Is anyone else frustrated?

Welcome to A2K Regal.

Einherjar is right.

This is one of the things the French do better than we do. Sad

0 Replies

I'm also an orphan from Abuzz (former mptain).

Quote:

Why has no one asked about the 'Pro-Clinton (I suppose)' stance that caused (I suppose) the first trade center attack as well as the other numerous attacks during the 90s. So much hate as to plan to take another shot at the towers in the late 90s.

Well, ya know, since Bush has been in office, we've occupied two countries, lost over 3,000 people on 9/11 while on BUSH'S watch, experienced the first net loss of jobs since Hoover, are witnessing Iraq as terrorist central and a new recruiting poster boy for Al Qaeda.

When Bill Clinton goes to Europe, they love him. When Bush goes, he hides from the protestors.

Big difference, neue regel. You should really pay more attention. The issue is about getting our allies back (the ones I was talking about regarding the hatred towards Bush), not terrorism and Al Qaeda. But we can certainly argue that terrorists LOVE Bush for creating a recruiting environment in Iraq.

0 Replies

Frustrated? I have reached a point where I can't stand either of the candidates. The Democrats would have had a slam dunk in this election, if only they had not nominated a turkey like Kerry.

What I find interesting is that when I read many of the posts, I see very few people waxing rhapsodic about the achievements and abilities of Kerry. It seems to me that most people are more interested in ousting Bush, than voting for a candidate that they really want, or like.

I find this situation rather frightening. Are those two the best the the US has to offer? If so, IMO, no matter which way we go, we are in BIG trouble!

0 Replies

Hey, twain. Good to see you.

'The issue is about getting our allies back'

To do what? Russia, Germany and France have already said that if Kerry wins, they are still not coming back. They are pissed because they have been caught taking kickbacks from Saddam. Bush stirred that s**t-pot and screwed them out of a bunch of money.

I guess in a way, I can understand that.

0 Replies

Hey, twain. Good to see you.

'The issue is about getting our allies back'

To do what? Russia, Germany and France have already said that if Kerry wins, they are still not coming back. They are pissed because they have been caught taking kickbacks from Saddam. Bush stirred that s**t-pot and screwed them out of a bunch of money.

I guess in a way, I can understand that.

0 Replies

I agree, Bush stirred the sh*t-pot and screwed them out of a bunch of money. Afterall, this is all really about oil.

So, if Kerry were to give these countries more of a financial stake in Iraq, then perhaps they will participate more in the process of cleaning up Bush's mess. At least Kerry will utilize his years of experience as a Senatorial statesman and work hard to negotiate any possible deals.

It's worth a shot, because Bush hasn't done squat.

And it's good to see you, too, neue. You should find yourself an avatar. Their awfully fun, and you can Photoshop the crap out of your enemies, as well as former CEO's of Halliburton.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nope, you get what you get. That's why primaries are so vitally important. The Dems blew their chance when theydecided Kerry and his long lost war buddy was the right choice for them.

That's an interesting point, and one I haven't pondered with regard to the Republicans yet. So tell me -- in nominating Bush/Cheney for the 2004 ticket, which alternatives did the Republicans consider during their primaries, and why did they reject them?

As to Scoates' original question, I believe the frustration in your community is fairly common. The Republicans among my friends all tell me they are voting Bush because he's a lesser evil compared to the Democrats, but none of them has looked me in the eye and told me: "I think George Bush did a really good job in the last four years, and that's why I'll vote for him again."

0 Replies

Thomas writes:

Quote:

in nominating Bush/Cheney for the 2004 ticket, which alternatives did the Republicans consider during their primaries, and why did they reject them?

However ill advised and non productive it may be, in the American two-party system, party protocol virtually insists that the incumbant not be seriously challenged by anybody. So, other than a few 'favorite sons' who run for name recognition only, no credible Republican is going to challenge an incumbant Republican president; ditto for the Democrats.

That is why the conventional wisdom is that the Clintons are quietly and unobtrusively--okay covertly--intentionally scuttling a Kerry presidency lest Hillary have to wait for eight years to make her own run.

0 Replies

Conventional wisdom is rather self-interpretive in this case (IMO). Plus, the "blame Clinton" mantra is just getting so old these days.

0 Replies

The Clintons are garlic to Republican vampires.

I don't think there is any evidence that they are 'intentionally scuttling' the Kerry campaign. And I definitely don't think that idea qualifies as conventional wisdom.

0 Replies

Pretty sure everyone was hoping McCain would have run again...

0 Replies

Of course there is no evidence. They certainly would not wish to be seen as trying to get a fellow Democrat defeated. But how much do you see them on the campaign trail.....both have been pretty scarce during this campaign even considering Clinton's recent surgery. And Dookie, I wasn't blaming anybody. Just stating what the thinking is out there.

Do either of you, Dookie, Freeduck (or anytbody else) really believe Hillary Clinton wants Kerry to win this election?

0 Replies

McG wrote:

Pretty sure everyone was hoping McCain would have run again...

I know I was.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course there is no evidence. They certainly would not wish to be seen as trying to get a fellow Democrat defeated. But how much do you see them on the campaign trail.....both have been pretty scarce during this campaign even considering Clinton's recent surgery. And Dookie, I wasn't blaming anybody. Just stating what the thinking is out there.

Do either of you, Dookie, Freeduck (or anytbody else) really believe Hillary Clinton wants Kerry to win this election?

FYI, Clinton is recovering from quadruple bipass surgery. But it is reported that he calls Kerry frequently with advice.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do either of you, Dookie, Freeduck (or anytbody else) really believe Hillary Clinton wants Kerry to win this election?

I think so. The real october surprise is going to be Clinton's ringing endorsement from his bedside.

Wait and see, it's going to blow you away.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Um, Clinton DID have surgery (a quadruple bypass), so I would imagine the family is laying somewhat low in dealing with Bill's recover.

Any normal family would.

And yes, I do believe BOTH Hillary and Bill want Kerry to win.

0 Replies

And to answer fox's question, yes I do think they would like to see Kerry win this election as I'm sure they believe that is what is best for the country.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Um, Clinton DID have surgery (a quadruple bypass), so I would imagine the family is laying somewhat low in dealing with Bill's recover.

Any normal family would.

And yes, I do believe BOTH Hillary and Bill want Kerry to win.

yep. it really does take the "umph" outta you. physically and mentally. i was lucky, my wife had so much vacation time stored up that she was able to take an entire month off. it must have been very, very entertaining for her watching me sleep. Laughing

the "kill bill" riff is sooo boring. even if hillary was as demonic as some maker out to be, it would be illogical to leave the bush administration in place. why would she want to allow the neo-cons to take things even further in their direction?

Is anyone else frustrated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know