Heads22 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I just wanted to see how closely the percentages will match those in Iowa on the 19th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 War hero Wesley Clark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 None, G Dub for Prez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Who gives a s***. Bush will beat any one of these losers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Who gives a s***. Bush will beat any one of these losers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I'll say Dick Gephardt since he's got the funniest name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Be Good Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 WELL I wanted Hiliary Clinton but ill have to wait for 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Al Sharpton....thats the republican in me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Al Sharpton....thats the republican in me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I like Dennis...but gimme a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket and Dubya will be going down in 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It's between Clark and Dean for me. I'm leaning towards Dean. Bush can't steal 2 in a row...can he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Who gives a s***. Bush will beat any one of these losers. Yes, and we have such a beacon in our AWOL, cocaine addicted boozehound who, according to friends and bartenders, liked to get drunk, strip naked and dance when he was in the Texas Air National Guard. He is the biggest f*** up in the history of f*** ups. He's never done a thing right without f***ing it up. He got into private school because of his family name, not because of his personal abilities. The same way he got into Harvard and Yale. It's the same way that his score of almost "too dumb to fly" [if he scored one point lower on the exam, that would have been his status] and there are a lot of testimonials that there were a few hundred thousand people ahead of him in the wait list with higher scores but somehow W got in so he would never have to serve in country. Then after that, he ran every oil company he had into the ground...Arbusto, Hearken, etc. A little bit of questionable and possible insider trading saved him though and gave him money to get a share in the Texas Rangers. And hey, using the governor's "eminent domain" to get land for the new baseball stadium because he and the other investors didn't want to pay adequate price for said land? Yeah, just a bit illegal as a court has found and is making the investors pay the people back for that. And after that the team wallows in the basement of the division. Yet again, W f***s it up. When he became governor, in his race, he actually lied quite a lot in his campaign quite blatantly and was quite overtly in the pocket of various lobbies [i.e. oil and energy] Even his status as an evangelical Christian was a f*** up when Pat Robertson went on national TV and called him a "man without mercy" when W executed Karla Faye Tucker. And let's not forget his execution of the mentally retarded. That's real Christian. Hell, he f***ed up in 2000 when he didn't even win the election with the most votes. [And hey, Florida would have been won if Katherine Harris didn't remove 57,000+ LEGAL voters from the voter rolls that were almost all Democrats plus the questionable absentee ballots that were cast after Election Day and multiples for certain people being sent in and all counted for Bush] It just boggles my mind that anybody actually can't see through him and see the corporate arm up his ass making him their puppet for everything they want to do. Like Bill Hicks said about Reagan and how everybody revered him as St. Ronald of Reagan despite being a bloodthirsty terrorist supporting sickening evil man: "How far up your ass does his dick have to be to make you realize he's f***ing you?" /flame on! P.S. Bones_r and other Dems on this board: Is it just me or do the Dems need to have Clark on board as either getting the nod or becoming VP in order to get the more moderate voter? I mean, who are people going to want to protect them...a 4 star general with 34 years of training in national security or a coked up oil boy from Texas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Someone's bitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Someone's bitter. Not bitter, just have a little insomnia this evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 P.S. Bones_r and other Dems on this board: Is it just me or do the Dems need to have Clark on board as either getting the nod or becoming VP in order to get the more moderate voter? I mean, who are people going to want to protect them...a 4 star general with 34 years of training in national security or a coked up oil boy from Texas? That's one of the main reasons I'm considering Clark, his previous work as a General and in Vietnam. Although, I believe Dean has the advantage on the domestic issues. But he was right about us not being any safer after Saddam was captured. If anything,the attacks in Iraq have gone up after the capture of Saddam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 BTW, Carnegie Foundation said today that the Bush regime either "lied" or "overstated" evidence regarding Iraqi WMD and stated that Iraq dismantled weapons programs by the mid 1990s. Sounds again like King of the f*** Ups can't even find WMD....but he can find oil and allow his VP's old company to gouge us out of $63 million in overpricing oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I like Dennis...but gimme a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket and Dubya will be going down in 2004. Yep, right down to the podium to take the oath for another 4 years as Commander in Chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Someone's bitter. I'd be bitter too if my side just kept losing and losing and losing. But as a Republican I dont have that problem and wont have it this year either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I'd be bitter too if my side just kept losing and losing and losing. But as a Republican I dont have that problem and wont have it this year either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I'd be bitter too if my side just kept losing and losing and losing. But as a Republican I dont have that problem and wont have it this year either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I'd be bitter too if my side just kept losing and losing and losing. But as a Republican I dont have that problem and wont have it this year either. They didn't win in 1992. They didn't win in 1996. And they had to cheat to win in 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 They didn't win in 1992. They didn't win in 1996. And they had to cheat to win in 2000. actually, seeing that Clinton's years in the white house were next to nothing in significance and success, republicans DID win those years, because in the long run, we're seeing a flood people upset and disagreeing with extreme leftists. here's where I split sides with you apu. I love how during the monica scandel republicans were trashed for bringing up personal/private life of the president...but as soon as it's our guy who in power, it's ok. Your rant had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal things. let's stick to what's important. by the way, bush had a better SAT score than Rhoad scholar bill Bradley....just sayin' I think as a Christian, Bush needs to rethink his stances on issues...but universally in politics, everyone has agendas, everyone has skeletons to hide. You don't like the guy because of policies...so name the policies and b**** about that. otherwise it's not constructive at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 NOTE: I meant that in a sincere and hopefully debate enabling way. no color added. just so you know. ps....I'm waiting for APU's book he's currently writing me back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 NOTE: I meant that in a sincere and hopefully debate enabling way. no color added. just so you know. ps....I'm waiting for APU's book he's currently writing me back Actually PA, Apu has been pretty brutal to the Clinton admin also. I think he is just antipolitician Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 actually, seeing that Clinton's years in the white house were next to nothing in significance and success, republicans DID win those years, because in the long run, we're seeing a flood people upset and disagreeing with extreme leftists. here's where I split sides with you apu. I love how during the monica scandel republicans were trashed for bringing up personal/private life of the president...but as soon as it's our guy who in power, it's ok. Your rant had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal things. let's stick to what's important. by the way, bush had a better SAT score than Rhoad scholar bill Bradley....just sayin' I think as a Christian, Bush needs to rethink his stances on issues...but universally in politics, everyone has agendas, everyone has skeletons to hide. You don't like the guy because of policies...so name the policies and b**** about that. otherwise it's not constructive at all. Using eminent domain as governor of Texas to get himself a bunch of money for a new stadium as a shareholder in the ownership of the Rangers is policy. His blatant lies during his governorship of TX are policy. His execution of people and being deemed as a "man without mercy" when he says he is a "compassionate conservative" is policy. Bush taking advantage of cruising by on his last name and then telling people that they need to earn their positions is yet again an example of his hypocricy in policy that he needs to rethink. Underfunding No Child Left Behind [and not making score adjustments for special ed kids...so a school with a lot of special ed kids has their test score overall lowered usually which = less funding for the school. I know this cuz a close friend of mine has 4 relatives that are teachers in school districts with lots of special ed students] Changing the drop out rates like he did as governor to start from 6th grade on so it made it look like drop out rates were 1-2% when they were around 20% is a lie in policy. Bush's AWOL status is important in policy because when it was his time to serve, he used every means he had thanks to his daddy being in the CIA and being rich to make him nothing more than a big chickenhawk. His previous dealings with oil interests are important because many of those same investors are major supporters of his presidential campaign. And when you see that he traded money for favors in TX, it is not illogical to think that he's doing the same in the White House. And hey, when is he gonna go after his buddy Kenny Lay of Enron [i say that in the fact that they actually were buddies when he was governor and they had lots and lots of private meetings together] And hey, if Clinton didn't have to fight off allegations that he may or may have not gotten a blow job, he could have done more. I personally think that Bush's lie to the world that has killed nearly 500 Americans so far and countless thousands of Iraqis is much more damaging...especially when he ran for President, Bush said that he would not engage our military "in what they call nationbuilding" because it was not what our military was designed for. Funny how a couple years later, we're in 2 countries doing something he said we wouldn't do. And don't yell "9/11!!11!!1!" cuz 9/11 had no impact on our going into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.