If the democrats start to take over..?
not4u
Posts: 512
..will it be the neocons that will orchestrate the next terror attack?. Will our eyes be opened? Will be be raped? or will dick cheney's warnings simply fade away. Its not like the dems won't do a good job. Its the fact that the republicans are not in power that will have us Fall. democracy? lol
we don't want war, but we still want more?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Great point, and it's not brought up enough. The last election didn't really offer much of a choice on any real important issues, since the candidates take the same stance on those.
why is it that the world's only superpower chooses it's leader from 'the lesser of 2 evils'??? we have no real choice w/ these 2 parties.
how do you get nominated? you need money. where does the money come from? over 90% comes from corporations...hell, oil and gas have given almost a billion in 'contributions' since 2000! do ppl really think they just give this money w/o expecting anything in return? (who wrote our energy policy, again?
it's just an illusion of choice
“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”
- Bill Hicks
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not sure that President Kerry would have kept us in Iraq this long... I also doubt he'd be handling the Iran problem the same way.
well, obviously he wouldn't follow the neo-con agenda, but overall i don't think there'd be a whole lotta difference. he was too phoney and stiff. it was obvious he pandered (as does bush) to ppl instead of saying what HE thought. god, istill remember him on the daily show all stiff and that horrid flop-flip joke of his he thought was so amusing
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm still trying to figure out what Kerry's policy positions are on anything. Same goes for the Dems. I can't make a comparison until I hear what they want to do.
In terms of no differences between the parties, the 90% of Americans who like capitalism actually do see differences between R's and D's.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Don't worry, your not alone. As far as I see it, this is pretty much the norm across all Western democracies. 2 parties or 20, it wouldn't make a difference. Complicitly we trust afluent people who are well connected, even if they stab us in the back time and time again.
I can tell you, without reservation, that this is not the case.
he was definitely a bad campaigner, but i thought he would have been acceptable as a president. also, he was unfortunate enough to be running against a campaign that operated with a virtual "war of attrition" mentality. kerry went as the "i'm not bush" candidate, and bush campaigned on two platforms: he portrayed kerry as a liberal, faggot-loving, abortion-happy, terrorist-sympathizing, traitorous flip-flopper, and he also just flat-out tried to scare the shit out of the american people by saying that if he's not re-elected, we'll get hit by terrorists again. oh yeah, they might have invoked that "sunny morning in september 2001" a few times, too.
in any event, kerry could have been the second worst president in history and still been the better than bush.
As for the Kerry/Bush differences, there are a good bit if you look for them. Kerry's campaign didn't make it easy on the voters, though. For one, dispite his vote, I don't think Kerry (or Gore) would have invaded Iraq. Kerry's terrorism plan dealt more with law enforcement than all out war. He's also a lot better for the environment - and I think, if he could have worded correctly (which isn't likely) he could have gotten a lot of support for alternative fuel subsidies had he made it into office. He's also voted against just about every drug war expansion that's come up since he's been in the Senate.
I know you were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I wanted to get in on it. I honestly think a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate would be good for the country, if only to change power holders.
we are forced to trust the affluent. look at the conn race. ned spent 5 million or so and so did lieberman, the affluent are the only ones who can run a national or large, successful campaign.
Not me. If the Democrats win, I'm going to spend November claiming that the election was stolen. Then, I'm going to attack Speaker Pelosi every single day and blame her for all the world's problems. One thing I won't do, is offer counter points and solutions.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
no but it's cool to say you're moving to canada when you're upset.
that sounds like a good plan...speaking out to hold elected leaders accountable...
I wonder why one would only do that for one party and not another...
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
The budget was not balanced in 1992. The last time the budget was balanced, the Republicans had control over 2/3 of the branches of government.
that's well thought out. i'm voting for you, next time. get joe walsh to be your vice president.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
You are a stereotypical, brainwashed, conspiracy theorist, liberal..
George Washington
they showed clips on the daily show of dick cheney saying that a lesser republican presence will make it easier for terrorists to attack. Sounds like a warning to me.
So the Dems oppose NSA, examining patterns (not wiretapping citizens) in phone calls, and examining terrorist financing activties. So you think opposing these programs makes it harder for terrorists to attack?
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
My administration will not allow any current or former members of the Eagles to hold any position of any kind, sorry.
i do agree to profiling to some extent and the dems are foolish but
all i am hearing in the silence is 'vote republican or die by terrorists' - that is why i made this thread.
"vote republican or die by terrorists' Even if the dems follow the republican's terror platform and somewhat overboard citizen profiling, if the neocons do not have controll, they will kill us untill we yeild.
- this is obviously a prediction. so we'll see.
Cool, then I still have a spot.
You can be Secretary of the Interior or something. HUD, maybe.
I wouldn't be opposed to voting Democrat If I could at least hear their plan. Kucinich was on O'Riley last night and at least outlined his plan, I was impressed that he acknowledged a problem. I wish more Democrats would do this.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I'll take it.