Tuesday, November 2, 2004
- Thread starter VertigoXX
- Start date
AFAICT, Giuliani is very much an "outsider" in the Republican party. Much like McCain or Powell he would probably have tremendous appeal to moderates but runs the risk of alienating much of the Republicans' base with his pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-choice record. I think it's far from a foregone conclusion that he will win the Republican nomination.
I didn't. Just remember that when you're shaking your head at some idiotic thing that the Bush administration says or does, roughly half of America feels your pain.
I guess that I'm just disappointed at the result.
In 2000 GWB was a relative unknown*, so that "win" was fair enough, but there's been 4 years worth of his dubious behavior to judge and still the majority voted him back in.
*please take into account my non-US citizenship when considering that statement. I really wouldn't have a clue as to how much Mr and Mrs Average American knew about GWB pre 2000.
In 2000 GWB was a relative unknown*, so that "win" was fair enough, but there's been 4 years worth of his dubious behavior to judge and still the majority voted him back in.
*please take into account my non-US citizenship when considering that statement. I really wouldn't have a clue as to how much Mr and Mrs Average American knew about GWB pre 2000.
My favorite quote about the results:
"First President Bush was misunderestimated.
Now he has been unredefeated."
"First President Bush was misunderestimated.
Now he has been unredefeated."
Well, governors traditionally fare strongly in American politics. That aside, I think many of the figures who eventually run for President start out relatively unknown. I didn't know who John Kerry was until roughly two years ago, and I'm more into politics than the average citizen. I think most Americans would have a hard time naming many congresspeople from outside their states other than the majority/minority leaders an a few others who have made a name for themselves in one way or another.
But yes, GWB was of course a relative unknown compared to Al Gore. However, people were much more apathetic about that election. I know I was. If people had known what would happen in the next four years, I think Gore would have taken that election by a comfortable margin.
But yes, GWB was of course a relative unknown compared to Al Gore. However, people were much more apathetic about that election. I know I was. If people had known what would happen in the next four years, I think Gore would have taken that election by a comfortable margin.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
I want Clinton :'(
Ahnold would just pull a page out of Clinton's book and use the tactic that was used against Dole: LOOK, CLIN-TON IS A LITTLE GIIILY MAAN, HE HAD HAAAHT SURGERY.. DO YOU WAHNT YOU PRASIDENT TO DRAAHP DEAD IN MID-TEAHRM? He would then be elected, and promply drop dead himself after attempting to lift the Oval Office desk while uttering offensive comments about Mexican girls. VP Joe Piscopo would then assume the mantle of President.
The issue that concerns me about the 'war on terrorism' is not so much the war on the ground itself. I think Bush could have done better in that respect, and of course I think attacking Iraq is nothing but a deceptive and opportunistic action. I don't think Clinton would have done that. However, what I find most troubling is the attack on civil liberties in this country. People seem to be willing to concede these for some perceived safety, which I think is completely immoral. I don't think either Clinton or McCain would be attacking the Bill of Rights in the way that Bush has. In fact, back in 2000 I had hoped that McCain would win the party nomination, but he fell victim to the vicious attacks of the Bush campaign.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
.. By these definitions, George W Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
.. By these definitions, George W Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
Of course, and I already knew where it was from, too. There was another reason... he picked the one that suited his needs best, one that could be interpreted a little differently. Scaring the folks isn't a good thing, but it isn't such a hard thing to do when it has a basis in reality, and it doesn't make him a terrorist. That's almost as bad as moveon.org's choice words. I'm not really on either side, but it's OK to call a Republican president anything. Terrorist, Racist, Nazi, whatever.
Of course I did, as I was trying to make a point. However, look at any of the definitions -- they all fit the bill. None of them say anything about the relevance of the fear/violence's basis in reality. You can, perhaps, deny GWB's use of fear as a political tool (although I believe it would be hard to defend that position), but I don't think you can deny that such an action is, in fact, terrorism.
Personally, I don't believe that such an action is in itself immoral. Sometimes people need to be motivated by fear. I just don't think that the things Bush wants us to be afraid of are the things that we need to be afraid of right now.
Personally, I don't believe that such an action is in itself immoral. Sometimes people need to be motivated by fear. I just don't think that the things Bush wants us to be afraid of are the things that we need to be afraid of right now.
Similar threads
