Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Jul 25, 2007.
You got it reversed.
It was Al Gore who beat George Bush by almost a million votes.
1. How did your team of intellectual masterminds, the liberals, the saviors of the human race, manage to lose to a "nitwit" by at least a million votes?
2. Rather than blame everyone else, please explain why you think your team couldn't accomplish this apparently easy task, given how much of a "nitwit" your opponent was. You may not use Karl Rove since we are talking about your team, not the "nitwit's".
3. Given that the team you obviously support could not handle the simple task of beating the "nitwit", why should we trust you with dealing with China?
The obvious counter-argument is that a nitwit is elected by other nitwits, and the only thing the election told us is that there's no shortage of nitwits.
what a baiting, obnoxious thread, rife with slanted questions worded so conveniently, no answer will please you... nonetheless, i'll give it a try... because such smug antagonization left unchecked "will not stand, man"....
1. Try asking a question without creating a strawman argument, if at all ever possible... it makes you look really stupid... while we're certainly better for humanity than routinely impassionate con men, we never said we were the saviors of the human race... to answer your goofy question, however, your nitwit actually did lose, by half a million votes... and that is documented... unfortunately, with the outdated electoral college procedure, the cabal you worship was able to tweek one state (Florida) by throwing out 87,000 African American votes, and wallah!... As for '04, well, the Dems didn't have a strong candidate, we were "at war", and your heroes kept raising the terror threat level every other week to keep the populace scared and obedient...
2. Another stupidly worded question... it's like saying "prove to me it's day time, but don't mention the sun"... Genius... Nonetheless, its also pretty stupid to insist that liberals must account for the failures of the Democratic party in '04... We wouldn't ask a war-enthusiast like you to account for the campaigning inadequacies of a true patriot like Ron Paul, now would we?
3. Again, more strawman obnoxiousness... "The team we support?" ... Regardless, the American public wants to trust anyone other than a neocon in dealing with future geopolitical conflicts... After all, America can't really do any worse than this figurative 0-16 season... Your heroes have been wrong so many times about so many assessments, things can only improve...
John Fonda Kerry's daughter in a motel room on election night was heard by several reporters to scream out "I can't believe this f-cking Moron is beating my father"
A contest between a wonderful, compassionate, kind & caring, hand wringing, saviour of the people liberal democrat and a Moron.
THE MORON WON :singing: :singing:
The Republican political machine prefers idiots or demented (Reagan) puppets. It chooses them based on their electability.
Reagan showed the danger of this when he opted for the liberal approach to the Soviets, namely trusting Gorby. Fortunately, the liberal approach worked.
Bush represents are far more serious failure because the machine failed give him competent adviers.
Bush is an idiot; the Republican political machine is not. Credit Lee Atwater, who on his deathbed repented, for introducing the sort of sleazy tactics (push polling, race cards, etc.) that have worked well for Republicans. Sad to say, but Democrats will need to play the same game in order to win in 2008. An electable candidate is only one element that goes into a victorious campaign.
Yeah Reagan was real liberial with Gorby,
Deployed Pershing missles to Europe
Started Star Wars
Declared SU 'Evil Empire' said it would be consigned to ash heap of History
All these to the cat calls and derision of Liberals. Very weak Patters.
Then whn Gorby crawled to the table when they realized they coyuldn't compete, Reagan said "Trust but Verify".
Yeah, but Gorby turned Reagan around. Reagan chose to trust Gorby and work with him. There were a number of conservatives at the time who were skeptical of this, but I think it was generally supported by liberals. Reagan also did a great job managing his right wing base at the time. When did you become a perestroika fan? My guess is when Reagan told you to.
Liberals HATED Reagan almost as much as they hate Bush currently, You know this is just revisionist BS on your part.
Reagan 'trusted' Gorby because he knew he had him by the short hairs. He also insisted on verification at each step in the process (remember the SU having to destroy missiles in the open so the process could be filmed by our satellites. This may fly with the younger folks who weren't around, But you and I know this is crap.
Damn straight. Liberals were convinced we were headed straight to Armaggedon when Reagan told Gorby to go f*ck himself in Reykjavik when Reagan wouldn't compromise on Star Wars.
Anyone remember how the ultra-liberal Pravda Magazine - uh, I mean Time Magazine - declared their hero, Mikhail Gorbachev, as the person of the decade..? And now, 20 years later, liberals are trying to usurp Reagan as their guy. Puh-leeze.
I don't deny liberals hated Reagan, but not over his peace-making with Gorby.
Like I said, I supported Reagan's willingness to work with Gorby. It's one of the few things I liked about him (though compared to Bush, Reagan certainly looks better now than he did at the time).
So far no real answers from the libs. They cant comprehend that their side lost to what they perceive as a moron. They also cant understand the electorate that went against "their side"
They also cant fathom that either their message/ideas suck or that they suck in getting that message out (in between insulting the other side for not seeing what they see)
I already said, "Bush is an idiot; the Republican political machine is not. "
Look, lots of people eat at McDonald's, doesn't mean it's "the right thing". Are you saying democracy is infallible?
The same way that VHS beat out Beta, and the way that Blu-Ray will beat out HD. It's all in how loud you shout (marketing).
I also think its ridiculous to call people who simply could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry, sub-nitwits.
The bottom line is a good salesman never blames the product or the client. He either blames himself, or if things are untenable, he gets a new set of ideas to sell. IF you are trying to sell the American people on liberal ideas, at the very least I suggest you don't start the presentation with: "Well, since you are all idiots anyway....."
Liberals, the kind caring champions of "tolerance" why do they LOVE Dictators who put human beings in dungeons and crucify anybody who try's to "Speak Freely"
Does that not boggle your mind
Many of America's liberals have gone to Cuba then gushed and fawned over this dictator dog as though he was "Christ Come Back", is it because he has free health care:singing:
VHS beat out Betamax because of 3 primary reasons. These were the conditions when the market exploded and while Betamax would eventually fix these problems, it was too little, too late:
1) VHS was much more well suited for movies. Betamax tapes were only 60 minutes.
2) VHS was cheaper, and
2) VHS was much more liberal in allowing their technology to be licensed.
Quite honestly, I am not entirely convinced either of them are going to supplant conventional DVDs - at least not at this time. I bet 99.9% of the population either doesn't have the audio/video equipment to truly receive any benefits from Blu-Ray/HD-DVD or they simply couldn't tell the difference.
Much like Laser Disc was going to beat out VHS?
Hugo Chavez is learning real quick. The old Lenin saw: "Stick in the blade until it hits something hard; if nothing stops the blade, keep running it through."
Most of all, SMILE when you do it and say, "It's for your own good." Vive la revolucion!!
Separate names with a comma.