[quote=“mofangongren”]I much prefer the footage of Wolfowitz lubin’ up his comb with a great wad of spit and running it through his hair – not once but twice. He then gets some goo onto his fingers and starts tweaking his hair.
Yeah, that’s how a real man does his hair, right Tigerman?
How about the footage of Bush wearing wildly rouged makeup, with lots of people hovering over him putting his every hair into place. Is that how a real man does it?[/quote]
I don’t know.
I once went several years without ever combing my hair.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Seems every election year some folks bemoan the state of political campaigning and the general lack of civility involved,
[/quote]
Yes I suppose we do tend to get a little elitist. However wouldn’t it be nice to see each candidate grilled for an hour on say health policy by a panel of health care experts, not journos. A chance for a real in depth look at what each candidate was about rather than the two minute soundbite precesion that the actual debates became. It would be nice to see the candidates put under real pressure to explain their ideas fully. With an hour on one topic they would pretty much have to go off message and actually say something of significance.
Reagan received nearly all of the electoral votes in 1980 and 1984. Republicans might be hoping to marginalize the Democrats, but they have done it before. As for it being a “mandate”, I don’t believe that the Republicans have a chance of marginalizing Democrats even if they get themselves reelected.
[quote]…But the war against Islamist totalitarianism is not merely a struggle for Muslim minds; it is a struggle for American ones as well. In the weeks after September 11, Bush presided over a country more united–with more faith in its government–than at any other time in recent memory. He has squandered that unity and trust for the cheapest of reasons. His administration has used the war on terrorism as a bludgeon against congressional Democrats and has implied that its critics are aiding the enemy. And it has repeatedly misled the public–touting supposed evidence of Iraq’s nuclear program that American intelligence analysts knew was highly dubious, rebuking General Eric Shinseki for telling the truth about how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq successfully, and firing Lawrence Lindsey for saying how much it would cost.
The result is a country bitterly divided, distrustful of its government, and weaker as a result. The next time an American president tries to use force in the war on terrorism, he will not merely lack the world’s trust, he will lack much of the American people’s as well. That may be Bush’s most damning legacy of all. He has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.[/quote]
The only man to lose the popular vote yet still be elected President, stories of a divided nation were written about Bush before he took office.
They were saying, CNSNews commentary:[quote]George W. Bush may well go down in history as one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever produced. In relatively short order, he has been able to bring a fractured nation together, following the cataclysmic attack on American soil that occurred on September 11th. The fact that he won the presidency, despite failing to capture the majority of voters in last year’s election, has made his ascendancy in the polls to a nearly 90% approval rating all the more impressive.[/quote]
I don’t see that the Iraq War helped make permanent the bringing together of Americans. I see a strong case for saying that the US is divided.
You could say that if the US is divided, the US is fractured (fractured - to disrupt or destroy as if by breaking: [/i]fractured the delicate balance of power[i]). Many things have become issues that were not when Bush first won in 2000. Policy has changed and Bush has changed his stand on strong issues. The nation wasn’t brought together by issues like sunset of the assault weapon ban, gay marriage, or restrictions on scientific research.
Many people are quite upset about the Iraq situation. Michael J. Fox spoke of his “community” bitter about Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research, as have family members of Ronald Reagan. Of the families of people who experienced assault weapons? When issues like this divide neighbors, we see political signs defaced and we could say that the US is fractured.
You don’t know your history at all, do you? He’s not the only one.
You don’t know your politics at all, either.
Ban sunset – the 1994 AW ban was far more divisive back then than the sunset is today. Clinton attributed 20 Democratic lost seats in the House to that ban, from gun owners throwing out the Democraps who voted in favor of it.
Gay marriage – Bush never supported it; the only thing that “changed” was that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to try to shove the issue up the ass of the rest of the nation. Bush is defending states’ rights to regulate marriage by prohibiting one court in one “liberal” state from forcing every state to accept what not even Massachusetts voters want.
“Restrictions on scientific research” – is that code for “fetal stem cell research”? The whole “issue” is nothing but demagoguery by the Democraps and the abortion lobby. Bush’s only “restriction” is that federal dollars cannot be used to fund such research; he didn’t ban the research, and it is still taking place – just not with Catholics’ tax dollars. Moreover, the issue is bullshit because [color=red]the only areas showing major promise are the use of autotransplanted stem cells – stem cells derived from the same person’s own marrow or fat tissues.[/color] Not only that, but Bush is the first president to fund ANY sort of research into stem cells; prior to him, the Clinton administration never focused ANY money on that area. If that’s your hotbutton issue, you should be begging everyone to vote FOR Bush.
And many more are overjoyed that someone with a spine is standing up to the bullshit being spewed by people like yourself.
I am overjoyed about the sunset of the 1994 OCB “Assault Weapon Ban”. Any neighbors of mine who felt otherwise can, frankly, go screw themselves. I am overjoyed that Saddam Hussein is no longer filling mass graves with innocents (and so are nearly all of the Iraqis). I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the stem cell stuff, at least not beyond the fact that Bush is focusing resources where they might make some difference in people’s lives, as opposed to throwing money at Mengelian experimentation.
If you were better informed, instead of simply a mindless parroter of the Democrappic Party’s “talking points”, you would understand these issues and vote for Bush.
Rephrase that: Bush is the first man in 112 years to win the election after losing the popular vote. After Hayes was elected, they installed the first bathtub in the White House. Maybe you could use a bath?
I did not say Bush changed his stand on all those issues, and I didn’t mean to say that. What I meant to say is that Bush has changed national policy on strong issues. Also, there are many differences of opinion among Americans. You can say strong differences in opinion divide the nation. You can say that the US is fractured. The US was united in support for the Iraq war. A sign of unity is warmth exchanged between people who share different views.
The point was that America is divided. On most of these issues, people don’t care or they strongly care. You can rattle off your views on each, but that wasn’t the point. You stood up to me when I argued that Americans are divided and said that those who are divided can “go screw themselves”? Americans are divided to the extent that they can’t listen to what the other person says. If you can’t take a crap, eat more fiber!
The case for civil war is, I admit, weak because evidence for it hasn’t appeared anywhere in the mainstream. However, as I mentioned above, the evidence for civil disorder is strong; at this time, I admit that it seems to exist only at the margins of civil discourse.
How much you want to bet that, if Bush wins, then sometime in 2005 Ashcroft will bring charges of sedition against some number of American citizens?
[quote=“flike”]How much you want to bet that, if Bush wins, then sometime in 2005 Ashcroft will bring charges of sedition against some number of American citizens?
Box of SNPA on each bet, ya Bushie bastardya.
[/quote]
What’s your estimated net worth for January 1, 2006??
Bush’s latest campaign ad takes the high road. Figuring that voters will opt for him if only they can make a calm, well-reasoned comparison of the candidates, Bush released “Wolves” this week. The ad also ties into Halloween, which is just over a week away.
Next week the Republican ticket will continue the theme of strongly reasoned arguments with their next ad, “Vampires.”
[quote=“jplowman”]Bush’s latest campaign ad takes the high road. Figuring that voters will opt for him if only they can make a calm, well-reasoned comparison of the candidates, Bush released “Wolves” this week. The ad also ties into Halloween, which is just over a week away.
Next week the Republican ticket will continue the theme of strongly reasoned arguments with their next ad, “Vampires.”[/quote]
Cool. Hopefully after the election he’ll do a mummy ad, as in “Waahhhhhhh…I want my mummy!!!”
I suppose it would depend on what one meant by “losing the popular vote”:
1960 Presidential Election
John Fitzgerald Kennedy 34,227,096 (49.7%)
Richard Milhous Nixon 34,107,646 (49.5%)
Harry Flood Byrd 116,248 (0.2%)
National States’ Rights, Socialist, Prohibition, etc. 425,314 (0.6%)
Source: President Elect
1968 Presidential Election
Richard Milhous Nixon 31,710,470 (43.2%)
Hubert Horatio Humphrey 30,898,055 (42.6%)
George Corley Wallace 9,906,473 (12.9%)
Other 0 972,139 (1.3%)
Total 538 73,026,831 (100.0%)
Source: Wikipedia
[quote=“twocs”]Also, there are many differences of opinion among Americans. You can say strong differences in opinion divide the nation. You can say that the US is fractured. The US was united in support for the Iraq war. A sign of unity is warmth exchanged between people who share different views.The point was that America is divided.[/quote] Point taken, but as shown above, difference of opinion among Americans is not unprecedented.
[/quote]