Why the Democrats lost

[seinfeldrules]

I am saying that Bush essentially cheated by making a religious belief into a secular policy, and then subsequently winning the election because of it.

Then you are an alone extremist. Nobody is suggesting this, but you and a select other few. The people from each state voted to get this issue on the ballot, not Bush. He just didnt wave his wand and make them appear.

Calling americans loses votes? Eh?

Calling Americans, who voted Bush, 'illogical', or in other words idiotic, will lose you votes. In case you havent noticed, insulting people will only push them away. The superiority complex of many liberals could have cost them the election.

 

[CptStern]

You've quoted 90 page articles that nobody will read without even mentioning the name Bush. We arent talking about Cheney here. You dodge O'Neill now that his intentions are known, and you are still coming up blank over Bush. Face it, there was no huge intentional lie like you make it out to be. There are papers written all the time attempting to change American foreign policy. Judging by the first few names listed in each article, Cheney and others werent even the key authors.

ummm instead of skimming over my resposne why dont you try reading it ..there's a summary of the document that quite clearly points out all the major issues. Read what I wrote: Cheney commissioned the first report and wrote the second. Stop harping on the O Neill issue ..I never made that point, I linked to a bunch of sites that said that they planned this in advance ..some just so happened to have the O Neill angle on it. There were others that you will not touch the PNAC documents for example. BTW what do you mean by "now that his intentions are known" ...did you all of the sudden wave your magical dismissive wand and poof "there's goes that theory" :upstare:

excuse my french but you're a ****ing hypocrite of the worst order. You'll accept shabby evidence based on hearsay and half-assed investigation that justifies the invasion and subsequent murders of thousands of people yet you cant for one minute concede that there might be some kernel of truth to the whole "they planned this in advance" theory ...there's so much evidence that says it's true yet you dismiss it (you even dismiss direct quotes from the big players behind the war) ..you sir are worse than ignorant or stuborn, you sir are a bonafide fool. You are exactly what the neo-cons want ..mindless automatons that will tow the party line no matter how much evidence is thrown at them, never questioning anything. You sir are a "Yes man"


*waves magical dismissive wand at general direction of "yes man"*

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seems you keep missing this.

O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.
COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

ummm instead of skimming over my resposne why dont you try reading it ..there's a summary of the document that quite clearly points out all the major issues

How did you summarize a 90 page document in one paragraph. Or more accurately, 2 quotations. Seems you were pulling a Michael Moore to me.

 

[CptStern]

read the summary it's all there....I picked out the most damning quotes ..would you rather I paste the entire article?

stop pushing your partisan agenda I dont care if it was clinton, gore, or abraham lincoln. Incidenily Bush sr was at the helm before clinton ..there are references in the document to 1992.


you're still a hypocrite

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Then you are an alone extremist. Nobody is suggesting this, but you and a select other few. The people from each state voted to get this issue on the ballot, not Bush. He just didnt wave his wand and make them appear.

How is that an extremist view? That's exactly what happened.
If you're saying that rewriting the constitution to include discrimination for no logical reason in what can only be seen as either an intrusion of singular faith into a multicultural secular domain and/or a grab at votes is fair, then I'd venture to say that you're the extremist here.

If defending the american constitution is too "extreme" for you, maybe you should go back to France, as I have been told so many times to.

And those are state laws. Bush is the highest ranking supporter of a national, all-encompassing constitutional ban.

If you expected me not to know the difference between a state constitution and the US constitution, you have perhaps 'misunderestimated' me.
Either that, or it's a case of "look over there!" distraction or an "everyone is doing it, so it's okay" excuse.

All you're showing is that this problem is more endemic than just the president, reaching to a large segment of the population.
The exact same segment that Bush was appealing to with his illogical, un-american ban.

You said that voters really didn't care too much about the ban, and then immediately pointed out how huge amounts of voters went out to support it at the state level.
And you're completely dodging the fact that Bush and Cheney are the key supporters of a constitutional ammendment that directly contradicts the values inherent to the constitution!

Are you honestly so willing to ignore that fact? Or are you just trying so hard to 'prove' me wrong that you'll change the topic like that while ignoring and omitting the key points of what I'm saying?

Here are the facts you missed or avoided, bolded so that you might not miss them again:

-George Bush supports an ammendment to the US constitution that directly contradicts the basic constitutional and american principles of the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness, for no logical reason.
-People who dislike gays voted for Bush in unexpectedly massive numbers.
-This was many times more than enough votes to give Bush the 1% he needed to beat Kerry.

So, Bush did something distinctly unamerican, and used it to become leader of America.

If you do something utterly and needlessly undemocratic in order to shift the democratic system in your favor, I call that cheating.

What do you call it?

Calling Americans, who voted Bush, 'illogical', or in other words idiotic, will lose you votes. In case you havent noticed, insulting people will only push them away. The superiority complex of many liberals could have cost them the election.

See, this is where the problem comes from.
"Illogical", in this case, is not an insult. It's a goddamn fact.
There is literally no logical reason behind this ban.
I will pay you 150$. No, 500$.
500$ for a single logical reason. You don't even need to come up with it yourself, feel free to check google or quote George W's reasoning. He's the president, after all, so he must have a good reason, right?

But no, there is no logical reason. Only if you completely disregard constitutional law, secular government, and the progress of the last 200 years will it be remotely 'logical'.
And weren't you just complaining about "what ifs"?

Instead of jumping to conclusions and saying that by calling many americans "illogical" I am therefore somehow calling them "idiotic", even though the words don't mean the same thing, how about you just stop and realise one thing:

Between 20 and 30 percent of voters chose Bush because of his actions against gay marriage.
There is no logical reason to take action against gay marriage.
They are therefore being illogical!

The truth hurts, doesn't it?
I'm sure it does.
But you absolutely must understand that, just because a fact is unpleasant, it does not become untrue.

There are four apples and you say there are three.
All the facts are against you in this case. All logic, all fact, everything.
When I contradict you, that's not a 'liberal superiority complex'.
That's you being wrong.

 

[seinfeldrules]

read the summary it's all there....I picked out the most damning quotes ..would you rather I paste the entire article?

stop pushing your partisan agenda I dont care if it was clinton, gore, or abraham lincoln. Incidenily Bush sr was at the helm before clinton ..there are references in the document to 1992.


you're still a hypocrite

And you're still dodging the evidence.

Mecha I just got Halo2 and XBOX live. Im traveling to DC tomorrow so I wont be able to read, let alone respond to your post until Monday.

 

[Korgoth]

Yet another book deal. What a shocker. There were more strings attached to this man than a puppet.

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? All you can rely upon is O'Neill, who really didnt turn out to claim what you had hoped, and another disgruntled man with a book deal in Clark.

Clinton on Bush's invasion:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/

Also, Clinton passed into law a bill which gave the US full authority to remove Saddam, at least on a domestic stance.

And guess what, Richard Clark went under oath in front of the 9.11 commision and his story didn't change. His book deal had nothing to do with it, in fact, Condi Rice pretty much confirmed what he was saying when she went in front of the commision.

-"I believe the title of the report was bin laden determined to strike within the U.S."-

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And guess what, Richard Clark went under oath in front of the 9.11 commision and his story didn't change. His book deal had nothing to do with it, in fact, Condi Rice pretty much confirmed what he was saying when she went in front of the commision.

-"I believe the title of the report was bin laden determined to strike within the U.S."-

He also went on oath to say he would not participate in or aid Kerry's campaign. Also true.
And the 9/11 commission confirmed pretty much everything he said in the book.

If everyone had read the book, they'd know that the war in Iraq is relegated to only a couple chapters. The book is mostly a chronicle of how Al Queda developed as a threat, and the US reaction to them over time.
As such, Iraq isn't touched on too much except for some criticisms about how it was a pointless diversion from Al-Queda that Clarke saw as an irrational fixation for the Bush administration from the beginning.

 

[CptStern]

hmmmm the only person in this thread who disagrees went away for the week? cant have a discussion on the war in iraq if we all agree on the same things!

mecha: so what you think about the US in iraq?

Innervision: I think they lied about the whole thing

Mecha: ya me too

Stern: me too!




*sound of crickets*



........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

 

[Mechagodzilla]

........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

Well, we could go to the "textbook censorship" thread and try and convince hasan that gays won't destroy society.
...but he's vanished too.

So, how about them Red Sox?

 

[othello]

hmmmm the only person in this thread who disagrees went away for the week? cant have a discussion on the war in iraq if we all agree on the same things!

mecha: so what you think about the US in iraq?

Innervision: I think they lied about the whole thing

Mecha: ya me too

Stern: me too!




*sound of crickets*



........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

Sheesh, who stepped on your cat?

Seriously, starting off your 'argument' with "clearly you have no idea what you're talking about" when, even more clearly, everyone agrees with Stern and the only person here who agrees with you is rather MIA at the moment, is not exactly going to make us stroke our chins, nod and say:
"You know who isn't arrogant? That othello chap."

You're not Rudy and this isn't the superbowl. All the moxy in the world will not make you respected here.

If you're going to call someone stupid, you'd better have the facts to back it up, instead of saying:
"I'm smarter than you in this topic, so let's change the topic really fast before I am required to prove it."

So here's the topic we're debating: Was the need for Iraq exaggerated by the Bush administration?

So prove your side. Someone with your "educational foundation" shouldn't have any trouble.
Beyatch.

:stare:

 

[othello]

Sheesh, who stepped on your cat?

Seriously, starting off your 'argument' with "clearly you have no idea what you're talking about" when, even more clearly, everyone agrees with him and the only person here who agrees with you is rather MIA at the moment, is not exactly going to make us stroke our chins, nod and say:
"You know who isn't arrogant? That othello chap."

You're not Rudy and this isn't the superbowl. All the moxy in the world will not make you respected here.

If you're going to call someone stupid, you'd better have the facts to back it up, instead of saying:
"I'm smarter than you in this topic, so let's change the topic really fast before I am required to prove it."

So here's the topic we're debating: Was the need for Iraq exaggerated by the Bush administration?

So prove your side. Someone with your "educational foundation" shouldn't have any trouble.
Beyatch.

:stare:

why the change of tune? i thought bush sadistically lied to send all our troops to iraq so he could be rich while thousands of kite-toting iraqi children were mercilessly slaughtered?

now its whethere or not he 'exaggerated the need for iraq'?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

why the change of tune? i thought bush sadistically lied to send all our troops to iraq so he could be rich while thousands of kite-toting iraqi children were mercilessly slaughtered?

now its whethere or not he 'exaggerated the need for iraq'?

What change of tune? Are you insane?
I was arguing the ethical implications of a gay marriage ban before you showed up with this holier-than-thou attitude.
There was no "tune" to start with.

And I'm not Michael Moore. Seriously, I'm not. The kites are all in your mind.

But hey, notice how you still haven't presented a single piece of valid argument, yet continue to whine?
That's that arrogance thing I was talking about.

Put up, shut up, or place Fahrenheit 9/11 in your VCR and yell at the screen. Because that's the only way you'll be able to yell at the Michael Moore you apparently believe is here.

But he's not here. You're talking to me, you're talking to Stern, and you're talking to anyone else who joins in.
And if you're not going to raise the level of the debate, I suggest you leave.

 

[CptStern]

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

how about "why is the new guy a belligerent condescending loudmouth who goes out of his way to flame members with opposing views?"

anyways, bush is a liar liar pants on fire ..."laura godamm! my shorts are getting awfully hot" :thumbs:

 

[othello]

What change of tune? Are you insane?
I was arguing the ethical implications of a gay marriage ban before you showed up with this holier-than-thou attitude.
There was no "tune" to start with.

And I'm not Michael Moore. Seriously, I'm not. The kites are all in your mind.

But hey, notice how you still haven't presented a single piece of valid argument, yet continue to whine?
That's that arrogance thing I was talking about.

Put up, shut up, or place Fahrenheit 9/11 in your VCR and yell at the screen. Because that's the only way you'll be able to yell at the Michael Moore you apparently believe is here.

But he's not here. You're talking to me, you're talking to Stern, and you're talking to anyone else who joins in.
And if you're not going to raise the level of the debate, I suggest you leave.

ya it was a joke... i was exaggerating. and it made much more sense at 2:00am this morning. anyway, my point was... cptstern is rambunctiously claiming bush lied, and then you said we all agree with him, and then you ask if bush 'exaggerated the need for iraq'. those are 2 different viewpoints.

 

[CptStern]

k indirect lie #1:

“If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.” - George Bush talking to 101st Airborne Division

George H Bush pardons wanted terrorist Orlando Bosch, wanted in cuba and venezuela (escaped justice) for the bombing of a cuban comercial airline that killed all 73 aboard

I'll continue later when I have some time, gotta run

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

I reckon that the Democrats lost because they didn't get enough votes. I dunno, I could be wrong I'm from Australia, so I don't know, you guys from the states might do things differently.