tiger88 934 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 They named 2 programs cheney was against. They didn't name the many he was for. they only had time to scratch the surface of kerry and teds oppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Dick Cheney is NOT running for president. Apples/ oranges. Just like most of your arguments. Geez, I could've sworn I saw some Repubs argue that it was important to have a man like Cheney ready to take over instead of a fellow like Edwards. Mmmm, guess my hearing is getting worse. Sorry, I now understand that who the VP is is not relevant to a presidental election. Mmm. . . how do they spell p-o-t-a-t-o-e? You sure are easy pickins'! *grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,336 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Dick Cheney is NOT running for president. Apples/ oranges. Just like most of your arguments. Geez, I could've sworn I saw some Repubs argue that it was important to have a man like Cheney ready to take over instead of a fellow like Edwards. Mmmm, guess my hearing is getting worse. Sorry, I now understand that who the VP is is not relevant to a presidental election. Mmm. . . how do they spell p-o-t-a-t-o-e? You sure are easy pickins'! *grin* Nobody says its not important. Its just not the same comparison. In case you have forgotten, sKerry will lose to BUSH not to CHENEY. All you dems do is lie and deflect. If I ask you your shoe size, you say "You didn't ask Bush his shoe size", instead of just giving the damn answer. Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine, Deflect, Lie, whine. <The above has been an announcement on how to run a demoncratic presidential campaign> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 If they died in iraq...why would he be any more angry with bush than kerry...since they both voted for us to go to war? Better research that a little more, BG. There was never a vote for us to go to war. Link? Because that's news to me. Why do I get this feeling that the TRUTH would be news to many of the Bush supports? *grin* Well, we are all waiting on the Lawyers to define the "truth". Funny thing tho, They are still busy trying to define what the true definition of the word "IS" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Its interesting to see how such a simple thread, based on such a simple statement can be dissected and the entire message lost when you listen to the liberal voices and their shrill rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Tiger Al...I dont think bush hid any evidence or data from congress...do you?Still didnt answer my question. Link to prior discussion on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Ran across this and found it interesting. It's an introduction from the GOP's latest golden boy, Zell Miller. I'll let the text speak for itself. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Ran across this and found it interesting. It's an introduction from the GOP's latest golden boy, Zell Miller. I'll let the text speak for itself.LINK Geez Al, that makes him more of a turncoat than a flip-flopper. You can bash lawyers all you want, but on the whole, politicians are about as low as they get. I now apologize for saying something nice about Zell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 politicians are about as low as they get Almost. Politicians are definitely in the bottom 5. However, saying they are lower than the snakes that we call lawyers is a bit of a stretch. My bottom 5 (1 being the lowest form of scum): 5. Telemarketers 4 (tie). Politicians 4 (tie). Car Salesmen 2. self indulgent Hollywood actors/actresses 1. Lawyers Admittedly, there are a few good lawyers, just like there are good politicians. Like everything else, it's the bad apples among them that cast a dark shadow over the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Still more Zell: I, like many other people, watched Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's speech to the Republican National Committee last night in amazement. I was amazed, but not surprised. I got to know Miller a bit when I wrote a profile of him for The Washington Post in 1998 as he was preparing to step down as governor of Georgia after two terms. I spent time with Miller over two days -- one day at the State House in Atlanta and the next day at his family's home in rural Young Harris. Over burgers at Mary Ann's restaurant there, Miller talked about how the area used to be staunch Democrat territory and about how much that had changed. Most people outside of Georgia had never heard of Miller until 1992 when he delivered a stirring keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that was filled with praise for his friend Bill Clinton and criticism for then-president George H.W. Bush. The Georgia Democratic party has produced an ad with snippets from that speech. You can view it here. The video uses Miller's own words to make him look like a flip-flopper, to use a phrase that has become familiar in this campaign. A seminal moment in Miller's long political career, however, came in 1994 after he barely survived a reelection campaign against Republican Guy Millner, who pounded Miller for his efforts to remove the Confederate stars and bars from the Georgia state flag. Miller's reaction to this event was interesting and says much about his personality. Miller had long been known as a populist with a real stubborn streak. But he'd also been known as a guy with his ear to the ground, a guy who talked not just to other party people and politicians, but to real people as well. And what he was hearing was typical in the South at that time: a real anger and disaffection with the Democratic Party. By this time, of course, many of the people -- OK, we can be honest here; many of the white people -- who had once made up the core of the Democratic Party had already become Republicans or were on their way. Today's southern conservative Republicans are the ideological successors of yesterday's southern conservative Democrats. Rather than change parties, Miller decided to serve his second term as less of a partisan, and by the time he left office in 1998, he was the most popular governor in America, beloved by Democrats and Republicans alike. How did he do it? Miller took three lessons from his 1994 defeat: 1. Avoid polarizing social issues, like the Confederate flag and school prayer. 2. Focus on bread-and-butter issues like education and health care that all people care about. In the mid-1990s, Miller ushered through his signature policy, the HOPE Scholarship, which created a statewide lottery to finance scholarships for students at Georgia public universities and a pre-paid kindergarten program. Hundreds of thousands of young people have gone to school virtually tuition free on the program without using taxpayer money to do it. 3. Never let the Republicans get to the right of you. In his second term, Miller pushed welfare reform, boot camps for juvenile offenders and a measure that would require life sentences for people convicted of two violent felonies, exceeding the controversial three-strikes-you're-out provisions of many states. While some of these efforts drew the ire of Democratic leaders, Miller remained popular and openly began arguing that his party's hierarchy was out of touch with the people. At the same time, Miller didn't completely abandon liberal causes. He continued, for instance, to support affirmative action. Miller's move to the right continued when he got to the Senate. He dismayed Democrats by openly advocating for President Bush's tax cuts and aggressive foreign policy. But he didn't leave his party. In 2002, he stood by fellow senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) as he tried to weather a withering attack from the Republican Party over his opposition to a provision in the Homeland Security Bill that would have stripped workers of certain labor protections. In March 2001, in introducing Kerry at Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Miller said this: "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend. …In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." But that was before 9/11. After the attacks, Miller moved further to the right. But he wasn't yet completely in the Bush camp. Even as he supported the president's decision to go to war in Iraq, he continued to ask tough questions. I'll leave you today with an excerpt from an opinion column Miller wrote for The Washington Post in September 2002 during the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Miller said that while he bought the president's rationale that Saddam Hussein must go, his constituents who chatted with him at the same Mary Ann's restaurant where I had met him were very concerned and had some questions. Here are the questions Miller raised in that column: "(1) Even if Hussein has nukes, does he have the capability to reach New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta? "(2) The old Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles for decades, many of them capable of reaching our major cities, and yet we didn't get into a war with the Soviets. The president needs to explain why Iraq is different. "(3) Who will join with us in this war and what share will they be willing to bear? (There was also some grumbling about our boys in Afghanistan 'just doing guard duty' to protect those warlords.) "(4) What happens after we take out Hussein? How long will our soldiers be there? And, again, with whose help? "(5) There is concern about too much deployment. We've got our soldiers stationed all over the world. Someone needs to bring us up to date on where they all are, why they are there and how long our commitment to keep them there is. "(6) How does our plan in Iraq fit in with the whole Middle East question? How will it affect Israel? How will it affect our war on terrorism? Does taking Saddam out help or hurt that entire messy situation? "(7) At Mary Ann's Restaurant, Tony is all right. But Putin is not. Why are we putting so much trust in him? Is he still with us in the war on terrorism, or was that just so much talk at a photo op? "(8) The people at Mary Ann's know very well who fights our wars -- the kids from the middle-class and blue-collar homes of America. Kids like their grandchildren. They want to hear the president say that he knows and understands that. "(9) Forgive my bluntness, but these folks also want to hear the president and the vice president say that this war is not about oil. "(10) They also want to hear an explanation of why we didn't take care of this in the Persian Gulf War, and why it is on our doorstep again so soon." The president's Democratic critics (and some Republican critics) say the administration's inability to sufficiently answer those questions has cost Bush some of his support. Miller, however, has drawn a different conclusion, one that he laid out forcefully in last night's speech. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,336 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Sounds like he had all of his questions answered. Zell is loved because he listens to the people of Georgia. You know, the people he represents. Unlike sKerry who has his head up McCauliffe's derrier. Zell started out as a democrat when democrats actually cared about the hard working people of this nation. Now he sees the give-away, self-depracating, and elitist attitude that they take. Expunge Atlanta and you would rid yourself of 90% of the few demoncrats in GA. Zell has no more political aspirations so he can speak the truth as he sees it. Its a nice wakeup call for the demoncratic party coming from one of there own. Terry McCauliffe does not rule Zell and it pisses him off. I, as a Georgian, am proud to have Zell representing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Sounds like he had all of his questions answered. Zell is loved because he listens to the people of Georgia. You know, the people he represents. Unlike sKerry who has his head up McCauliffe's derrier. Zell started out as a democrat when democrats actually cared about the hard working people of this nation. Now he sees the give-away, self-depracating, and elitist attitude that they take. Expunge Atlanta and you would rid yourself of 90% of the few demoncrats in GA. Zell has no more political aspirations so he can speak the truth as he sees it. Its a nice wakeup call for the demoncratic party coming from one of there own. Terry McCauliffe does not rule Zell and it pisses him off. I, as a Georgian, am proud to have Zell representing me. And this Democratic policy change started in 2002? Also, according to you, republicans are the only hard working people in America. Why doesn't Zell want to be called one? Why doesn't he want their numbers increased in the Senate, if only on paper? If one were a muslim and after 9/11 realized that Islam wasn't the religion it once was or proclaimed to be, why would one continue to associate with it? If Democrats are so distasteful, why does he continue to associate with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,336 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Sounds like he had all of his questions answered. Zell is loved because he listens to the people of Georgia. You know, the people he represents. Unlike sKerry who has his head up McCauliffe's derrier. Zell started out as a democrat when democrats actually cared about the hard working people of this nation. Now he sees the give-away, self-depracating, and elitist attitude that they take. Expunge Atlanta and you would rid yourself of 90% of the few demoncrats in GA. Zell has no more political aspirations so he can speak the truth as he sees it. Its a nice wakeup call for the demoncratic party coming from one of there own. Terry McCauliffe does not rule Zell and it pisses him off. I, as a Georgian, am proud to have Zell representing me. And this Democratic policy change started in 2002? Also, according to you, republicans are the only hard working people in America. Why doesn't Zell want to be called one? Why doesn't he want their numbers increased in the Senate, if only on paper? If one were a muslim and after 9/11 realized that Islam wasn't the religion it once was or proclaimed to be, why would one continue to associate with it? If Democrats are so distasteful, why does he continue to associate with us? In the logic of demoncrats, "If if and buts were candy and nuts......" He's already said he's too old to change. Pull the wax out and do your homework. He's 72 and is retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Sounds like he had all of his questions answered. Zell is loved because he listens to the people of Georgia. You know, the people he represents. Unlike sKerry who has his head up McCauliffe's derrier. Zell started out as a democrat when democrats actually cared about the hard working people of this nation. Now he sees the give-away, self-depracating, and elitist attitude that they take. Expunge Atlanta and you would rid yourself of 90% of the few demoncrats in GA. Zell has no more political aspirations so he can speak the truth as he sees it. Its a nice wakeup call for the demoncratic party coming from one of there own. Terry McCauliffe does not rule Zell and it pisses him off. I, as a Georgian, am proud to have Zell representing me. And this Democratic policy change started in 2002? Also, according to you, republicans are the only hard working people in America. Why doesn't Zell want to be called one? Why doesn't he want their numbers increased in the Senate, if only on paper? If one were a muslim and after 9/11 realized that Islam wasn't the religion it once was or proclaimed to be, why would one continue to associate with it? If Democrats are so distasteful, why does he continue to associate with us? In the logic of demoncrats, "If if and buts were candy and nuts......" He's already said he's too old to change. Pull the wax out and do your homework. He's 72 and is retiring. The man can speak..."I withdraw my membership in the Democratic Party and am now a member of ____________________." Again, if we're so bad, why would he want to remain affiliated with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Again, if we're so bad, why would he want to remain affiliated with us? Because he, along with other non extremists that still refer to themselves as democrats, still believes there is some good left in the party. If they could only wrestle control back from the moonbats like sKerry, Screamin' Howard Dean, Gore, Kennedy, and the Klintons. He had best hurry, because more and more of these old school democrats are seeing the light and coming over to the party that still believes in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Because he, along with other non extremists that still refer to themselves as democrats, still believes there is some good left in the party. You'd be hard-pressed to find any evidence of this in his speeches or his votes. He's a straight republican, which doesn't really matter to me. I just don't understand why he won't fully associate with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Because he, along with other non extremists that still refer to themselves as democrats, still believes there is some good left in the party. You'd be hard-pressed to find any evidence of this in his speeches or his votes. He's a straight republican, which doesn't really matter to me. I just don't understand why he won't fully associate with them. Al I was really expecting him to say "I'm officially joining the rep. party" at any second during his speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,041 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 The man can speak..."I withdraw my membership in the Democratic Party and am now a member of ____________________." So since he does not toe the line with the liberal who control the Democrat part he should leave rather than try to work within the party? On second thought, it would appear that Mr. Miller had already come to the conclusion that the libs are unable and unwilling to work with someone who does not toe their party line. Again, if we're so bad, why would he want to remain affiliated with us? It could be that he resents and despises the left wingers who control the Democrat party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 So since he does not toe the line with the liberal who control the Democrat part he should leave rather than try to work within the party? Just so you know, he hasn't been to any caucus meetings in almost 2 years. So I hardly call that "trying to work within the party." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 So since he does not toe the line with the liberal who control the Democrat part he should leave rather than try to work within the party? On second thought, it would appear that Mr. Miller had already come to the conclusion that the libs are unable and unwilling to work with someone who does not toe their party line.It could be that he resents and despises the left wingers who control the Democrat party. All the more reasons for him to leave and not look back. That's what Jim Jeffords did when he became an independent. I'm not saying he should be kicked out or that I want him to leave. I just don't understand why he remains affiliated with a political party that he obviously hates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 More about Zell that he's been trying to hide. Now we know why he's backing the Republicans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupperClub 0 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I don't care who you support, that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Crazy Zell on 'Hardball.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaTiger 0 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 thanks for the link, TA. i hadn't seen it before... "What?!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaTiger 0 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 after watching/listening to it, the interview was much more jovial & nonconfrontational than it reads. ct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.