NEWS ALERT: President Reagan Has Died

[Ian]

Good points leg4li2ed0pe.

[ruderacer]

When this Post was started, by aviationwiz, it was to inform the members of the death of former President Ronald Reagan. Soon after, it became a place to bash former President Reagan; however, most paid their respects to this great man and to his family.

Those of you, which claim that he was not a great president; in 1980, do you think that if Carter would have been re-elected he would have done better or continue to sink this country deeper? I think not and much deeper! http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html Maybe, the American people were tired and wanted a better leader?

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

It is easy to criticize especially when you don’t have to make decisions that will affect your country and people. I wonder, those of you that criticize, would you have done any better?

No one man is perfect, but President Reagan’s goal was to bring America back to the place ‘She’ once held, World Leader.

When President Reagan took office, he represented just the Man this country needed at that time. His optimism and love for this country is and was second to none.

Once again, I would like to express my condolences to his family and friends.

[XXXXX]

Me too. However, there are those who are not able to show respect even as a president has died. In contrast, these same people will not utter a single negative thing about a Democratic President.

They actually believe that continuing to bash the republican leaders, despite there now being a tri-fecta majority in all branches of federal government is somehow going to get what they want.

All it does is polarize people to fight back more fiercely. To attack Reagan at the time of his death, and despite the Gallop and other polls that clearly show him to be one of the most respected presidents of all time just shows their angry and crude stupidity.

The reason that Carter & Mondale lost is fundamentally because they lacked superior ideas that represented the majority of Americans. Kerry suffers from the same disease, but also has a depressed, sourpuss facial countenance and disposition. He does not inspire or excite anyone, nor did Al "The Frozen Stick" Gore. In contrast, Clinton was animated and able to present an understandable set of ideas that got him elected twice.

Neither Clinton or Bush are the best presidents we have had, but they are also not the worst. The typical liberal democrat is not even able to admit that Bush did an excellent job in the short term following 9/11....they instead dismiss it as anyone in office would have been great.

So let them bash and moan. Let Gore screech, and Kennedy get drunk (again). Let George Soros waste his millions. Their approach is all to generate a negative and attacking tone, which Americans are repulsed by. I'm laughing my ass off watching them sink their own ship....The hideously plastic surgerized Nancy "Bug Eyes" Pelosi is the typical type of leader that they pick.

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!

In the end, Bush will win this election because he is cheerful, optimistic, moral, steadfast, and personably likeable. Combined with the dramatically improving economy and Iraq situation (unanimous resolution passed UN for Iraq recognition today), his ratings will climb back up, and he will win. 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.

The re-election of George Bush, and holding onto majorities in the Senate and House will be the bitter pill these ignorant and close minded liberals will have to swallow. Get ready to take your medicine boys. If you are lucky, you will begin to realize that there is no cheese down the attack/negative tunnels of your rat maze.

[Ian]

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.

[ClayBuster]

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.

If he did Win he would now be the President.

[dodecahedron]

didn't you mean:
"If he had a brother as a governer he would now be President" ?

[ClayBuster]

LMFAO Not exactly!

[aviationwiz]

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. .

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.

In the end, Bush will win this election because he is cheerful, optimistic, moral, steadfast, and personably likeable. .

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!

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.

If you are lucky, you will begin to realize that there is no cheese down the attack/negative tunnels of your rat maze.

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.

[aviationwiz]

Actual News Update regarding original purpose of this thread!

Due to President Reagan's funeral on Friday, the federal government will be closed, including the Postal Service.

[Ian]

wtf.. I dont have off on Friday.

If I remember right, Gore got more votes overall, but not enough electoral ones to win.

[ClayBuster]

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

[aviationwiz]

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.

[aviationwiz]

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

What! I can't help it if only Minnesota made the right decision!

[leg4li2ed0pe]

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.

[XXXXX]

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.

Actually, if you read about the final independent assessment of the Florida vote recounts done under the scrutiny of multiple news organizations, the final count still gave the election to Bush, so Gore did not win.

To this day, Democrats whine like little babies under the illusion that we don't or shouldn't use the Electoral College. The USA uses the Electoral College method to elect presidents, which can go against either party in any election. They just don't want to deal with that reality.

Next they move on to the Supreme Court elected Bush issue....lol! In reality, the liberal Florida Supreme Court decided to extend the time for selected pro-democratic precincts to continue counting votes, and did so in a manner that by their own admission, was sidestepping the intent of the Florida legislature, and creating law where there was none. Because it involve a federal election, the US Supreme Court rightly reversed the Florida Court's abuse of its power, and the deadline that Katherine Harris established for vote submissions was final.

Thus Gore lost both in the recount which the democrats shuffled quietly under the carpet, and by the rule of the law of our great land. Imagine what they would be saying if the recount had gone in Gore's favor in Florida! LMAO!

[leg4li2ed0pe]

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.

[XXXXX]

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.

Both are great guys. You just can't deal with the fact that Zell Miller has middle of the road views and wears your favorite political party label. In reality, he would have gotten a lot of republican support, as McCain would have gotten a lot of democratic support.

See, this is typical Demo-Screech....they will take a republican that leans to their side, but not endorse a democrat that leans to the conservative side. I also mentioned Lieberman....didn't you mean to bash him as well?

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!

I missed this one. Where is your quote detailing and verifying that this actually took place...including the tone that Bush used if he even said that?

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.

It seems that you are a little slower on the uptake than I gave you credit for. First go back and read my words at the top of this quote. You will see that I said "in speeches..." The intention of my statement was to show you how a WINNING candidate knows how to act positive and upbeat when publicly speaking.

Kerry has no such ability, nor does the other prominent elected officials of the democratic party. Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Chucky Cheese Schumer, Kennedy (when he's sober), Dean, etc. etc. spew forth venomous and vile attacks personally. People see the venom erupting from their mouths. At least Bush is intelligent enough to appear presidential, and speak calmly and in a positive manner.

The negative comments in his ads (which I concede) are spoken by an anonymous voice, or on his website have been extremely effective and damaging to Kerry, without it making Bush look like the bad guy. The democrats actually think that screeching and bashing with their vile, negative tone is working. They are completely misreading the American Pubic who hate that B.S.

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.

See my above comments. You completely missed the point of how the attack is being delivered. Even the negative ads about Kerry, are done in a funny manner....at least I think they are funny.

I agree that Bush's rating is sliding, but most political pundits that I have read believe that it is due to the horrible series of events over the last 6 weeks in Iraq. Those negative events have come to an abrupt halt, and there is a HUGE amount of good news that has happened in the last two weeks. None of the major polls have been done again that look at his ratings since the reversal of fortunes--now in Bush's favor--in Iraq.

My prediction with the dramatic improvement in Iraq, and the dramatic improvement in the economy and employment is that Bush's ratings will begin a climb back over 50% in the next month. The most important thing about the Bush sliding in the polls, is that Kerry has not catapaulted ahead. The reality is that like Gore in the last election, you democrats again nominated a boring, depressed, stiff, flip-flopping candidate that people just do not like.

Democrats are not excited about him. Polls have shown that if Hillary were put on your ticket, she would be chosen in a heatbeat, because Kerry is such a walking corpse. Just look at his facial countenance and body language. Carter was more upbeat than him.

I actually feel sorry for the Democrats. They lost control of both Houses while they had a charismatic leader as President. They lost to Bush because they used a Gore-bot, and are repeating the same mistake with Kerry-bot. I feel sorry for you because as a party, you have absolutely no idea how to run a winning national campaign. There are even a million republican commentators who are saying this openly....but you still won't listen. LMFAO!

[XXXXX]

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. On a national basis, Gore got more of the popular vote. But we don't use the popular vote to elect our president, so it is nothing more than an ongoing source of sour grapes.

However, as I said above the recount of Florida voting did again go in Bush's favor, so he did win their electoral votes, fair and square. Now watch, one of them will dispute something about Pat Buchanin's name confusing the illiterate democrats in Dade County, or some hanging chad confusion. They just can't deal with the fact that they lost.

You would think the democrats would set about to change the law so that we start using the popular vote, or better yet....just move on to current time. But no...the democrats are rather keeping themselves imprisoned in the endless story of their 2000 Bush v. Gore personal tragedy.

[XXXXX]

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.

What drugs are you taking? You Democrats are just too hysterical in your indoctrination. Here, let's look at a liberal radio/tv/website: PBS.ORG at this link where they discuss on April 4, 2001 that the liberal Miami Herald Newspaper showed:

...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."

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]

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]

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.

[XXXXX]

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.

IMHO, at best, Carter was a Millard Filmore type of neutral president. I don't agree that he was a good president, let alone great one. If you visit the Gallup Poll link I gave earlier in this topic, you will see that your view is not reflective of most Americans. That link has this chart:

Presidential Job Approval:
Retrospective Approval Ratings for Presidents
percentage who approved of each president


Most political pundits agree that Carter has been a better president since he left office, with his housing project, peace envoys, etc. He is a nice and decent man, but he did not inspire the people, and did not change history like Reagan did with ending the cold war, restoring our economy, negative view post-Vietnam, etc.

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 agree with most of that. I would have also added how horrible Nixon was. FDR did a lot of good too. Clinton presided over a stretch of good economy, and had a playful charisma which was to his credit.

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.

I differ from your opinion in terms of what I just said at the very least. I do respect your right to be wrong however.

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.

I agree on both points.

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.

I disagree. Most people are not interested in politics, and in general are very superficial and shallow. Most vote for a string of local names in the booth that they never heard of, and default to a party line vote. If they deviate from their famly/friend/job/union dictated party line, it is based on how they feel that day. I can guarantee that none of the people on this forum have taken the time to read the links I have given for the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the analysis of Thomas Jefferson, and his ownership of slaves and fathering offspring of his slaves.

I can guarantee you that no one on this forum actually took the time to read the GATT Treaty, or the Kyoto Accords, or even UN Resolution 1441, yet they blow off about what they hear from their friends, family, or the liberal Dan Rather media mischaracterizations. I put the link there for all of them, but I guarantee that none of these blow hards will read them.

They will vote democratic and continue bashing the Republicans because that's what their parents do, or their friends, or workers. They vote based on their emotions.

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.

Actually, you are wrong. Look at these various polls, and see that Bush had an approval rating of 70-82% for about 9 months after 9/11. It is not a debate about going into either Afganistan or Iraq. The world is better off for both actions. We shall see what the new polls show on Bush/Kerry/Nader now that the Iraq news is rapidly improving. Once the gas prices come down, and the economy keeps improving, they will climb up. Just be patient.

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.

Past tense is the operative distinction. Wait for the next round of polls, and you will see the improvement for Bush.

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.

You do not understand how to deal with cultures that operate on the basis of force and intimidation. Just think of the Klingons, and you get the picture. Your French blood is causing brain decay. You missed the lesson of how Reagan got Gorbachev to dissolve the Soviet Union, and the Berlin Wall. People who don't think Reagan's buildup did it, should read the comments by Gorby himself.

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.

I agree. It has also been highly effective for Bush's candidacy. In part, because Kerry has done and said enough things that the negative ads ring true. Bush's team has to counter the self-admitted 75-80% liberal press who present their daily drivel of one sided anti-Bush news, only the bad news from Iraq, etc. etc. They don't expose the evil George Soros trying to buy the election, nor the radical comments made by moveon.org. As long as those radical elements get a free pass, I'm all in favor of the very effective Bush negative ads.

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.

I can see your confusion. What I am saying is that the Democrats first pick ultra-liberal Howard Dean, and then decide at some point to destroy him. That did incredible damage to their party, and the liberal wing, in contrast will not support Kerry as he is trying to move to the mainstream middle. These liberal, and anti-war kooks have now moved to Nader in alarming numbers.

The democratic establishment picks Kerry who is about as exciting as Gore, who is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Kerry has been shown by several well respected research firms to be the most liberal U.S. Senator, and as such is not able to reach enough mainstream voters to get elected. He is trying to move from his liberal voting record to the middle, but in the process he is appearing to be flip-flopping on what were thought to be his core issues.

What I am saying is that they should have picked a mainstream, moderate democrat like John Edwards or Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller who could have won enough southern state votes to win an electoral majority. Instead they pick ultra liberals, and try to get them to move to a false mainstream, that the liberal democrats see right through, and the republicans will never buy. The liberals have now bailed to Nader, and everyone else is seeing Kerry as a depressing, boring corpse pretending not to be a liberal.

What the Democrats needed to do was pick a moderate Democrat who had charisma like Edwards, but with more respect and experience. They should have sacrificed the kooky extreme liberal fringe...chalking it off to Nader, and tried to take away a significant portion of the middle and undecided voters, especially appealing to southern states which used to always be democratic.

Instead, they roll out another Gore-bot clone, do a lot of screeching, whooping and hollering, and think the way to the promised land is through bashing my 50% of the country.

I'm not actually as close minded as some of my posts have indicated. I'm a lone voice on a liberal forum board, dealing with a lot of fringe kooks who sling their sh*t and attacks in a way that would make Janet "Plastic Face" Pelosi proud. As a result, I come accross as a right wing fanatic to some. Too bad for them.

[XXXXX]

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.

The other response is now up....sorry, to have kept you waiting.

About the Florida vote.....would have, could have, should have. I can make the same case about all the Pensacola Panhandle absentee military ballots that were not counted. While that is true about blacks being strongly democratic, they are also strongly apathetic, and don't vote.

If this isn't really about whether Gore won FLorida after the recount, then why are you, like most democrats, not able to let it go and live in the present? The recount was in fact done, and done under liberal Miami Herald and CNN scrutiny.

With the conditions of the appeal that Gore legally registered after his loss, and repeated loss on the immediate recount, these news organizations determined that Bush won by an even larger margin. They go on to speculate with adding in their pregnant chads, and other unilateral pro-Gore what if's that were not a part of Gore's challenge, to raise a question about the outcome...which makes good news. But the facts are that Bush won originally, again on a recount ordered by the Secretary of State, again with the US Supreme Court which is the law of the land, and again in the news group poll.

Now let it go, and move on to your current Kerry problems....he needs help.

[XXXXX]

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?

Yeah, I was just watching the funeral procession of the greatest president since FDR. You are not as important. Sorry, I know that must be a blow to your ego.

[XXXXX]

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.

Not at all. I mean that the ballots that were confusing and disputed by Gore in the dramatically pro-democratic counties in Southern Florida, such as the ones that had Buchanan on a line that the local voters thought was for another candidate, and were too stupid to actually read the ballot. I have seen a pdf copy of that butterfly ballot, and it is completely obvious where the lines were. The only explanation is that the people were too ignorant to actually read the form.

In addition, the butterfly ballot was designed by the democratic county voting chairman, so it is your own fault for having a stupid democratic chairman, and for whichever other stupid democratic voting officials didn't get it reprinted. They even put a big notice in the local paper before the election showing and explaining how it was laid out, and should be used. In summary, it was stupidity.



Now, as far as other people not being intelligent enough to push a pin through a paper to make a hole, that is yet another form of stupidity. This form of stupidity falls on both parties, and the Florida law says that if it cannot be clearly determined what they voted for, it must be thrown out.

Maybe these people put the puncher over Gore, and got so nauseated that they couldn't bear to actually push it down, so it only made a slight indentation ("Pregnant Chad") before they came to their senses. They didn't want to vote for Bush either, so they just decided not to vote for president. That is what you have to assume, and why the law said what it said.

That is equally stupid for you to say that the ballots were designed to intentionally thwart people from voting. See, this is what we republicans have to deal with. Irrational, screaming, crazy kook democrats that are not in touch with reality. You might want to consider that any difficulty with ballots affected republicans as much as democrats, but it was up to the local precincts to design them...so go cry to your democratic leaders down there.

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.

Yes you are. Now that the Florida election has been brought up, you are all having a kaniption fit, blowing gaskets disputing this and that in post after post. I'm sure you are not done yet whining about it.

As far as I am concerned the vote was done in as ethical and legal of a manner as any vote was done. It is never perfect, and I don't care enough about something 4 years ago to worry about proving anything to the likes of you. It wouldn't matter what I came up with, it would still be an open, festering wound that you can't let go of. You didn't see Bush protesting all the other close state votes, or the republican protesting the Missouri senate close vote.

If you have proof that the voting was not done in an ethical and legal manner, let's see your proof....and giving me jaded quotes from Jesse "Where's my Bitches at?" Jackson, or "Flaming" Al Sharpton are not proof.