quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec First of all its ridiculous to say Kerry didn't attack Bush as much. Reason being: Debates--- He won the nationally televised Debates on that...He started his rebuttals by attacking Bush and his adminstration. Then he used the remaining time to talk about himself...and his "I have a plan." He lost the easiest to win election in American History.

Overtaking a war-time president has historically been a losing scenario for any challenger. Your sentiments of "losing the easiest election to win" ring hollow on that fact alone.

quote:

Now as to why he lost? Culture----- Senator Kerry was never going to be credible as a faith-based candidate... It's not... who he is and it's not what he's about. He didn't need to be. What he needed to do was let a vast swath of Americans (particularly in the middle of the country) know that he shared their cultural concerns. Chief among these are the porno-ization of American media, the sexualization of children and the "pimp and ho" Rap culture...... Kerry never uttered a critical word of the media sewer. He aligned himself with Hollywood, the music industry and Big New York media. He paid the price in exurbia.

So his ticket to win Florida was to condemn rappers? Damn, if only he knew it was that easy.

quote:

Lifestyle----- Pick your poison: wind-surfing, wind-surfing outfits, snow-boarding outfits, $8000 bicycles, the daughter's dress at Cannes, Teresa, Nantucket. A veritable Robin Leach smorgasbord. Teresa especially was emblematic of the Kerry disconnect.

Umph, soooo different than Bush's millions, I suppose.

Jesus, not this "Kerry has more money" bullshit argument again!

quote:

Rationale--- Kerry's book on Bush might have been called Liar, Incompetent, Moron, Fool. It was never going to sell above 50%. It felt good and it ginned up the base, but a majority of people simply did not and do not share this view of President Bush..... The court martial strategy was too harsh. A "gold-watch strategy" -- in which President Bush was thanked for his service and shown the door -- was much more in tune with the national mood.

I disagree, as do the statistics. According to the exit polls, what issues mattered most - moral values, Iraq, and terrorism. The 2nd and 3rd issue favored Bush over Kerry from the getgo (remember the war-time president rule), but Kerry had made significant progress on Bush here (rightfully so, I might add). The first issue was really the sleeper issue, which overall made no significant impact, which I stated back on
this thread, but had ENOUGH impact on those key states, as well as make the popular vote look more impressive.

Honestly I was bettin' against Kerry from the getgo primarily for those last 2 reasons, but top it off with some good 'ol Southern discrimination, and he has no chance in hell.

quote:

Bush as initiator, Kerry as consolidator was a potentially powerful paradigm.

How 'bout Bush being a "uniter, not a divider"?

quote:

And it would have enabled Kerry to portray Bush as spent; exhausted by the stress and bone-crushing pressures of the job.

Why would he - Bush did that all on his own during the 1st debate:

"It's hard work!"
"It's hard work!"
"Workin' on Saturdays...."

Okay, maybe that last one was from SNL, but you get the idea.

quote:

Americans were and are grateful to Bush for his superb leadership in the wake of 9/11... They were never going to fire him. They might have retired him.

Have you ever asked yourself what any other President in Bush's position would have done? Would they have honestly responded any differently, outside of trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 and invade them as a consequence?

quote:

Strategy---- Karl Rove "the Architect" Did the Kerry campaign really imagine that they could out direct-market Karl Rove? By buying into the 17-state strategy, they walked right into Rove's trap. By reducing the battlefield, they enlarged the Bush campaign's tactical brilliance. The key to defeating Bush in the biggest national election since 1968 was to nationalize the race, not localize it. And the way to do that was to do it, with national campaign advertising, national campaigning and a direct national appeal that said======= this is not Florida's election or Ohio's election, this is your election. You pay the bills, you have a right to be heard. I will not disenfranchise you...... I will not marginalize your vote.

Actually I agree with you about Rove, but I disagree about local vs. national strategy - I think the Dems. underestimated the grassroots strategy by the Republicans a great deal, and the Repubs. were the ones that carried the local strategy through to win the national map. Local elections and local issues bring folks to the polls.

quote:

Yes, national advertising and campaigning is inefficient and expensive.... But the Kerry camp had money to burn...Look at Teresa's BANK ACCOUNT for crying outloud. Had they advertised nationally (and had the DNC supported national advertising with thematic national advertising of its own), the Kerry campaign could have built a much bigger lead in national polling and put a great deal more pressure on the Bush campaign early...... By changing the scope of the battlefield, the Kerry campaign could have maximized the Bush campaign's most glaring weakness, which was communications.

Then why didn't Bush advertise more here in Kansas?

Why didn't he advertise more in Oklahoma?

There is an electoral vote strategy played by both sides, and the Republicans won it this time around.

And personal finances by Teresa wouldn't have boded well with the voters by any measure. I doubt that would be a good strategy for any candidate to follow.

quote:

War-- I never thought the metaphor for Kerry's waffling on the War issue was the famous "I voted for it, before I voted against it" quote. John Edwards was the problem. A presidential campaign has five Big moments; the VP selection, the convention speech and the three debates........ The first of these was a disaster for Kerry because it sent exactly the wrong message about his view of the War on Terror. Two guys who voted against funding? Yea Yea bring your facts..but the average american didn't have time to check these out and let this famous quote sink in.

Bingo - who defined whom here? Kerry didn't strike back hard enough on this. I concur.

Edwards wasn't the best "war-time" VP, I suppose, but he did do well in garnering the grassroots Populist message. Of course, not good enough, but that was the primary purpose of his candidacy.

quote:

Media/HollyWood----The Average American doesnt want to be affiliated with those scumbag millionares from hollywood. They backlashed against the bias media........ It was evident that Fox news as the nonliberal news network, was pulling all the ratings on cable. Basically the American people realized how CBS and other news networks were pushing this candidate to try to win. It didnt work buddy.

Please don't pull that "darn liberal media" rhetoric again, will you? Outside of Rather's stupidity, I have yet to see any firm evidence that the media sways one way or the other. Arguments can be made for either case, which overall the bottom issue is sensationalism and the almighty dollar.

The media is a business, and it cares 2 shits about who's elected so long as they outcompete their competitors.

quote:

In the end is boils down to: The democrats will spend months looking for excuses while ignoring the truth...... People voted for President Bush because he is an Honorable, Moral, Decent, Caring, man with Integrity..... We know that what is says is what he means and he will do what he says.....

***mmghgpeafsdghgh***

Sorry, I just had a little throw-up in my mouth to clean out there. You've been lambasted on numerous occasions on this forum, speed, for pushing this bullshit rhetoric about Bush. We've given numerous instances of Bush's distortions and blatant flip-flopping;

Are you really trying to act as if all that never happened? Surely you jest.

quote:

The democrats put forward a man with no Character, Dishonest, who only attends a church to get votes, and will do or say anthing to get elected.

Oh yes, God forbid a liberal Christian is in the midst.

You honestly think him saying or doing anything to get elected is really any different than Bush, or any other freakin' Republican politician for that matter?

Surely you jest?

quote:

People saw the difference and voted for the one they knew they could trust. democrats will never understand that simple fact.

Well judging by the way you present it, I suppose no we will never understand it. Perhaps it simply boils down to these simple things:

1. War-time presidents usually get re-elected

2. Fear plays well into the presidency, and most war-time presidents know this and use it to their advantage

You think its any coincidence that Bush decided to have his convention surrounding 9/11, even though he stated in the past that he will never politicize 9/11?

3. Kerry wasn't the best choice, and it was a mistake of the Dems. to elect him on the basis of him being the "most presidential". Stupid logic. They didn't see past this superficiality personally.

I'd have to say that out of all the candidates back in March, Clarke would have likely been the best one. I'm tempted as hell to say Dean, but that opens up a can of worms that I don't have time to defend right now (and I'm not sure I could very well anyway).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover What the world saw with this election is that there is indeed a division in the USA, but that division is the division religious belief in america. This is the fact. This was a battle between faithful christian america and unfaithful or non-christian america and if you don't believe this you are just plain ignorant or in denial. The opposition opposed Bush because of his beliefs and strong morals. I don't really think it was so much about Iraq honestly. I believe now that was mostly a liberal front. It could have been donald duck instead of Kerry and it would have made no difference. They voted to oppose Bush and everything christian that he represents. This is the other side of america. As much as liberal america would like everyone to believe, a moral christian america is still very much alive and strong. God bless America.

Disclaimer Note on Electronic Dance Music:

This form of music inspires drug usage, sex, and general immoral behavior. Please delete all of your Dance Music files, throw away all of your CD's and records. Then proceed cautiously to your nearest music store and buy as many Christian Rock CD's as your on hand monetary assets will allow.

Dance Music is not for the weak or deeply religious.

Thank You.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 sorry for pointing this logical flaw out: How can you say that he is "too far left", yet never made his political standpoint clear? It's either or, since you wouldn't know that he was too far left, in which case you know where he stands on certain issues, or he did not make his standpoint clear, in which case you should not be able to say that he is too far left, since you do not know what his standpoint is.

Because I took the effort to go to his web page and do a little extra research about his positions thats why. Particularly his economic plan of which there was very little solid details to substantiate it. I really thought I might find some hard numbers serious details on how he planned to fulfill all his promises. I really gave him the benefit of the doubt. But I was wrong. There was no substance.

His religious views ect. only came out breifly and left ppl wondering what exactly he did believe. He said he was catholic yet didn't believe half of what the catholic doctorine.

If all the average american ppl saw were the debates and didn't do any extra research I think they would think most probably feel confused as I did. And still do about some issues. The exception might be those people in florida and ohio since they got lectured by him and Bush day in and day out but even then it seemed like mostly Kerry just throwing out insults and no real substance about his domestic or foreign plans.

Last edited by tecnolover on Nov-10-2004 at 01:51

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue Disclaimer Note on Electronic Dance Music: This form of music inspires drug usage, sex, and general immoral behavior. Please delete all of your Dance Music files, throw away all of your CD's and records. Then proceed cautiously to your nearest music store and buy as many Christian Rock CD's as your on hand monetary assets will allow. Dance Music is not for the weak or deeply religious. Thank You.

Yeah. Cuz only you special goat fluffers are allowed to enjoy trance music. That is one of the more asinine comments I have seen in a while.



Topic change: Does culture create music, or does music create culture? Discuss.


Damn. First time I've been censored on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec He lost the easiest to win election in American History. quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Overtaking a war-time president has historically been a losing scenario for any challenger. Your sentiments of "losing the easiest election to win" ring hollow on that fact alone.

Speedracer good post by the way. However, I'm with Opus on this. Given the situations I can't agree that this was an 'easy election to win' for anyone running against Bush. Just the contrary actually.

Opus, the reason I didn't include the 'war time president' thing on my Kerry bad list was because I don't consider that Kerry's or his campaign's fault. He just happened to pick a difficult time to run for office.

quote:

Have you ever asked yourself what any other President in Bush's position would have done? Would they have honestly responded any differently, outside of trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 and invade them as a consequence?

That just depends on whether our elected president would be like the president of Spain or not. I would certainly hope we would never elect such a weak leader.

Sorry, Spain no offense but I honestly wished your president would have stood up to those bullies with some balls like a lot of the other US allies have. The worst thing you can do is to show fear to the enemy. I really wish your response would have been to send even more of your troops into Iraq. That would have been a defeat for terrorism instead of a victory.

quote:

Edwards wasn't the best "war-time" VP, I suppose, but he did do well in garnering the grassroots Populist message. Of course, not good enough, but that was the primary purpose of his candidacy.

Ah, Opus you just reminded me of a point I forgot to mention. The presidents cabinet and VP. Bush admin was strongly favored IMO over Kerry because of the incredible strength of the cabinet and VP. How can you even compare an Edwards with the likes of Cheney. And the powerful cabinet of Rumsfeld, Powell and Condaleeza Rice. Bush surrounded himself with fabulous people. All great leaders do.

quote:

quote: In the end is boils down to: The democrats will spend months looking for excuses while ignoring the truth...... People voted for President Bush because he is an Honorable, Moral, Decent, Caring, man with Integrity..... We know that what is says is what he means and he will do what he says..... ***mmghgpeafsdghgh*** Sorry, I just had a little throw-up in my mouth to clean out there.

It is quite easy for people to laugh at this Opus, but Speedracer is right. A lot of it did come down to that. Bush has established himself and people knew where he stood on many diferent grounds. Go ahead and gag and choke and laugh but morality is very important. I know you liberals forget this, ofcourse if your candidate had any maybe you'de be flauting it also. Woah did I say that? Forgive my bluntness sometimes. Really I'm not a mean guy just sometimes a bit blunt. Just take some of my blunt comments and diminish them by 1/3 and you will have my accurate sentiments.

quote:

You honestly think him saying or doing anything to get elected is really any different than Bush, or any other freakin' Republican politician for that matter?

Maybe this isn't the right place for this but let me set the record straight. I consider myself a moderate not a conservative. At least I strive to be moderate. Yes, I'm a strong christian (sheesh, i must hold the record now for saying that word more than anyone here before. ierxium are you keeping a running count? lol) follower. However, I don't agree with Bush on all things. Suprise! I do think his plus's outwiegh his minus's though.

Here's my big beef. The way he went to war with Iraq does not sit so well with me. Not that i'm against us going to war with Iraq because I'm not. It was strategically brilliant and I completely agree that Iraq was the starting point in the peace plan Bush and Blair spoke of. I know this and accept that and I have justified it to myself because I share Bush's vision. What i didn't like is that he wasn't fully honest about the exact intentions and stressed WMD and evil Saddam as the main reasons for war. He didn't lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth you might say. There was the possibility of WMD and the threat to Israel and yes Saddam was a evil man. Imo there was probably just barely enough intel of WMD to be able to justify the war to US citizens and congress. Bush went with that because in his opinion the US citizens and congress would not understand the main reason. Also they would not justify the invasion of foreign country without direct threat to the USA. Bush needed the US public and allied nation support. Was this wrong? Yes it was to some degree because it was a bit decietful as his father was about the first Gulf War. Same technique used. No lies, just not telling the entire truth in order to gain public support. Yet everything Bush senior and Bush junior have done has been in our nations best interst imo. Gulf war I was about oil which is the life blood of our nation. To deny this and underestimate the dependence our nation has on this is plain ignorance. Gulf war II is about the spreading of democracy in the middle east. The results of which if genuinely sucessful could be of biblical proportions and bring about peace in the middle east and reduce the terrorist threat to the US and worldwide and ensure an oil flow to the US for at least a decade. Not to mention the benefits of the Iraq people. The benefits are worth the risks of our soldiers. So was it wrong what Bush did? Yes. But I have forgave him for it and I see the larger picture of what is at stake. Can all of you?

quote:

You think its any coincidence that Bush decided to have his convention surrounding 9/11, even though he stated in the past that he will never politicize 9/11?

I know you are a conspiracist Opus. Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 and I'm sick of all you Michael Moore sheep conspiricists with your idiotic fictions. I think a lot of the reason Bush didn't win by a greater margin wasn't anything to do with Kerry (as i've said before it could have been donald duck running. made no dif) it had to do with a small but influential hate sentiment in the US for Bush and I think Moore and a lot of these conspiricists are to blame. These last few years have seen more of these wacked ideas come into the mainstream via media outlets than possibly ever in US history. Well it didn't work! So all you M. Moore sheep can just go and climb back in your little holes now for another 4 more years.

quote:

3. Kerry wasn't the best choice, and it was a mistake of the Dems. to elect him on the basis of him being the "most presidential". Stupid logic. They didn't see past this superficiality personally. I'd have to say that out of all the candidates back in March, Clarke would have likely been the best one. I'm tempted as hell to say Dean, but that opens up a can of worms that I don't have time to defend right now (and I'm not sure I could very well anyway).

This i agree with. W. Clarke that is.
peace

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yeah. Cuz only you special goat fluffers are allowed to enjoy trance music. That is one of the more asinine comments I have seen in a while. Topic change: Does culture create music, or does music create culture? Discuss. Damn. First time I've been censored on this forum.

1) I don't listen to shitty trance.

2) You shouldn't have taken it seriously. But what can I expect from people on this forum.

___________________
You have one life to live... SO DANCE!

www.protonradio.com <--- A Higher Experience.

Sorry, i missed this post somewhere. I'll try to get to the other one later. moving on...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So the benefits given to opposite-sex marriages DO fall under "natural rights" then, or not? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain benefits such as being able to see their dying spouse in the hospital because of their "natural rights"? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain tax breaks because they are following "natural rights"?

Benefits such as tax breaks or any financial benefits that are paid by the state tax payer are not a 'natural right'. Hence the term 'benefit'. As I've stated before the state has the right to decide whether they will legally recognize gay marriage and provide equal benefits. It is the states choice. Afterall it is the majority who are paying the taxes to the state and if they don't agree with homosexual conduct in their state why should they have to sponsor it?

quote:

Maybe I'm a bit confused as to what you're arguing here. Yes there is a government financial aspect involved here, but simply stating as such doesn't explain the rationale behind the discrimination of finances and benefits between one type of marriage/civil union over another. If the argument is, in fact, about money, then you're going to have to explain the logical differences between what our government arbitrarily chooses relationships between 2 consenting adults should and should not be given finances, tax breaks, and benefits. What would they base their rationale upon here?

Again, If the majority in a democracy choose to not sponsor gay marriage by providing benefits it has that right. It's the tax payers money. They have the right to say what their money should and should not be spent on. This does not constitute a natural rights violation of the gay party. If it does then please explain it to me how. This issue seems quite clear to me and it's darn close to Bush's position except that I don't completely agree with his marriage amendment. I really believe this whole issue should be handled at the state level, not the federal. Let californian's pay for all the gays benefits if they so desire. Not in my state! We will not pay one cent of our income for gay benefits of any kind and why should we have to? To do so would also be condoning or sponsoring homosexual behaviour which I do not. If you take away my hard earned money as benefits for a group of people who i by my religious views consider immoral than you infringe on my natural rights do you not? Bottom line here is I should not have to pay for something that is against my religious beliefs.

quote:

I think we've seen enough of how Christians have historically defined natural rights. Needless to say, I tend to be quite elated when the Christian definition of "natural rights" has slowly broadened to include slavery, women, marriages among African-Americans, and marriages among interracial couples over the past coupla hundred years or so. I see no reason why "natural rights" should not include same-sex marriages/civil unions and give them the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages. Perhaps we need a working definition of "natural rights" before we can go much further.

Well natural rights was outlined in the DOI and comprises the rights outlined in the BOR. Below is the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now tell me where in there it says that everyone is to recieve equal benefits from the state? end of discussion. A state may even choose to recognize gay marriage but it's still going have a different identity in the legal system of that state and not necessarily eligible for the same benefits as traditional marriage. Again, it's the states choice.

edit Good Lord, this is turning into another anti gay marriage thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Actually, this dimwit might win: Representin' the Jessica Simpsons of the world, like, for reals yo.

wow...CUTE!!

___________________
Buying trance is a lot like buying a car. Don`t buy American.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Representin' the Jessica Simpsons of the world, like, for reals yo.

Didn't her and Britney Spears speak at the GOP convention?

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Didn't her and Britney Spears speak at the GOP convention?

I don't think so. I wasn't even in the country when the RNC was going on so I missed most of it, but I'd be surprised if those two were present.

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue 1) I don't listen to shitty trance. 2) You shouldn't have taken it seriously. But what can I expect from people on this forum.

Who knows, but it's hard to discern sarcasm in a post sometimes.