as praise for Cheney.

Geez, S, get real. The only reason Kerry and Edwards keep bringing it up is because they know that part of W's base doesn't approve. Sleazy use of the kids.

What's sleazy about pointing out that your own running mate has a significant philosophical disagreement with a part of your campaign?

[dtb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think it had anything to do with money. I think he was making self-effacing joke about having fooled a woman who by all rights should have been out of his league to marry him. This is reinforced by the fact that he prefaced the joke with the phrase, "like all three of us." It's an old, old joke and seldom has anything to do with money.

Furthermore, before he said "maybe me more than the others", Bush chimed in with a hearty "Right!" to Kerry's statement that all three of them had been lucky enough to "marry up".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
Furthermore, before he said "maybe me more than the others", Bush chimed in with a hearty "Right!" to Kerry's statement that all three of them had been lucky enough to "marry up".

But Kerry's wife is a hag, both looks and personality. He only married "up" one way. $$$$$$$$$

[sgtclub]

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

[IMAGE OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. .JPG FILE]

The provocative Dem battle plan is to be distributed in dozens of states, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity, but claimed the notion of crying wolf on any voter intimidation is "absurd."

"We all know the Republicans are going to try to steal the election by scaring people and confusing people," the top DNC source explained.

Developing...

If you click the link, it has a link for the actual policy manual.

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What's sleazy about pointing out that your own running mate has a significant philosophical disagreement with a part of your campaign?

The daughter is not running for anything, and deserves to have what privacy she can keep, if she wants.

If the "point" is what you say, Kerry could say that "Cheney disagrees with you, Mr. Bush, we saw that in the VP debate."

Why does the girl need to be mentioned at all? I'm going with bilmore's reason.