0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 12:06 pm
George -- Maybe this is a good time to lay out your differences with the Bush administration?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 12:08 pm
As anyone, ideological or otherwise can readily observe, the two statements are not equivalent. It isn't necessary to cast labels: the statements are there, ready for comparison.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 03:08 pm
Quote:
There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on.

When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of this huge reality of Texas.


The Uncompassionate Conservative
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 06:36 pm
Here's the text of Gore's speech today in Washington:

http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech.html

I see that ol' Constitution Hall in Washington is now called "DAR-Constitution Hall." Which is ironic in these times because the DAR (which owned the hall) refused to let Marion Anderson sing there because she was African-American.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 10:26 am
hobitbob wrote:
Perhaps I am not blinded by ideology, as you seem to be.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 11:20 am
Scrat, I'm one-eyed, but what am I king of? Wink
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 02:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scrat, I'm one-eyed, but what am I king of? Wink

California. Cool
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2003 02:53 pm
No, that would be me. You can't be king if you still get cable TV. Wink
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 05:37 pm
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent American Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million; Bush 143 million

Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000; Bush 2,427,000

States won by: Gore 19; Bush 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2 ;Bush 2.1
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 05:50 pm
cjhsa wrote:

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2 ;Bush 2.1


The relevance being what? That murderers were more likely to vote for Gore? As felons, they lost their right to vote...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 05:57 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000; Bush 2,427,000


"land" doesn't vote, cj... Rolling Eyes

These aren't 'interesting facts'; this is the very definition of propoganda.

You can do better than post this drivel. This makes no point except that someone is easily fooled.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 06:06 pm
If anybody wants to spend their time wasting it on junk information, I guess the conservatives/republicans don't have better things to do. Yeah, cjh, exactly what are you trying to say with this junk information that has absolutely no relavance? Talk about worthless information.......
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 10:40 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
cjhsa wrote:

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2 ;Bush 2.1


The relevance being what? That murderers were more likely to vote for Gore? As felons, they lost their right to vote...

Though Dean wants to give it back to them.

Gotta love where Dems see their core constituency. Cool
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 10:53 pm
Interesting point Scrat about felons having served their sentences being allowed to vote. might make a good topic, is there anything in the constitution or bill or rights that negates a convicted felon, after serving his/her sentence being deprived of the right to vote?
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 10:56 pm
Shrub
He sees what he wants to see. Anything else doesn't exist. The Working Class Poor in this country don't exist because he never sees them. Another reason that I despise him and people like him. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 02:34 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Interesting point Scrat about felons having served their sentences being allowed to vote. might make a good topic, is there anything in the constitution or bill or rights that negates a convicted felon, after serving his/her sentence being deprived of the right to vote?

I may actually be inclined to agree with you on this one Dys. I know of nothing in the Constitution (off the top of my head, anyway) that denies a felon who has paid his or her debt the right to vote, or even allows us to do so. If our viewpoint is that these people have actually "paid their debt" and that we are now welcoming them back with open arms, I'm not sure I see justification for denying them their vote.

On the other hand, I suppose the argument might be made that forfeiting your right to vote is one of the risks you take when you choose to engage in felonious activities.

I can see both sides on this one. My comments regarding Dean were not meant to disagree with him, but to point out that it always seems that Dems assume that felons will vote for Dems. It's like the "motor voter" push championed mostly by Dems, which seems at its core to assume that people who are too lazy or disinterested to go out of their way to register to vote, would vote Democrat if you just held their hands and forced them to register.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 03:02 pm
Insn't it usually state law that forbids convicted felons to vote? If so, how do many of them manage to hold office (I'm thinking of William Donald Schaefer)?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 03:42 pm
Hbob, are you refering to W D Shaefer, former Governor and current Comptroller, of Maryland?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 03:45 pm
Indeed, as well as his little buddy Rupersberger.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2003 05:34 pm
OK ... now that I know who you're talking about, just what are you talking about? Apart from the fact they are Democrats, I can't think of anything else for which they have been proven reprehensible, let alone criminal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 12:12:19