Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:08 am
Good points leg4li2ed0pe.
Your source for storage related news and reviews.
http://www.cdrlabs.com/forums/
http://www.cdrlabs.com/forums/news-alert-president-reagan-has-died-t16603-75.html
Ian wrote:Yeah, Nader is going to screw it up again. I think Gore would have won (oh wait.. he did win) last time if it weren't for him.
XXXXX wrote:They have absolutely no idea what they are generating with people like this, instead of picking someone like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman to lead their charges. .
XXXXX wrote:In the end, Bush will win this election because he is cheerful, optimistic, moral, steadfast, and personably likeable. .
XXXXX wrote:He is smart enough to personally not speak negatively about Kerry. His ads do that job, but unlike Kerry & Gore, in speeches he understands the importance of being positive and upbeat.
XXXXX wrote:If you are lucky, you will begin to realize that there is no cheese down the attack/negative tunnels of your rat maze.
Ian wrote:wtf.. I dont have off on Friday.
If I remember right, Gore got more votes overall, but not enough electoral ones to win.
ClayBuster wrote:Ian wrote:wtf.. I dont have off on Friday.
If I remember right, Gore got more votes overall, but not enough electoral ones to win.
That is correct therefore he DID NOT WIN
ruderacer wrote:How about in 1984? Was Mondale a good candidate and did he represent what Americans wanted? I think not! Just look at what the American people said. http://www.multied.com/elections/1984state.html
Ian wrote:Yeah, Nader is going to screw it up again. I think Gore would have won (oh wait.. he did win) last time if it weren't for him.
aviationwiz wrote:Of course you would want Zell Miller, he's the "conservative democrat" he's an a**. Now, John McCain on the other hand is a great guy.
OK, those are opinions, but as per "personably likeable" I'm sure the person that went up to Bush and gave him some critism and Bush told him "Who cares what you think" really likes him!
XXXXX wrote:He is smart enough to personally not speak negatively about Kerry. His ads do that job, but unlike Kerry & Gore, in speeches he understands the importance of being positive and upbeat.
Now your just getting plain ridiculous, I was watching Bush ads at school with a friend (yes, Bush ads) and someone told us to stop watching Kerry ads, because each ad talked about Kerry, and not Bush. Look at Bush's website: http://www.georgewbush.com/default2.aspx
If you go to georgewbush.com it links you to a temporary site remembering Reagan, but there is a link to that main site. OK, going on, "Kerry Media Center" Gee, he sure is focused on running a positive campaign, isn't he? Watch some of his ads, 80% of them are negative. Also, have you listened to Cheney's speaches, he's the running mate after all, he represents the campaign too, each of his speaches is negative to Kerry.
They even have a "Kerry Tracker" do they love Kerry so much that they want thier supporters to always know where he is? That's sweet, now isn't it.
Attack/Negative, see my portion above. 80-85% of Bush advertising is negative, attack ads. 15-20% of Kerry's ad's are negative attack ads. Do the math, so who attacks who more?
Needless to mention, in recent weeks, support for President Bush has been sliding to record low levels.
Ian wrote:wtf.. I dont have off on Friday.
If I remember right, Gore got more votes overall, but not enough electoral ones to win.
aviationwiz wrote:ClayBuster wrote:Ian wrote:wtf.. I dont have off on Friday.
If I remember right, Gore got more votes overall, but not enough electoral ones to win.
That is correct therefore he DID NOT WIN
Well, 2 independent groups confirmed that Gore won the Flordia State Election, which was flawed as it was, with them not allowing blacks to vote, etc.
1 group claimed that Bush won the Florida State Election overall, but if you look at the facts, it's clear that Gore won.
...today, The Miami Herald published the results of its statewide review of the "undervotes," those ballots which recorded no clear choice for president, and which added terms like "hanging chad" and "dimpled Chad" to the popular lexicon. Acting in concert with USA Today, the Herald hired an accounting firm, B.D.O. Seidman, to help it review the undervotes in all of Florida's 67 counties.
The paper determined that had the court-ordered recounts continued in Florida, President Bush still would have won under almost all scenarios. Indeed, the paper wrote, the 537-vote Bush lead would have "tripled to 1,665 under the generous counting standards advocated by Democrat Al Gore."
XXXXX wrote:If certain groups were too stupid to be able to make a simple punch all the way through a piece of paper, or not able to read the Pat Buchanan line on the ballots designed by the democratic precinct leader, or had themselves be turned away because of inadequate identification, that is the result they deserve. There are significant percentages of errors in almost every state similar to these. It is never a 100% perfect situation in any vote involving over a hundred million people.
But keep crying about losing the last election. It will get your man Kerry re-elected....what dumbasses!
leg4li2ed0pe wrote:In response to XXXXX:
Carter was probobly the best president we ever had. He had some problems in the execution but he had the best ideas for the country of any president ever. Don't get me wrong though he wasn't perfect.
I didn't always agree with clinton. He seriously screwed up wellfare and his bombing of iraq was definatly not necessary. kenedy had some major problems. He almost caused nuclear war with his bay of pigs invasion. The cuban missile chrisis wouldn't even have happened without him. Johnson was one of the major causes of the vietnam war so I obviously have a problem with him. Trueman started the cold war and the military buildup that it included. If he hadn't characterized communism as necessarily evil we would have avoided alot of problems. Under FDR perfectly good food that could have been givin to millions of starving people was dumped and destroyed.
I just dont want the overshow of support to affect how Reagan is thought of by historians and others. He was still not a good president. Thats why I attack him even in death.
As for your comments about kerry, he is running a terrible compaign. He doesn't say anything. I listen to the man talk and all I hear is talk abuot leadership and not about policy. That being said I hear the same from bush. Gore is better now than he was when he was running. If he had acted like he is now, then, it would have been much harder for bush to steal the election from him.
Clinton may have been animated but as much as you seem to be worried about how people put across their ideas I think it is the ideas themselves that matter.
Bush did a bad job after 9/11. Let's stop kidding ourselves about that. The "with us or against us" bullshit needed to stop. It was a great way to squander what support we had after the attacks. Whether we should have gone into afghanistan is also debatable.
Even though kerry is running a terrible campaign he is still ahead in the polls. They aren't really "sinking" themselves. It's bush's Iraq that is doing that.
Im sick of hearing this stay the course arguement. Both kerry and bush are trying to make it but people are identifying bush with it. Stay what course? Its like realizing you are going in the wrong direction and doubling your speed because of it. Its like saying damnit bush drove us into a ditch but he should be the one to get us out.
The iraq resolution is nice but it doesnt really do anything. We should have given france (and most of the iraqi people, the ones not appointed by us) what they wanted, a veto power against american operations. Also as long as the US is in control of the military situation nobody is going to contribute. It has to become a UN led operation. Maybe the US should even pull out completly within a few months. We are so arrogant in thinking that if we leave there will be nothing there and there will be some sort of power vacume. It means we think the Iraqis would be unable to govern themselves. It was this same thinking that caused america to become an imperialist power at the beginning of the 20th century.
Did you know 75% of bush's ads are negative while only 25% of kerry's are? Now I know the 527s are running mostly negative ads but it does come from both sides.
This comment deserves to get quoted. "They have absolutely no idea what they are generating with people like this, instead of picking someone like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman to lead their charges. Why do you suppose Ralph Nader is stealing 5-7% of the vote primarily from Kerry? He will be your spoiler....lol! "
I dont know what you are trying to say but it doesn't make sense. First you say we should nominate zel miller. I have news for you, zel miller endorsed george bush a long time ago. He would even refuse to run if asked. Lieberman is also extremly moderate. Neither of these two really stand for anything. Here is where your comment gets even wierder. You say that it is because the democrats didn't nominate an extreme moderate the nader is doing well. Nader is a liberal. If the democrats had nominated an extreme moderate Nader would be doing better not worse. The really liberal people in the democratic party would vote for him because they don't like the moderates. If a party wants to destroy a spoiler like that they nominate someone to the far right or left. Not a moderate. That being said kerry is reletivly moderate contrary to what your sig says. The whole party is.
You are really just as closed minded as much of the democratic party is. Its a problem with both sides. Your post demonstrates that.
leg4li2ed0pe wrote:The issue isn't really about whether gore won florida after the recount Gore would have won if many ex-cons who were legaly supposed to be allowed to vote, and been given their right. Also many of the people not allowed to vote were'nt even really ex-cons, just african american. Since african americans overwhelmingly vote democratic it can be assumed that gore would have won in such a close election. BTW XXXXX I await your reply to my other post.
leg4li2ed0pe wrote:you just wont debate me will you XXXXX? You are happy to debate aviationwiz but you won't debate me? Wonder why that is? Do you not have any counter arguements against me?
aviationwiz wrote:XXXXX wrote:If certain groups were too stupid to be able to make a simple punch all the way through a piece of paper, or not able to read the Pat Buchanan line on the ballots designed by the democratic precinct leader, or had themselves be turned away because of inadequate identification, that is the result they deserve. There are significant percentages of errors in almost every state similar to these. It is never a 100% perfect situation in any vote involving over a hundred million people.
But keep crying about losing the last election. It will get your man Kerry re-elected....what dumbasses!
OK, so by "certain groups were too stupid..." I assume you mean *ALL* the people of the state of Florida, as the ballot was made in a deliberatly confusing manner.
Also, we are not crying about loosing the last election, it seems that when someone wishes to debate how the elections took place in FL (deliberatly confusing ballots, illegal removal from voter registration rolls, etc.) all you guys can say is "Bush won, Gore lost, get over it." you can't prove that the voting was done in an ethical, or even legal manner.