Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the record: I was NOT trying to be "funny", and sorry, happyappy, I wasn't realy being sarcastic. It was a serious question. The question was, where DO you draw the line? If Bush, who has turned out to be tragically bad and horribly wrong for the nation is the "lesser of two evils", just who is it that is more evil? I came up with some really evil folks to try it out. Macmeal, you said those 4 would have resulted in a Kerry victory -- my point is that listening to some folks like citigirl, lionking or fleet, I'm not so sure! I think they would have preffered Genghis Khan or Satan to Kerry, so deeply ingrained are they to the right-wing agenda.
What I was looking for was some acceptable candidate that the Democrats could have put up against Bush in 2004, and for who some of the right-sided folks might have voted. Considering that lionking wants the Democrats to put up someone less progressive (which is like asking te Republicans to put up someone less conservative ), and considering the lies about and "Swift Boating" of Kerry, which would have happened to ANY Democratic candidate, my question is entirely realistic.
Consider your own "mea culpa" post a little earlier -- in which you virtually admitted you were misled, if not duped. I admired you for that post, because at least YOU have removed the blinders, even if most of the other die-hard right-wingers are still wearing them. Those same tactics, that misled you about Iraq, were used to elect Bush in 2004. The phrase "lesser of two evils" started in Rove's playbook.
lol,well if I thought that Bush had the`agenda of Khan or likes I wouldn't have voted him .Liking him to said tyrants isn't a worthy comparison though.My vote went to Bush again in 2004 because I wanted to give him a chance to finish what was started and didn't think Kerry would do much better.And because I am right wing when it comes to economic topics and specially firearm topics.
Now I finally have a true conservative candidate Ron Paul,which the Bush admin has not been conservative.
The fact of DNC leaders being progressive toward socialized medicine,their thoughts that tax money is their money to burn burn burn away on govrnment,that 2nd amendment issues are not a individual right,their willingness to cozy up to the UN which is not in step with our laws...has spoiled their chance of my vote.
Now many Repubs have spoiled my vote also,because some of the things that I accuse the Dems of thry have done also,it's just I didn't think they would till now.Best thing is to have oopposite parties controling the congress and presidency that way they`cancel each other out .
For those who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 I give a little sympathy because I believe there was only a very small tip of the iceberg visible and an incredibly enormous mass hidden from view. It's much more difficult to give sympathy for those who voted Bush/Cheney in 2004.
.
agree, it actually scares me that people voted for Bush in 2004, not just like a few hundred people, but like millions
Everyone has the right to complain, regardless of who they voted for, or even if they didn't vote at all. Politicians frequently fool us. They usually lie and try to walk the fence as much as possible in a deliberate attempt to be as evasive as possible. Many people refuse to vote because many races have been reduced to voting for the candidate that's the lessor of two evils.
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,470,125 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pslOldTimer
For the record: I was NOT trying to be "funny", and sorry, happyappy, I wasn't realy being sarcastic. It was a serious question. The question was, where DO you draw the line? If Bush, who has turned out to be tragically bad and horribly wrong for the nation is the "lesser of two evils", just who is it that is more evil? I came up with some really evil folks to try it out. Macmeal, you said those 4 would have resulted in a Kerry victory -- my point is that listening to some folks like citigirl, lionking or fleet, I'm not so sure! I think they would have preffered Genghis Khan or Satan to Kerry, so deeply ingrained are they to the right-wing agenda.
What I was looking for was some acceptable candidate that the Democrats could have put up against Bush in 2004, and for who some of the right-sided folks might have voted. Considering that lionking wants the Democrats to put up someone less progressive (which is like asking te Republicans to put up someone less conservative ), and considering the lies about and "Swift Boating" of Kerry, which would have happened to ANY Democratic candidate, my question is entirely realistic.
Consider your own "mea culpa" post a little earlier -- in which you virtually admitted you were misled, if not duped. I admired you for that post, because at least YOU have removed the blinders, even if most of the other die-hard right-wingers are still wearing them. Those same tactics, that misled you about Iraq, were used to elect Bush in 2004. The phrase "lesser of two evils" started in Rove's playbook.
Considering I was a Democrat all my life until a few years ago, the "right-wing" had no influence on my decision to become a Republican. It was the Democrats that changed and embraced the "Far Left Wing Agenda" and way too many things I am against. In my opinion, Kerry is a bought house husband and that is one freaky female he is married to.
But don't let what I know about myself stop you from deciding how or why I made my choices.
Considering I was a Democrat all my life until a few years ago, the "right-wing" had no influence on my decision to become a Republican. It was the Democrats that changed and embraced the "Far Left Wing Agenda" and way too many things I am against. In my opinion, Kerry is a bought house husband and that is one freaky female he is married to.
But don't let what I know about myself stop you from deciding how or why I made my choices.
citigirl well you sound like a misguided Republican. You used to be a Democrat not knowing what the party stood for?
Democrats care about social issues: jobs, labor unions, civil rights, healthcare.
Republicans care about big business/ tax breaks and whether you believe in Jesus and hopefully your not having sex in a airport bathroom stall!
Considering I was a Democrat all my life until a few years ago, the "right-wing" had no influence on my decision to become a Republican. It was the Democrats that changed and embraced the "Far Left Wing Agenda" and way too many things I am against.
Interesting. I'm trying to think what massive change in the thinking and policies of Democrats occurred a few years ago that could have brought about this reported transformation. Can't put my finger on one...
Responsibility is one thing. Means is another. Little tough to affect policy when your people are simply cut out of the loop.
Uh -- there's a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress., How is that "being out of the loop"?
Or it could be that the people aren't happy about 'obtructionist Republicans' and Presidential vetoes being allowed to stand in the way of the changes that they voted for on 11-07-06.
It's ironic that you credit an imbecile like Bush and his minority goverment with thwarting al the initatives the Dems have propsed. No, wait. There haven't been any.
It takes two to commit a murder, too. You've got your perp, and you've got your victim. All even-steven, I guess.
Whatever that means.
Agreed. But the problem goes well beyond incompetency. Let's look at the list of things that they tried (albeit incompetently) to do to begin with. How many of those are not a disgrace as well?
Tax cuts? Social security reforms? Immigration reform? Disgraceful? You won't say so when Hillary has to deal with them...
As long as you equate more ideologues to greater balance.
Idealogues on both sides. Surely you know that. E.g., Ruth Ginsburg late of the ACLU. Stephen Breyer and his "evolving" consitution. Come ON.
Better that they be seen as final and rather conclusive evidence that the entire philosophical movement from which the administration's ideas and actions were drawn is a corrupt and empty construct.
Bush has no philosophy. That's why he has no support.
I'm sure you were saying the same thing when the House Managers were parading around tilting at their partisan windmills as well.
Pal, they ALL tilt at windmills when they get power. It's just that you like certain windmills, and I like others.
citigirl well you sound like a misguided Republican. You used to be a Democrat not knowing what the party stood for?
Democrats care about social issues: jobs, labor unions, civil rights, healthcare.
Republicans care about big business/ tax breaks and whether you believe in Jesus and hopefully your not having sex in a airport bathroom stall!
that's generalization,it goes deeper than that,at least being a true conservative republican,not just those that say they are.
We care about social issues,as a indivdual.We care about tax breaks,for everybody because people that earn the money it's theirs,politicians did nothing to earn it.We care about civil rights too,as in the Bill of Rights,again as a individual.Jesus,care about him too,and just believing is not ramming it down someones throat.Healthcare,yep that too and I agree companies need to rangled in but government programs ...total government isn't the answer either.
Everything I just said what I as a conservative,what I belive a true conservative is,is a far cry from what Bush has or hasn't done.Though I give him credit for a couple things but not much.
Ron Paul is my hope now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), and considering the lies about and "Swift Boating" of Kerry, which would have happened to ANY Democratic candidate, my question is entirely realistic. 
