0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 12:40 pm
Quote:
On the issue of a strong economy and low unemployment versus job creation, Blue State voters who feel a strong economy is a bigger priority than job creation by a 50% to 40% margin...

That the majority of people in the "Gore" states feel this way while most A2K liberals continue to wail about the "jobless recovery" is just more evidence that A2K's liberals are not representative of most liberals in America, much less of most Americans. Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 12:42 pm
Scrat, I'm not "most liberals." I disagree with the rhetoric from both sides when they claim they can "produce jobs" in this country.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 12:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
bocdaver, I trust the Washington Post more than any publication in Florida. Sorry, but you do the reading. I've already done mine.

Translation: Don't confuse me with facts that prove me wrong, I've made up my mind! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 12:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The entire article can be accessed by the link I provided above, but this paragraph explains the problem in Florida best. "Democrats and African American leaders have charged repeatedly that black voters were disproportionately affected by the state's election procedures, including confusing ballot designs and instructions. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report in June criticizing management of the Florida election for disenfranchising voters, particularly blacks."
And the lone conservative on that commission offered a blistering dissent, pointing out that not a single person was found who could show that he or she had been "disenfranchised" either by intent or by accident. That commission's "findings" were pre-ordained, and they, like you, did not let the facts alter their opinion in the least. Read the report for yourself and tell me it sounds like a factual analysis of what occurred. (Oh, I forgot, you've already "done your reading". Shame... seems there might be a few things you haven't yet read that might have some bearing on this issue.) Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 01:04 pm
The world according to Garp...................
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 01:33 pm
Scrat's quote, "Shame... seems there might be a few things you haven't yet read that might have some bearing on this issue.)" Not surprising that I choose my reading material that is subjective to my personal interests. I guess, I'm weird that way.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 01:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scrat's quote, "Shame... seems there might be a few things you haven't yet read that might have some bearing on this issue.)" Not surprising that I choose my reading material that is subjective to my personal interests. I guess, I'm weird that way.

That makes sense to me. But tell me... you seem to have been interested enough in the Florida election debacle to have read SOME news reports and other writings about it. Have you now lost interest, or is it that you simply prefer not to read anything that might poke holes in what you think you "know" about the issue? And if you have lost interest about the issue, why then are you here offering opinions on something that no longer interests you?

It appears to me that you simply don't care to read anything that disagrees with the conclusion you've drawn. That's the essence of what you wrote; you "know" everything you need to know, and don't care whether someone might know of some factual evidence that would disprove your personally held beliefs in this--or (it seems) any--matter. When you announce to the world that your opinion is proof against any new information, you've announced that you are comfortable willfully embracing ignorance and pretending to knowledge. That's not a stance I'd be willing to take on any matter.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 01:55 pm
BillW wrote:
The world according to Garp...................

Did you read the report, Bill, or are you just mindlessly sniping at people who are actually informed about these issues?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 01:57 pm
My ignorance is appalling to many on A2K. Many choose not to debate me - which is fine with me!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:02 pm
Scrat
Tell me what does terrorism to do with our attack on Iraq. There was no link between the terrorists that hit the WTC [Bin Laden] and Saddam. Just another lie that this administration fed the public. Bush climbed on his horse and attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as he should have. However, that horse should not have carried him to Iraq or beyond. He is riding it to it's death along with the health of this nation.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:04 pm
Bush put Pryor on the bench.
More fundys in federal judgeships
Quote:
Bush to Install Judge, Bypassing Senate
By JEFFREY McMURRAY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Bypassing Senate Democrats who have stalled his judicial nominations, President Bush will use a recess appointment to put Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at least temporarily, government sources said Friday.

The White House began informing senators Friday afternoon of Bush's intention, said one Senate source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The recess appointment, which would last only until the end of this year, would be the second by Bush to sidestep Democrats who have mounted successful filibusters against Pryor and five other appeals court nominees.

The recess appointment was the second that Bush has used this year for sidestepping Senate Democrats opposed to his nominees.

Last month, Bush used an identical appointment to promote Mississippi federal judge Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bush picked Pryor last April for a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Abortion rights advocates immediately mounted a campaign against him, citing Pryor's criticism of the Supreme Court's Row v. Wade decision saying women had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Republicans have been unsuccessful in five attempts, the last one in November, at breaking through the parliamentary blockade that Democrats erected against Pryor's nomination.

Pryor, 41, is a founder of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which raises money for GOP attorneys general. At his confirmation hearing, he said he had not lobbied tobacco companies or companies under investigation by his office, but Democrats said they had documents showing Pryor may have been involved in some fund-raising activities.

0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:13 pm
Do you know something about Pryor that isn't written in that article? I see nothing to suggest he is a "fundy".

Also, can you help me understand the difference between writing "More fundys in federal judgeships" and "More Jews in federal judgeships". Seems to me most people would be ashamed to write the latter in a public forum. How is the former different?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:15 pm
Even you can't be that naive!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:15 pm
Just released: "Nader to Announce Sunday His Presidential Plans
20 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader (news - web sites), whose third party run in 2000 many Democrats say cost Al Gore (news - web sites) the presidency, will announce on Sunday whether he will run again this year."

I voted for Nader in 2000, but not in 2004.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:29 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Even you can't be that naive!

I assume that means you have nothing on which to base the claim. So, let's skip to my second question: how is your denigration of fundamentalist Christians and clear inference that they should not be allowed to hold judgeships different than someone saying we shouldn't allow Jews on the bench?

And I may be naive, but I'm not an anti-Christian bigot. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:42 pm
Nader
I hope that Nader does not choose to run. However if he does IMO it is just an ego trip on his part. Hopefully he will be like a race horse and break his leg on the way to the post.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:53 pm
Maybe he will announce he is backing Kerry or Dean with them on the podium with him.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 03:54 pm
I think the nation is too polarized for Nader to make as much a difference as he did in 2000.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 04:11 pm
in an election between tweedledum and tweedlede, Nader was seen as a possible alternative, not much has changed since then other than tweedledum proving his label making tweedlede seem reasonable in comparison.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2004 04:22 pm
I think there's gonna be more cross-over voting in the next election for tweedlede, and Nader will come in someplace with much less than in 2000 - if he decides to run.
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 0.06 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 06:05:38