Jedi Council Forums - Official 2004 US Elections Thread

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Official 2004 US Elections Thread
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:18pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Oh, I will probably actually be back a little before that, to post my "2004 ELECTION RESULT THREAD: VICTORY FOR THE GOP...A KICK IN THE TEETH TO THE LEFT" thread. Which would likely be locked, given that election-related posts belong in official threads that undoubtably will already be in place. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:26pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Please, there's nothing remotely Marxist about the Democrats. A working knowledge of Marxism itself (i.e. by way of reading Marx's works, and not conservative "criqutes" thereof) would confirm this. Politically, the US is the least Marxist nation by, if such a measure exists, leaps and/or bounds. Or just spin on your side to avoid giving Bush what he wanted I'll give credit where credit is due and I've been doing that recently with Iraq, and the policy shift related to the (belated) booting in the backside of Ahmad Chalabi, a man I called a criminal and warned against before the war started. It also seems the neocons have lost sway in the Bush Admin given that they failed to produce results, and the Bush admin's basically scored a series of plus' in foreign policy (let down by Dubya's remarks about Turkey and the EU; but in a sense, that was cushioned by the poor form chastising given by Chirac). Not to mention; I don't have a side... But no, I think that there are telling signs, especially in political academia, that there was overwhelming support for the war in Afghanistan; Richard Falk is a great example. Simply put; what else could any President accountable to an electorate do? That's why I think you're both wrong and unfair on this issue. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:39pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Did no one see my previous post? Do I need to start shouting? <big><big><b>KNOCK IT OFF, EVERYONE!!!</big></big></b> Are you listening now? I don't want to see any more of the petty bickering or namecalling here. None of us here are in elementary school, so why don't you all stop acting like it. Keep this to the issues, not the people. That includes such phrases as "delusional", or going on about hypothetical situations (such as what Gore would have done if he were president). Calling others evil or servants of the devil, or anything else is also going to not make your day go well, once I am done with you. That also means no more bragging about who's going to be right come election day. It's too early to tell and all it will do is stir up more trouble, and when that happens, I will give you all the trouble you could ask for. <big><big><b>Understood?</big></big></b> Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cyprusg Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:52pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/7/04 12:00am (2 edits total) Edited By: Cyprusg
	Ok, so you are saying that Michael Moore had NO POLITICAL MOTIVE with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE?. even though he vowed that it woudl break the NRA's power in politics. Even though he claimed when he screened it in Florida it would destroy Jeb's Re-election as he was an NRA-backed candidate? Even though Moore claimed all NRA-backed candidates would run away from thier positions with his film? Have you even watched Bowling for Columbine? There is barely anything about politics, Moore's intentions are completely irrelevant. Like I said, if Moore thought his documentary about gun violence would have anything to do with the election he was dillusional. Because the exact opposite happened. It has been the Democrats that have been in complete retreat from the Gun Issue, to the point that only the most left-of-left wingers out there still campaign on the Gun Issue. The fact that Moore's response was to remove from his page all references to the 2002 Elections, and has never even acknowledged what happened on that great day of November 5th, 2002. Blah blah blah, how are Moore's comments at all relevant with what we're discussing? You realize that even though Bowling for Columbine "only" made 21 million, that it got a lot of publicity, was pushed by many in the main stream press whom did not realize that the Dems were on the Run on Gun Control. Remember how Jean Carnahan did that ridiculous photo shoot trying to pretend she was a sportsman with the Shotgun? DId not even have the safety off or hand on the trigger, and did not know how to handle the 'kick' of the gun? IT DOES NOT MATTER! It was not a political movie, you need to understand that. But not only that, despite it's good box office numbers for a documentary it certainly didn't have the numbers to potentially effect voters in large numbers. Or how the NRA, back in 1999 vowed they would take out Max Cleland for going back on supporting Gun Owners and sided with Rosie O'Donnell instead? Yet Mary Landrieu stood with America's Gun Owners and the NRA in those dark days after Columbine? What does that have to do with anything? You made the statement that Bowling for Columbine was good for Republicans and by some asinine logic of yours you assume Farhenheit will do the same. First of all, you have to understand that Bowling for Columbine was A.) Not political B.) Didn't have near the exposure to cause any change even if it were. While Farhenheit is A.) 2 hours of Bush bashing B.) The largest grossing documentary of all-time. C.) Set to make over $100 million dollars, which is more than a lot of hollywood blockbusters make Farhenheit is not positive for the Bush administration in any way shape or form. -----signature----- The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cyprusg Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 7/6/04 11:56pm Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Kimball, let us discuss, god dang man. Nobody is insulting anybody, we're just having a discussion. All discussions trail off topic once in a while, but they always get right back on topic. Especially considering how little activity this board gets, you should be promoting discussion, not detering it. -----signature----- The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 7/7/04 2:21am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	This thread is to discuss the impending US elections; not to throw insults at each other. Calling someone delusional is an insult; as is implying one side supports Satan. Discussing Mike Moore has a thread and this isn't it. I believe Kimball was pretty clear, but you go ahead cyprus, be a martyr for the cause... E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
liberalmaverick Registered: Feb '04	Date Posted: 7/7/04 2:34am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Just a side note: The first post with all the election and candidate information sorely needs an update. And the title of this thread should really be more officious, something along the lines of "2004 United States National Elections" like Obi-Wan McCartney's original "OT" thread. Btw, putting the presidential candidates' name in the thread title may have the effect of having too much discussion on the Presidential race and not enough on Congressional ones, which are just as, if not more, important as the White House. JediSmuggler: Edwards is going to help Kerry a little in terms of votes from women. Perhaps, but Democrats already have a lock on the female vote anyway. A majority of women would have voted for Sen. Kerry regardless of who he chose. However, there are some big problems that selecting Edwards has created. * The Chamber of Commerce will be working against Kerry/Edwards. For a Democrat to win the Presidency, they have to keep the Chamber of Commerce on the sidelines. There will be a backlash from business that will lead to action. There is a visceral dislike of trial lawyers. This much is true. Good thing elections can't be bought then... in theory. * Edwards will hurt Kerry in places where medical malpractice premiums have forced doctors to close up shop. Pennsylvania is one of those states. So is Florida. The "lawyer tax" created by class-action lawsuits is an issue now. I don't think this whole trial lawyer/tort reform/medical malpractice issue will hurt Democrats too much if we (by "we" I mean Democrats) offer solid debate. I just finished reading Had Enough? by James Carville, in which he explains that malpractice lawsuits constitute a minimal (1 percent) portion of health care cost increases since President Clinton left office. * Face it, Kerry courted McCain big-time and got spurned. Edwards is his second choice. Kerry even took some shots at Edwards in the primary. This could be painted as another Kerry flip-flop. Did you think Gov. Reagan made a wise move in choosing George H.W. Bush as his running mate in 1980, or Sen. Kennedy with Sen. Johnson in 1960? You better say yes, lest you be painted with doing a flip-flop. * Edwards might not really help in the South. It wasn't even a sure thing that he would win re-election. He retired to run for President. It is truly doubtful that Sen. Edwards will help the ticket carry his home state, though it might put the state in play and make the GOP spend money there (similar to how Republicans think Gov. Schwarzenegger will make California competitive... yeah right). Edwards will help in Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Midwestern swing states, however. And if he does motivate voters to come out and vote, he may help Democratic Senate candidates in the South and Midwest as well. dizfactor: courting him so publicly was monumentally stupid for Kerry. Actually, the truth was that Kerry never courted Sen. McCain publicly. It was all just overblown by the media. If you actually read the news reports on the subject, both Senators denied that one asked the other to be his running mate. When asked if they had even talked about the subject of the Vice Presidency, McCain said no (though the fact that he hesitated for a few seconds before answering might have only helped to fuel the fans of rumor). I often criticize the media for being overly sensationalist, and while I will do so again this time I have to say that I can't blame them for it, since this stuff is pretty juicy and few reporters could have had the foresight to see what damage (if any) their overreporting of Kerry/McCain would do in the future. ShaneP: McCain is about as big a spending cutter as you will find in either chamber. Well, except for Ron Paul. They both are solid Goldwater-Reagan Republicans. I do think that McCain's moderate bona fides are exaggerated by everyone. He did oppose the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the 2003 Medicare reform, though. I didn't see him moderate enough to run on a Democratic ticket with Kerry, though, and aside from political benefits I thought a Kerry-McCain ticket would be traitorous, unwise and ideologically corrupt. So let's see: We have a billionaire by marriage and a millionaire by birthright at the top of the tickets. We have a trial lawyer and big oil man at the bottom. Yehoo! Great choices. Hey, don't forget about the 70-year old geezer who has never had a wife or a car. It's amazing how so-called "progressives" claim they're for progress yet have done more to stratify people into ethnic groups. That is incredibly regressive. No, we progressives are facing the honest realities about racial inequities in this country and working to get rid of those inequities so that one day we can truly have a race-blind USA. Conservatives, on the other hand, are closing their eyes to a glaring problem. It's about class, not enthnicity or race. That's where the true inequality is. That's true, but class is in many ways tied closely to ethnicity and race - African Americans being an example. And Will Smith is an exception to the rule. KnightWriter: Speaking of Nader, Arizona is going to be an interesting state for reasons beyond what was initially expected, because Nader is officially off the ballot here. It'll be Bush vs. Kerry only here, without Nader to siphon any votes. Last I heard, though, President Bush was doing quite well in the polls, even with Mr. Nader as one of the choices. The polls aside, I don't see Arizona as much of a battleground state. A lot of Arizonians were former Californian Republicans who were fleeing from an increasingly Democratic state government. I doubt it. This is an energized state, and there's plenty of support for both sides. What we need here is hispanic voter turnout, which has always been low. If Kerry can somehow get that (and I hope he sends Edwards out here to help with it), Bush cannot hope to win Arizona. Well, of the two of us you're the expert on Arizona so I'll take your word for it. But what makes a state a solidly partisan state is reliable turnout for Election Day, and if the Hispanics vote this year but not the next, Arizona will either stay a battleground state or join the column of solid Republican states. If reliable Hispanic voters vote in increasing numbers, then yes perhaps Arizona can join California as one of the solid Democratic states. I highly doubt it though. I see much better opportunities for political conversion elsewhere. Madriver: I'm not pro-life myself, but doesn't the highlighted part above mean that abortion is murder to him? Doesn't a pro-lifer believe that abortion is the same as killing your 1 year old infant because you don't want him anymore? If Kerry does believe that life begins at conception then aren't those "children" guaranteed the same inalienable rights that born children receive? I'm not one to speak for Kerry, but it's clear from the quote itself what his position means. First of all, his belief is that life begins at conception. That doesn't necessarily mean human life, with all the rights thereof. Technically speaking, a fetus (or even a zygote) is indeed a living creature, as is a cell. But that's besides the point. Second of all, his stance could not be clearer. His opinion is that life begins at conception, but he is not sure enough of that opinion to be able to use it as a judgment to pass off to others who may not feel the same way. Remember, abortion is a highly divisive and controversial issue with a lot of intangibles and unknowns. Having been wishy-washy myself on this issue, I know. It's very understandable to have a stance on abortion but not demand that others agree or abide by it. Kimball_Kinnison: That means no more of the stereotyping or labelling beliefs of anyone else (i.e. "Liberals believe ________" or "Conservatives believe _________"). Uh...I can't even say "liberals believe in strong government in public affairs" (they do) and "conservatives want less government in public affairs" (they do as well)? Seriously, I respect you and I know you mean well, but IMO you're overreacting to the point of being Thought Police. If people flame Kerry and Bush, so what - I doubt that either of them are here on this thread to have their feelings hurt. If other posters are offended by such comments, then it's up to them to act responsibly and in accord with the forum rules, and to not be baited. I have to stand by Cyprusg on this one. Let TripleB ramble on about how great Election Day will be for Republicans and how Democrats are the minions of Satan. I think his opinions are absolutely ridiculous and I pity anyone who actually agrees with him, but I (kinda) respect him for having them and taking the time to, ah, color these debates despite his vacation from the SF. Let him rant his nutty views. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -----signature----- "I would rather be right than be President." - Senator Henry Clay
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 7/7/04 3:54am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Seriously, I respect you and I know you mean well, but IMO you're overreacting to the point of being Thought Police. If people flame Kerry and Bush, so what - I doubt that either of them are here on this thread to have their feelings hurt. If other posters are offended by such comments, then it's up to them to act responsibly and in accord with the forum rules, and to not be baited. It's not Thought Policing, it's keeping discussions on track. I'd agree with your assessment of certain views, but there's little merit in blanket generalisations themselves not based in fact. All statements like "liberals serve Satan" do is, besides make the user look foolish, is cause division and flames and distract from the issue at hand. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vaderize03 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 7/7/04 4:58am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Jedismuggler, polls are meaningless this far out. I also don't trust fox all that much, to be honest with you. Their polls almost always show Bush ahead. As far as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban goes, that is not much of an issue in the cities and suburbs of PA. This is more of a factor in the rural areas, that are GOP to begin with. The cities are what put pennsylvania in play, and they don't like santorum, and, in especially philadelphia, there is strong antipathy for Bush. Same goes for the moderate philadelphia suburbs. Bush is simply too conservative. Peace, V-03 -----signature----- "Bring your pretty face to my axe....." B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!) "I'm what Willis was talking about"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
dizfactor Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 7/7/04 6:07am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	That is the thinking that has helped destroy our republic. Who the hell cares what ethnic group votes this or that? everyone who cares about politics and culture, and isn't so naive as to think it doesn't matter? Is that progressive............pal? yes, it is. absolutely. i would argue that you can't be progressive without it. progressives recognize that people live in communities, and that community life is crucially important to the development of individual identity. recognizing the things that make the black community different from the gay community different from the rural poor etc and embracing those differences is at the core of contemporary progressive politics. it's simply naive to pretend that different groups of people don't think about issues in different ways, as well as to ignore the simple fact that the pressure to look at people primarily as individuals and not as members of communities ultimately serves regressive political ends. it ultimately leads to homogenization, which always always always ends up serving the interests of the dominant cultural group. -----signature----- "Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century." Julian Dibbell "You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat." Gryph
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediSmuggler Registered: Jun '99	Date Posted: 7/7/04 6:20am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney - Date Edited: 7/7/04 6:32am (1 edits total) Edited By: JediSmuggler
	Vaderize03 Then why does Santorum post the LOWEST negatives of any major politician in Pennsylvania? EDIT: Oh, by the way, the United States Senate will be debating tort reform. Maybe medical malpractice reform will be in the mix, too. -----signature----- The military-industrial complex has kept America strong and safe.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBreezy Title: Retired Mos Everett Cantina Founder & JMPR Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 7/7/04 7:24am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Just a thought for those who don't think the addition of Edwards is going to help Kerry. I have a freind who was going to vote for Nader dispite my passionate pleas that doing so would effectively be handing Bush another vote (Like it or not, in the higher eshelons of public office, we are still a two party system). Now with Edwards on the ticket, she has changed her mind and will throw her support behind Kerry. I sincerly think that the addtion of Edwards on the ticket is just the thing to cement the Democratic ticket into a united front. -----signature----- http://boards.theforce.net/beyond_the_saga/b10477/29640754/p1 Dear Tam - an AU post ROTJ story told through the eyes of a child "It's hard, being a Jedi..." - Pem Skywalker Anywhere Is Possible
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 7/7/04 7:37am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	It seems like Kerry owes Edwards everything. It sounds like Kerry is viewed as a "flip side of Bush," while Edwards has the outsider optimism. If this is the case, why didn't Edwards win the ticket in the first place? Is there a growing feeling of "buyer's remorse?" -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediSmuggler Registered: Jun '99	Date Posted: 7/7/04 7:49am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	DarthBreezy The problem is, it means the Democrats have given up a LOT to the trail lawyers. Also, it should be noted that the Edwards campaign has at least one investigation into campaign fundraising. Apparently, at least one employee of Arkansas Trial lawyer Tab Turner was expecting to receive reimbursement for a $2,000 contribution she made to the Presidential campaign of John Edwards. Also, as I said earlier, tort reform will be an issue. People in Florida and Pennsylvania in particular have been suffering because doctors are no longer practicing medicine due to the high cost of malpractice insurance - and the reason for that is the out-of-control malpractice suits and class-action lawsuits brought about by trial lawyers. I think people underestimate how deep the resulting animus towards trial lawyers is. Democrats need to keep business on the sidelines. That is NOT going to happen in this election. The selection of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate is going to be seen by the medical associations and the business associations as a delcaration of war. -----signature----- The military-industrial complex has kept America strong and safe.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 7/7/04 8:20am Subject: RE: It's Unofficially Official: Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney
	Is there a growing feeling of "buyer's remorse?" How about we admit that when you admit that you WANT there to be a feeling of buyer's remorse? At which point we can do some things like invalidate some of your arguments concerning Richard Clarke and other less than professional assertions coming from someone who stresses the importance of being professional. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 » - Previous | Next | Reload