• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Howard Dean vs George W. Bush

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Dean is nice......FOR ME TO POP ON!!!!!!!!!!0

Seriously, as stated before, if Dean become the nominee, it'll be a clear sign that God really does like Bush - Dean is nuts. That' said, I'll be voting for Bush.
Click to expand...

😀

The smart folk are finally showing up today... it was Dean 2:1 in here last night. Talk about insanity.
 
All this hysteria over Dean is a bit silly. The guy balanced the budget in his state and has A rating from NRA. You rightwingers are just scared the borrow and spend policies that sustain the GOP will end.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that I could live with myself if I voted for another four years of Bush.
Click to expand...

Iraq war was a success, economy is turning around...yeah, that would suck.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All this hysteria over Dean is a bit silly. The guy balanced the budget in his state and has A rating from NRA. You rightwingers are just scared the borrow and spend policies that sustain the GOP will end.
Click to expand...

Let me quote my centrist-liberal friend on Dean.

"no foreign policy experience or know-how, and someone tell me how that is not a problem post-9/11 and post-bush-throwing-diplomacy-to-hell. anti-war, and this is only going to get him killed in the general election as the republicans paint the democrats soft on defense and national security."

"governor of vermont, with no idea of how politics works inside the beltway (why is this a problem? see presidencies of clinton, bill and carter, jimmy, both miserable failures in their own right.). "

"grassroots activists? *snorts* PLEASE, SPARE ME. half of dean's supporters don't even support his centrist politics, and the other half don't know jack sh*t about politics in general. "

"someone tell me why it's a good thing that the democratic nominee for president will have become the nominee thanks to a campaign built on (1) anger and (2) mad fundraising skills." I would also like to note the Dean is the first Democrat ever to turn down matching funds... big believer in public financing eh?

Here's a quote from a nice article on Gore endorsing Dean. link
"Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush."

Give me Kerry/Edwards ticket please.
 
Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
3. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
4. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
7. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (57%) Click here for info
9. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (50%) Click here for info
10. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (41%) Click here for info
11. Libertarian Candidate (28%) Click here for info
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (27%) Click here for info
13. Bush, President George W. - Republican (17%) Click here for info
14. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (14%) Click here for info
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that I could live with myself if I voted for another four years of Bush.
Click to expand...

Iraq war was a success, economy is turning around...yeah, that would suck.
Click to expand...

😀

The liberation of Afghanistan was a success too, don't forget. And we've been secured against another 9/11-scale terrorist attack by this administration too. Yours and these are pretty damn good reasons alone why Dean shouldn't be given a second thought. :beer: At the rate things are going, the next five years are going to kick ass.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that I could live with myself if I voted for another four years of Bush.
Click to expand...

Iraq war was a success, economy is turning around...yeah, that would suck.
Click to expand...



Hahahahahahaahahahaha oh man. Hahahahaha. Wait, I'm not done laughing yet. Hahahahahahaha.

But seriously, are you a complete moron? Iraq=success? for whom, what got accomplished? other than alot of people on both sides killed? and don't give me the crap of we saved the iraqi's from sadam.

And economy turning around? just because the market rate has shot up, unemployment is still pretty high. but then again, being a right winger I'm sure you're overlooking all those low class people.


rolleye.gif
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All this hysteria over Dean is a bit silly. The guy balanced the budget in his state and has A rating from NRA. You rightwingers are just scared the borrow and spend policies that sustain the GOP will end.
Click to expand...

Let me quote my centrist-liberal friend on Dean.

"no foreign policy experience or know-how, and someone tell me how that is not a problem post-9/11 and post-bush-throwing-diplomacy-to-hell. anti-war, and this is only going to get him killed in the general election as the republicans paint the democrats soft on defense and national security."

"governor of vermont, with no idea of how politics works inside the beltway (why is this a problem? see presidencies of clinton, bill and carter, jimmy, both miserable failures in their own right.). "

"grassroots activists? *snorts* PLEASE, SPARE ME. half of dean's supporters don't even support his centrist politics, and the other half don't know jack sh*t about politics in general. "

"someone tell me why it's a good thing that the democratic nominee for president will have become the nominee thanks to a campaign built on (1) anger and (2) mad fundraising skills." I would also like to note the Dean is the first Democrat ever to turn down matching funds... big believer in public financing eh?

Here's a quote from a nice article on Gore endorsing Dean. link
"Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush."

Give me Kerry/Edwards ticket please.
Click to expand...

Clinton did just fine. Peace prosperity for 8 years. If you think you are going to beat Dean by portraying Dean is Clinton, dream on.
 
Originally posted by: darren
Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
3. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
4. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
7. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
8. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (57%) Click here for info
9. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (50%) Click here for info
10. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (41%) Click here for info
11. Libertarian Candidate (28%) Click here for info
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (27%) Click here for info
13. Bush, President George W. - Republican (17%) Click here for info
14. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (14%) Click here for info
Click to expand...

Is this quiz based on the position of Dean of yesterday or today, or even tommorrow?

KK
 
Originally posted by: IndieSnob

And economy turning around? just because the market rate has shot up, unemployment is still pretty high. but then again, being a right winger I'm sure you're overlooking all those low class people.
Click to expand...

"Pretty high"? That's real definitive. 5.9% is the lowest it's been in 8 months. But then again, being a left-winger, I'm sure you overlook anything that doesn't support getting a Liberal back in the White House.

Notice how none of these democratic presidential hopefuls are for anything. They're just against Bush. They don't have a chance.

 
Clinton did just fine. Peace prosperity for 8 years. If you think you are going to beat Dean by portraying Dean is Clinton, dream on.
Click to expand...

You mean the cruise missiles that Clinton was lobbing over into Afghanistan despite debateable evidence (hmmm, that sounds mighty familiar) is peaceful? Meanwhile in the US, the White House was deadlocked for months getting little/nothing done.

Dean as Clinton? lol. Dean could only hope so, but hes become Al Gore's lap dog instead.
 
Originally posted by: IndieSnob


And economy turning around? just because the market rate has shot up, unemployment is still pretty high. but then again, being a right winger I'm sure you're overlooking all those low class people.
Click to expand...


How about this from an independent:

You cannot create jobs until demand rises. Demand is now rising as evidenced by the fastest growing economy since 1984. Historically, jobs soon follow upswings in economic indicators, NOT the other way around. As the economy continues to grow, jobs will be created to fill the demand.

And I might remind you, few presidents have gone from starting with a year old recession to the fastest growing economy in only three years in office.

And so much for you following current events... or you'd know that it is not just the stock market that is up. ALL economic indicators are higher.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I don't think that I could live with myself if I voted for another four years of Bush.
Click to expand...

Iraq war was a success, economy is turning around...yeah, that would suck.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could say that the Iraq war was a 'success', but overall it isn't finished...and there are more issues than these two for me and it's not like the economy would be completely different with another president.

I'm not a Democrat or Republican...I would have voted for Bush last year (they messed up my registration), but I have too many problems with him now.
 
You Bush-ites better hope the interest rates don't do what it looks like they're going to do.

There's three things you can't have all at the same time: a booming economy, massive deficit spending, and single-digit interest rates.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
You Bush-ites better hope the interest rates don't do what it looks like they're going to do.

There's three things you can't have all at the same time: a booming economy, massive deficit spending, and single-digit interest rates.
Click to expand...

😕

A booming economy means booming revenues which, in turn, means lower deficits. How the hell do you think Clinton paid for all his spending? If inflation starts to run away, you raise interest rates a bit to cool it down. It is a given that interest rates will rise during economic surges. There IS an upside to higher interest rates for those with retirement accounts and savings accounts (especially seniors who have to play it safe).
 
Originally posted by: Vic
You Bush-ites better hope the interest rates don't do what it looks like they're going to do.

There's three things you can't have all at the same time: a booming economy, massive deficit spending, and single-digit interest rates.
Click to expand...

the time delay impact of the impending interest rate hike will only start to effect the economy after bush is in for a second term.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years

Four more years! Four more years!
Click to expand...
And during those 4 years I wonder which country is next for one of our patented Pre-emptive Military Strikes? Or do you think we will still be stuck in a Quagmire in Iraq and will be unable to further the Neocons agenda of Pax Americana?
Click to expand...

I hardly think our strikes were pre-emptive. Were you asleep on 9/11/01? We were at war with Mousellini in WWII, and Italy didn't personally bomb Pearl Harbor.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years

Four more years! Four more years!
Click to expand...
And during those 4 years I wonder which country is next for one of our patented Pre-emptive Military Strikes? Or do you think we will still be stuck in a Quagmire in Iraq and will be unable to further the Neocons agenda of Pax Americana?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years

Four more years! Four more years!
Click to expand...
And during those 4 years I wonder which country is next for one of our patented Pre-emptive Military Strikes? Or do you think we will still be stuck in a Quagmire in Iraq and will be unable to further the Neocons agenda of Pax Americana?
Click to expand...

I hardly think our strikes were pre-emptive. Were you asleep on 9/11/01? We were at war with Mousellini in WWII, and Italy didn't personally bomb Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...
How many Iraqi's were on those planes? None as most of those bastards were Saudi's. As for Italy, did you know that they declared war on us first just like Germany did? What were we suppose to do, trade recipes for Pizza with them?

Just because we were attacked by Al Qaeda who were backed by the Taliban was not justification for invading and occupying Iraq. Now Iraq having vast stockpiles of WMD's, direct connections to Al Qaeda (as in supporting them financially and militarily) and a Nuclear weapons program underway was. In fact when the Dub told the American Public that was the case I supported the strike against Iraq. However it now seems that was all BS. Either we (the American Public) were purposely deceived or there was some unbelievable incompetence by our leaders and their underlings. Knowing full well that the Neocons agenda from the get go was to invade Iraq it seems that somebody was BS'ing even if it wasn't the Dub. But as the leader the buck stops with him. He's responsible for loading up his Administration with Neocons, Former Executives of Halliburton and Fanatic Zealots like John Ashcroft. It really isn't that hard to see that the people he had working for him were the ones he would want in case of a war, especially with Iraq
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
I hardly think our strikes were pre-emptive. Were you asleep on 9/11/01? We were at war with Mousellini in WWII, and Italy didn't personally bomb Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...
And what role did Iraq play on 9/11?

There's this thing called "thinking for yourself" that I think you might want to try...

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
the time delay impact of the impending interest rate hike will only start to effect the economy after bush is in for a second term.
Click to expand...
THAT would be very bad. And quite possible. We could boom in '04 to bust in '05 under the weight of sky-high interest rates and massive credit delinquencies... 🙁

And Amused, with all his spending, Clinton still spent less that what GW is currently spending. Revenues would have to increase dramatically and fast to keep from having a record budget deficit in '04. And it was keeping the deficit under control that allowed us to still have low interest rates during the Clinton boom years.
Contrary to popular myth, it is the bond market, not the arbitrary decisions of the Fed, that control interest rates in this country. When the gov't projects budget deficits, it floods the bond market with new debt. Following the law of supply and demand, bond values are decreased which increases their yields which raises interest rates for everyone.
And who controls all this bond debt? Foreign money. America's massive trade deficits essentially result in a massive outflow of our money to our foreign trading partners. These countries (particularly China and Japan) re-invest large sums of that money back into our bond market. If/when they ever decide to pull out en masse, we are fscked.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years

Four more years! Four more years!
Click to expand...
And during those 4 years I wonder which country is next for one of our patented Pre-emptive Military Strikes? Or do you think we will still be stuck in a Quagmire in Iraq and will be unable to further the Neocons agenda of Pax Americana?
Click to expand...

Attacking a nation that has thumbed it's nose at a UN order to disarm after losing a war of aggression is hardly "preemptive." It's funny how the anti-war folks completely ignore 1441 and the fact that every intelligence agency in the world was positive Iraq had WMDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top