Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:26 pm
by sgt.null
why wouldn't he mean it in a broad sense? it was the cons position about Florida. the stupid people of Florida couldn't figure out the procedure. of course the ones dropped from the polls for havinbg something close to a criminal's name? or the ones turned away at the poll? i'm guessing these people were also at fault? and no George Bush's friend has the contract for the voting machines?
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:57 am
by Cail
Not....going...down...this...path....again.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:52 am
by ur-bane
Aww, man! Lost another one to Bush-tech!

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:02 pm
by sindatur
ROTFLMAO Ur-Bane
Sgt Null, it's not so much that the guy was in favor of Bush winning, the real concern is that he is apparently actually quoted as saying he would ensure that Bush won.
Actually if Hillary was to run, I think it would be very good for the Democratic Party as a whole, because she's smart enough, saavy enough, and Clinton enough, to understand the need for the move to the right, and co-opting the sane ideas that the Republicans are touting that the average man on the street is for. Hillary would make this move, and the rest of the candidates running in the primaries would be forced to ride that train to center along with her, unless they wanted to rubber stamp her nomination. I'm not opposed to her running, or voting for her, but, I think her winning depends upon who she would run against, not based upon her legacy.
Gosh folks, didn't mean for this go all political, it was meant to be a light hearted Conspiracy Theory. But, if people want to continue the "Political part", I have no problem with that at all, nor with it being moved into the Tank (That would be called "Tanking the thread", right?)
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:05 pm
by Cail
Chris Matthews was talking about a possible Condi/Hillary race yesterday. I don't see it. I see both of them being offered a spot on the ticket, but neither as the main man (er, woman).
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:20 pm
by sindatur
I don't neccessarily think Hillary would win the nomination, but, I think her entering the race would move the party platform to the Right, wether she won the nomination or not. Not sure what Dean would think of it though (He will still be Chair in the 2008 elections, right?)
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:32 pm
by Zahir
Actually, Hilary Clinton is a marvelous subject for this forum--not least because she is the Great Satan in the eyes of so many idealogues of the Far Right. Really, one would think she wants to make abortion mandatory, abolish private property and allow marriage only between same sex couples!
Personally, I rather doubt she's going to run for President. She has never shown any ambition for executive office, always working as a member of a team (as in being a Senator). But I strongly suspect she'll want to influence the nomination, and she very likely can. Her ending up in the VP slot is perfectly possible.
Besides, I remember vividly the list of figures everyone knew were going to run for President--Elliot Richardson, Mario Cuomo, Colin Powell, etc.--who in fact never did.
Condi Rice? I just don't see it. She could try I suppose, but right now she has little political backing and less experience in the business of running for office. Even more tellingly, she suffers from a close association with the Bush administration coupled with both race and gender issues--which are likely to count most against her in strong Republican states. Again, I could see someone choosing her as a running mate, but even then I think she'd be very problematical.
Perhaps more "on topic," might The West Wing have been a long-term strategy by allies of Senator John Kerry to help him win the nomination in 2004?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:58 am
by Avatar
sindatur wrote:But, if people want to continue the "Political part", I have no problem with that at all, nor with it being moved into the Tank (That would be called "Tanking the thread", right?)
Yep, that's what it's called. In fact, even turning any thread into a political discussion, regardless of whther it gets moved, is now called 'Tanking. (I think I'm proud.

)
--A
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:27 pm
by ur-bane
As you should be Av.

"Getting Tanked" now has a new meaning for me.

I can't use that phrase in reference to alcohol consumption anymore.

[/offtopic]
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:58 pm
by dANdeLION
sgtnull wrote: the stupid people of Florida couldn't figure out the procedure. of course the ones dropped from the polls for havinbg something close to a criminal's name? or the ones turned away at the poll? i'm guessing these people were also at fault? and no George Bush's friend has the contract for the voting machines?
Interesting. Now I'm stupid. Thanks a ton, Dennis.
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:36 am
by sgt.null
dandelion: you misread, i don't think the folks in Florida are stupid. that is the administration's position. one that I heard folks like Rush and others as him spout. sorry, thought that was clear.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:06 pm
by dANdeLION
Okay, I see what you're saying now. But, did you mean to say that Rush thinks we're stupid here? He is a Floridian, you know.....Maybe you just meant that Alex Lifeson from the band Rush thinks Floridians are stupid, because of that bar room brawl he got into down here last year.....
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:10 pm
by sgt.null
no, the neo-cons. i believe Alex Lifeson was merely drunk, and thus unable to form a proper opinion.