What would the government look like right now if Kerry had won?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him? ...

I think it is ok to be fooled once, it happens, but the democrats are starting to admit several foolings by what they consider a baboon in office. I think it is safe to safe they have easily become more foolish.

Well Politics is a Fools Paradise.

That is true

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The Patriot Act would be shelved, at least the parts that circumvent our Constitution.

Yup cuz Kerry really opposed the Patriot Act in 2001...oh wait.

No doubt he'd make ammends for that grevious error. If he really had balls he'd let the Dub and those of his administration be tried as War Criminals though I dout he'd have the cajones to do that.

You mean he'd flipflop?

If it was the right thing to do. Unlike the Dub who refuses to make amends or correct his errors a sign of an intelligent man is his willingness to admit he erred.

It's an unfair comparison. Kerry has had so damxed much practice in admitting his errors.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him? ...

Ther fools who follow him even after he's been shown to be a fool.

How does one get fooled by a fool in the first place?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him? ...

Ther fools who follow him even after he's been shown to be a fool.

How does one get fooled by a fool in the first place?

By believing in the fool.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The Patriot Act would be shelved, at least the parts that circumvent our Constitution.

Yup cuz Kerry really opposed the Patriot Act in 2001...oh wait.

Yes, he voted Yea when it was rushed through in 2001, we know this, but we're talking about renewing it.

I hate to break it to you, but the "but X did it first!" type of arguments only get you so far in life.

Is this going to be the standard democratic platform for 06? We were the victim of not knowing what we voted for?

That could be worse than "Anybody but Bush" in 04.

Yeah it was a choice between the Idiot we know and the Idiot we don't. As it was it was almost a tossup with the Dub coming out ahead by a miniscule 2 points.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What ever, this is just speculation anyways. I can't honestly say what he would or wouldn't do and neither can anyone else but him and frankly I don't think any cares now what he would have done as President. If he can't even beat an immensely unpopular President like the Dub he really wasn't the man for the job.

Eh, I don't think that having the popularity to win necessarily has anything to do with your capability to do the job. Lincoln was a terribly unpopular candidate his first election, but he was a good president. I think there are several people out there today who could never win the presidential popularity contest but who would be better presidents than those who could.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: maluckey

The U.S. would still be a mighty and proud Country instead of the laughing stock of the world.

Get real! Laughing stock?? Not well loved, but to be a laughing stock you must be comical and/or basically harmless. The United States is certainly not comical or harmless in any sense of the word.

And besides Dave, where is the place of the United States? Subservient to the selfish? A footwipe for the Euro Ubermenschen? The rightful place as dominant force in the World was earned through sweat and blood. Resting on ones laurels is a fine way to lose everything.

Please enlighten us lesser beings Dave, as to where we go to hold hands and sing campfire songs with those who would emasculate you, given the chance.

With our Technical capability, there are far better ways to handle those that want to emasculate us than the sacrifice of our soldiers.

Oh that's right, the Republicans don't believe in Science but only Faith so we must sacrifice blood, silly me.

 

[cwjerome]

I'm not sure about the OP, but Kerry looks suspiciously like a hero character I like to use when I play DotA Allstars... and his face grows even longer every time he gets that furrowed look of distress when talking importantly. Coincidence? I think not...

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What ever, this is just speculation anyways. I can't honestly say what he would or wouldn't do and neither can anyone else but him and frankly I don't think any cares now what he would have done as President. If he can't even beat an immensely unpopular President like the Dub he really wasn't the man for the job.

Eh, I don't think that having the popularity to win necessarily has anything to do with your capability to do the job. Lincoln was a terribly unpopular candidate his first election, but he was a good president. I think there are several people out there today who could never win the presidential popularity contest but who would be better presidents than those who could.

Kind of like Bush?

ANd by the way OP, you can't wipe the shame in voting for Bush off of your hands (tell me you didn't...honestly) by claiming "your side is just as bad." "Your side" has dominated the government for years and all you have to do is take your head out of the sand to see the long trail of successive disasters that have occured under it's watch. Predicting what WOULD have happened under a Kerry Presidency is just pointless without giving time to discuss what WOULDN'T happen. Considering what's happened over the last several years what WOULDN'T happen has become increasingly more important. Of course Kerry couldn't withdraw from Iraq at the drop of a hat, the entire middle east would tear itself apart taking our buddy Sadui Arabia with it which would of course have an immensely damaging affect to our economy and society. You're simply illustrating that Bush has strongarmed us into a WAR that has been PROVEN over and over to have ZERO merit. So therefore Kerry's no different than GW right?

 

[Polish3d]

LOL... depending on how it serves their agenda, Bush to democrats is either the dumbest person alive, or an uber-omnipotent evil overlord who tricked them all.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What ever, this is just speculation anyways. I can't honestly say what he would or wouldn't do and neither can anyone else but him and frankly I don't think any cares now what he would have done as President. If he can't even beat an immensely unpopular President like the Dub he really wasn't the man for the job.

Eh, I don't think that having the popularity to win necessarily has anything to do with your capability to do the job. Lincoln was a terribly unpopular candidate his first election, but he was a good president. I think there are several people out there today who could never win the presidential popularity contest but who would be better presidents than those who could.

Kind of like Bush?

ANd by the way OP, you can't wipe the shame in voting for Bush off of your hands (tell me you didn't...honestly) by claiming "your side is just as bad." "Your side" has dominated the government for years and all you have to do is take your head out of the sand to see the long trail of successive disasters that have occured under it's watch. Predicting what WOULD have happened under a Kerry Presidency is just pointless without giving time to discuss what WOULDN'T happen. Considering what's happened over the last several years what WOULDN'T happen has become increasingly more important. Of course Kerry couldn't withdraw from Iraq at the drop of a hat, the entire middle east would tear itself apart taking our buddy Sadui Arabia with it which would of course have an immensely damaging affect to our economy and society. You're simply illustrating that Bush has strongarmed us into a WAR that has been PROVEN over and over to have ZERO merit. So therefore Kerry's no different than GW right?

Do you know why I post on P&N? Most of the time it's to hear the views of "the other side" so I can think more about them. I really would have rather heard your views without the combative approach because it's very easy to get distracted by the accusatory means by which you expressed your opinion.

Would you mind restating your points just as points, without the fingerpointing, so I can consider them?

Oh, and yes, when I wrote that sentence that you bolded, I did have Bush in mind.

Thank you.

 

[mackle]

We would turn out like France..

 

[sandorski]

Long boring speeches, but proper english spoken with no smirk. A mixed bag overall.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Hardly. Bush's "accomplishments" have all come from the people behind the scenes who support and direct him, people like his father's associates, and like Karl Rove who is almost universally acknowledged as quite intelligent. Everything Bush has done personally has been a total failure. Bush is a malleable puppet; that's why he was annointed by the RNC in the first place.

 

[Legend]

Slightly better social policies. Slightly better funding of science.

Higher taxes, smaller deficit.

More socialism with healthcare, etc.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Hardly. Bush's "accomplishments" have all come from the people behind the scenes who support and direct him, people like his father's associates, and like Karl Rove who is almost universally acknowledged as quite intelligent. Everything Bush has done personally has been a total failure. Bush is a malleable puppet; that's why he was annointed by the RNC in the first place.

Right over your head

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Legend
Slightly better social policies. Slightly better funding of science.

Higher taxes, smaller deficit.

More socialism with healthcare, etc.

How come the Dims didn't do all of that before?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Legend
Slightly better social policies. Slightly better funding of science.

Higher taxes, smaller deficit.

More socialism with healthcare, etc.

How come the Dims didn't do all of that before?

Which Democratic President, Clinton or Jimmy Carter?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Legend
Slightly better social policies. Slightly better funding of science.

Higher taxes, smaller deficit.

More socialism with healthcare, etc.

How come the Dims didn't do all of that before?

By calling them "Dims", you're inviting contraversy (I'm going to start using this term instead of troll, I think, since troll invites contraversy by itself). Can we please keep this on topic with relevant discussion instead of random insult/accusation?

Your question is really open-ended, but one factor to consider is that the party in the executive office often has the deal with the other party in senate/congress and that does hinder any type of change usually.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Legend
Slightly better social policies. Slightly better funding of science.

Higher taxes, smaller deficit.

More socialism with healthcare, etc.

How come the Dims didn't do all of that before?

They more or less have.

Democrats tend to be slightly better with social liberty. They'll claim to support gay marriage, but they probably never would have passed anything. At the very least, you don't see them double banning gay marriage in state law (Texas, ex).

I've always gotten the impression that Bush puts religion ahead of science. Or ethics inspired by religion if you will. I don't see any moral implications with using discarded fetuses for stem cell research because a fetus never has any cognitive function, and thus was never human. It did have the potential, but so does a seperate sperm and egg.

Clinton had higher taxes, and a smaller deficit. We likely wouldn't be as involved with Iraq, and spending from that would decrease.

The last item is very negative IMO. The last thing we need to do is throw more money at a failed form of "health"care. Today's answer to a lack of responsibility with diet and exercise is dozens of drugs to inhibit your body's reaction to the ****** people put it through. Over half of this money would go to advertising, and most of the drugs don't really fix the problem, just hide it or temporarily fix it.

I would support healthcare with resistrictions, and if we taxed junk foods. Use that money to fund healthcare. After all, most of the people sucking up the money are the people treating their bodies like ******. Make them pay for it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87
No no they were duped by that idiot Bush. A guy they think is dumber than a box of rocks has quite a list of accomplishments according to his opposition.

Hardly. Bush's "accomplishments" have all come from the people behind the scenes who support and direct him, people like his father's associates, and like Karl Rove who is almost universally acknowledged as quite intelligent. Everything Bush has done personally has been a total failure. Bush is a malleable puppet; that's why he was annointed by the RNC in the first place.

Right over your head

OK, please enlighten me (though I suspect you are the one who doesn't get it. Bush's opposition doesn't credit Bush himself with those "accomplishments"; they credit/blame his administration. Again, Bush is essentially a marionette.)

But maybe that's not what you meant.

 

[IdaGno]

It would look so much the same as it does now that even Ralph Nader couldn't tell the difference if Kerry had won.

 

[envy me]

Comparing Republicans and Democrats is like comparing Coke and Pepsi.

 

[ntdz]

I think it'd look identical. We might have a withdrawl plan drawn up for Iraq a bit faster, but I don't see him being able to get any programs through the Republican stronghold known as Congress.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

"identical", haha far from it. first off, wouldn't be in Iraq. second, deficit would be much lower. third, economy prob. a lil better. fourth, americans less concerned about where this country is headed. fifth, better standing around the world.