The last ditch effort to save the liberals..

[Joeslucky22]

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808591020&intl=us

A 2 hrs. 10 min. DOCUMENTARY!?

The republicans have gotten enough crap from micheal moore and his manipulation of facts and such, now this?

A movie about what kerry did 30 years ago...

How UTTERLY boring.

I hope that ALL of you are not the same as you were 30 years ago.

Idiots in hollywood try to make kerry look good, when indeed he is the WORST choice of the 2.

Don't let these money mongers get to you, and vote with an open mind.

This movie will be the showcase for the complete and total meltdown of the democratic campain. If only they could have had a better plan than they did. I guess next time they wont assume that controlling the media will guarantee a white house victory. Maybe if they didn't set themselves up to succeed at the failure of our country, they might of had a chance. Oh well I guess you can always hope to get your precious power back in 2008 with that crack-head hillary.... Good Luck next time you sneeky little liberals.

 

[CyberSh33p]

to translate a russian healdine for you, "Not even republican ketchup can help Bush"

 

[Joeslucky22]

Russian's are my friends.


Oh and russian's can't vote (besides the ones who have lived here for years) So I don't really care what they have to say.

Just more liberal spew.

 

[Sprafa]

This thread just went to hell.

 

[Neutrino]

....and vote with an open mind.

Sorry, but that's hilarious coming from you.

Oh and how exactly is the democratic party making any "last ditch" efforts when the polls are currently tied between the candidates?

Perhaps your getting so worked up over this documentary cause your afraid Bush's position isn't quite so secure as you once thought.

 

[DarkStar]

Don't let these money mongers get to you, and vote with an open mind.

Don't let the money mongers in the White House get you, and vote with an open mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're calling liberals "money mongers," when Bush gave a tax cut to his wealthy friends during a time of national crisis, when we really needed the extra money for homeland security,the war on terror, education reform, and healthcare reform.

You're calling liberals "money mongers," when Dick Cheney gave Iraq contracts out like candy to his best friends at Halliburton, a company from which he recieves a yearly pension.

You're calling libereals "money mongers," when liberals are the ones who want to use tax money to actually help the less-privledged among us, instead of robbing working families and giving the cash to CEOs.

Interesting.....

 

[Joeslucky22]

Sorry, but that's hilarious coming from you.

isn't it.

Man I hate liberals...

Don't let the money mongers in the White House get you, and vote with an open mind.

Idiot, I'm talking about the movie makers.

and to this:

You're calling liberals "money mongers," when Bush gave a tax cut to his wealthy friends

I've never been hired by a poor man :dozey:

 

[Joeslucky22]

funny how all you liberals are here (newtroniono) as soon as I post, knawing away.

I thought you said I wasn't worth talking to newbtrono.

So don't respond to anything I have to say. newbLibtrono.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Use the edit button, and stop insulting people...

 

[DarkStar]

I've never been hired by a poor man :dozey:

You're missing my point entirely. The point is that Bush cut taxes massively during a time of NATIONAL CRISIS. The government needs money to fund fundamental things like homeland security and arm our fighting forces in the war on terror.

Cutting taxes while engaged in a world-wide a war is unheard of. Not only is it economically unsound, it is irresponbile and morally corrupt.

Good job on ignoring the rest of my points too.

 

[B.Calhoun]

funny how all you liberals are here (newtroniono) as soon as I post, knawing away.

I thought you said I wasn't worth talking to newbtrono.

So don't respond to anything I have to say. newbLibtrono.

WHo the hell should be here??? ONly the people who you agree with huh?

Damn, you make yourself look stupid posting away with nohting but crap.

 

[Neutrino]

I've never been hired by a poor man :dozey:

Like I've said before how exactly does this support your argument? Do you have evidence that shows a tax cut for a rich person has a direct affect on their employees? Personally, I honestly don't know what exact correlation there is between tax cuts for the rich and the welfare of their employees. Do you?

I thought you said I wasn't worth talking to newbtrono.

So don't respond to anything I have to say. newbLibtrono.

When did I say that? I don't remember saying that, but sorry if I did. Maybe I was irritable that day.

isn't it.

Man I hate liberals...

First of all, just so you know, being for the democratic candidate does not make one automatically a liberal. I know you always label me as such and yes I do have quite a bit in common with liberal viewpoints, but if you want to get technical I actually lean toward being a moderate in some things.

But alright, I've got a genuine question for you. You always speak quite a bit about "liberals" and how much you dislike them. So I'm just curious, do you actually know what the general political viewpoints held by liberals are? Do you really even know where liberals stand on specific foreign and domestic issues? Because seeing as how much you apparently hate liberals it seems you must have a lot of specific reasons to feel that way, so I'm just curious what they are?

 

[gh0st]

the polls are currently tied between the candidates?

heh.. where have you been getting your statistics from? bush has a 7 point lead (usatoday)

 

[Joeslucky22]

Alright, here is a genuiune answer:

Yes




-----
7 points is a big lead.

 

[HatRabit]

/me nukes the thread before it gets any worse

 

[Neutrino]

heh.. where have you been getting your statistics from? bush has a 7 point lead (usatoday)

I do apologize, I shouldn't have said tied in the polls, I should have said "close", which I think they still are. That poll you quoted was from 20 days ago during a Sept 3-5 Gallup poll. Bush of course got a large bump as it was directly following the RNC, which was to be somewhat expected. Though I grant you Bush obtained a larger lead than is usually traditional after the convention.

Here's the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

Since then however, I've read other polls which have shown that the gap closed again. But it's of course hard to say where things stand until another national Gallup poll is released. However my point was that it is currently still a very tight race and things can still swing either way, especially with the debates coming up.

 

[DarkStar]

Alright, here is a genuiune answer:

Yes




-----
7 points is a big lead.

God, you start this thread and then cannot counter even ONE of my arguments or ONE of Neutrino's arguments. Pfft.....if you're not prepared to debate the issues, don't start political threads. Keep calling us names, that really makes you look good.

Ahh.....where's blahblahblah when you need him. Now there's a republican worth having a conversation with. In other words, he can actually discuss the issues without resorting to name-calling or by simply dismissing everything with "Bush has a 7 point lead! pwned!"

 

[Sprafa]

Joeslucky, if you any brains stil left in your head, ask for a close on this thread before it gets out of control.

 

[gh0st]

I do apologize, I shouldn't have said tied in the polls, I should have said "close", which I think they still are. That poll you quoted was from 20 days ago during a Sept 3-5 Gallup poll. Bush of course got a large bump as it was directly following the RNC, which was to be somewhat expected. Though I grant you Bush obtained a larger lead than is usually traditional after the convention.

Here's the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

Since then however, I've read other polls which have shown that the gap closed again. But it's of course hard to say where things stand until another national Gallup poll is released. However my point was that it is currently still a very tight race and things can still swing either way, especially with the debates coming up.

the polls now make little difference (especially gallup polls). they do show a negative trend for kerry though, the opposite for bush. the real test will come next thursday with the debates, which i think kerrys campaign thus far has prepared him pretty poorly for. i dont think he's going to have as concrete goals in mind when he debates but.. hey, we'll see.

"Bush has a 7 point lead! pwned!"

i didnt think i said it like that :dozey:

 

[CyberSh33p]

political polls generally don't respresent the actual outcome of the election.

 

[DarkStar]

the polls now make little difference (especially gallup polls). they do show a negative trend for kerry though, the opposite for bush. the real test will come next thursday with the debates, which i think kerrys campaign thus far has prepared him pretty poorly for. i dont think he's going to have as concrete goals in mind when he debates but.. hey, we'll see.

He may be prepared poorly, but I have no doubt that Kerry is able to think on his feet much more adequately than George Bush. If the moderater's questions weren't provided beforehand, I think we all know how well Bush would do.

That's why the man doesn't give press conferences. Bush is very good at prepared speeches, but he just can't speak off the top of his head with any semblence of intelligence or coherence.

 

[Neutrino]

but.. hey, we'll see.

That we will. Should be quite interesting to watch.

 

[KidRock]

Stinks like Liberal in this thread.

 

[DarkStar]

Stinks like Liberal in this thread.

Nice contribution KidRock! You always come through for me.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Saying things like that doesn't make you or your party look any better, kidrock.

 

[gh0st]

He may be prepared poorly, but I have no doubt that Kerry is able to think on his feet much more adequately than George Bush. If the moderater's questions weren't provided beforehand, I think we all know how well Bush would do.

That's why the man doesn't give press conferences. Bush is very good at prepared speeches, but he just can't speak off the top of his head with any semblence of intelligence or coherence.

i dont know about that. bush really might not be as dumb as people think. there must be a few connections inthat monkey head of his . i dont recall how last years debates went but if someone can find some archived videos of those thatd be interesting to see. if anything, his extremely intelligent advisers will probably prepare him well, and i suspect he will do better than kerry just on the merits of how the campaign has run so far

 

[CyberSh33p]

i dont know about that. bush really might not be as dumb as people think. there must be a few connections inthat monkey head of his . i dont recall how last years debates went but if someone can find some archived videos of those thatd be interesting to see. if anything, his extremely intelligent advisers will probably prepare him well, and i suspect he will do better than kerry just on the merits of how the campaign has run so far

I think the sovereignty movie shows how well bush thinks on his feet

defining a word using the word itself isn't valid, after all.

 

[gh0st]

I think the sovereignty movie shows how well bush thinks on his feet

defining a word using the word itself isn't valid, after all.

everyone makes mistakes, the question probably caught him off guard and i've seen videos of kerry making an ass out of himself and using "kerryisms" etc.

 

[DarkStar]

i dont know about that. bush really might not be as dumb as people think. there must be a few connections inthat monkey head of his

Oh, I don't think Bush is dumb at all. Being able to improvise, and think on your feet does not equal intelligence. It's just a specific skill some people have, and some people don't. Bush doesn't have it.

 

[blahblahblah]

He may be prepared poorly, but I have no doubt that Kerry is able to think on his feet much more adequately than George Bush. If the moderater's questions weren't provided beforehand, I think we all know how well Bush would do.

That's why the man doesn't give press conferences. Bush is very good at prepared speeches, but he just can't speak off the top of his head with any semblence of intelligence or coherence.

Interesting fact.

Both politicians (as in a mutual agreement) made the moderators for the upcoming debates sign a piece of paper requiring them to only ask prepared questions that both parties approved of.

We are not getting a debate, we are getting more political BS in my opinion.

 

[gh0st]

Interesting fact.

Both politicians (as in a mutual agreement) made the moderators for the upcoming debates sign a piece of paper requiring them to only ask prepared questions that both parties approved of.

We are not getting a debate, we are getting more political BS in my opinion.

it will force kerry to focus on the important issues and not to focus on the irrelevant (vietnam) ones.

 

[DarkStar]

Interesting fact.

Both politicians (as in a mutual agreement) made the moderators for the upcoming debates sign a piece of paper requiring them to only ask prepared questions that both parties approved of.

We are not getting a debate, we are getting more political BS in my opinion.

Yeah, if I was Kerry I would have pushed for a more open-ended format.

It sucks that the "debates" have to be this way. How is recitation of memorized answers in any way, shape or form a real debate?

 

[DarkStar]

it will force kerry to focus on the important issues and not to focus on the irrelevant (vietnam) ones.

Kerry wouldn't talk about Vietnam in a debate unless he was asked about it. During a debate you gotta answer the questions, its not a stump speech. He also realizes that he totally overplayed his Vietnam hand.

 

[blahblahblah]

it will force kerry to focus on the important issues and not to focus on the irrelevant (vietnam) ones.

Here is where both canidates stand on the issues

I haven't had time to read it myself. It looks to be somewhat indepth for both canidates.

 

[Neutrino]

Interesting fact.

Both politicians (as in a mutual agreement) made the moderators for the upcoming debates sign a piece of paper requiring them to only ask prepared questions that both parties approved of.

We are not getting a debate, we are getting more political BS in my opinion.

To go along with that here's an interesting article on the debates:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50257-2004Sep25.html

Alternative link if you don't have a washingtonpost account:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6100918/

One quote from the article:

"They call them debates, but they're not debates," said Republican debate coach Sheila Tate. "They're platforms for the two candidates to position themselves" for an audience of undecided voters who, research shows, tend to rely on their gut, Tate said.

I'd like to think that they actually mean something, but I'm afraid you may be pretty close to the truth about the nature of any presedential "debate".

Though I don't think it's really all the much different from past debates.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I do apologize, I shouldn't have said tied in the polls, I should have said "close", which I think they still are. That poll you quoted was from 20 days ago during a Sept 3-5 Gallup poll. Bush of course got a large bump as it was directly following the RNC, which was to be somewhat expected. Though I grant you Bush obtained a larger lead than is usually traditional after the convention.

Untrue. The bounce wasnt expected at all because Kerry received none at all. To top it all off, Kerry was quite rude by making many public statements and harrassing the President during the convention. Bush let Kerry have the spotlight during the DNC (as is usually done). Bush has pulled ahead in many of the swing states and has the majority of electoral votes (by around 50-60).

 

[Neutrino]

Untrue. The bounce wasnt expected at all because Kerry received none at all. Bush has pulled ahead in many of the swing states and has the majority of electoral votes (by around 50-60).

That's not true that Kerry didn't receive any bounce after the DNC. Yes it was less than was expected or hoped for by the democrats, but it was still there. There's usually a poll bounce after a convention so although Bush's was quite large, the bounce itself wasn't unexpected.

About the swing states, yes Bush is in the lead, however it's still what I consider as a narrow lead. I think we'll really get a better idea of things after the debates.

 

[seinfeldrules]

That's not true that Kerry didn't receive any bounce after the DNC. Yes it was less than was expected or hoped for by the democrats, but it was still there.

There was none. Look at the polls if you want.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=12565

the bounce itself wasn't unexpected.

Apparently you missed every political talk show and newspaper leading up to the RNC.

 

[DreamThrall]

everyone makes mistakes, the question probably caught him off guard and i've seen videos of kerry making an ass out of himself and using "kerryisms" etc.

That video was from a press conference with reporters from an all-native american journalist group. How could you not be prepared to answer questions like that in that kind of company?

 

[Joeslucky22]

There was none. Look at the polls if you want.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=12565


Apparently you missed every political talk show and newspaper leading up to the RNC.

Nuewtrondo = pwned?