Bush supporters' aftermath thread

That would make for an easy decision on Election Day.

Really? Name two of those fronts, if you can.

Cycloptichorn

Okay:

1) Credibility shot to hell by his own book and his own testimony
2) He's boring.

Right, right. Boring.

And I don't think any Republican should be talking about credibility problems these days, do you? hehe

Here I thought you would be able to bring a substantive front that you could attack him on, policy-wise. Don't know why.

Cycloptichorn

You only asked for two.

Well, like I said, I was hoping for two 'fronts' which were substantive, such as policy position, etc.

'Boring' is not a front. It is a personal opinion about someone. So you really only have one, and that one - 'credibility' - your own party is pretty weak on at the moment, so I wouldn't turn that fight down at all.

Cycloptichorn

Yep. He's boring as hell.

But is he more or less boring than Kerry? ... or Gore?

Gore wasn't boring. He just came across as 'dense' and out of touch as well as more than a little delusional. Kerrey made sure he wasn't boring by giving us so many targets to shoot at, and his wife really helped make that fun.

I can't think of even a good caricature of Clark that would be recognized by more than a very few dedicated political junkies. And if Cyclop thinks 'boring' isn't a factor in political campaigns, he simply hasn't dug deep enough into campaigns in this century. Americans being as disinterested and ignorant of politics as they are--I'm speaking in the most general terms here--it isn't always the best qualified that gets elected, but it is the most likable.

I think it is a factor, but not a 'front', as there isn't any room for debate or discussion.

'Boring' is also highly subjective; for example, Tico said Gore was boring, you said he wasn't.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, you're right. Clark is way more boring.

And yes, Gore can be boring ... but he can also be NOT boring. I haven't seen that side of Clark.

Well in truth, if Gore had been less boring (to some) and had not so often projected an image that at times appeared to be dense and/or delusional, I haven't a doubt in the world that he would have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. Given that Clark hasn't even half the charisma of a Gore, we wouldn't need much of a candidate to beat him.

As an Able2Know member, I will post on whichever thread I wish.

I speak English, which language do you imagine is spoken on this thread?

As a native English speaker, I have no intention of going along with your idea of redirecting the English language to serve your own political ends. MSM is not generally recognized as a political term, much as the Blog reading conservatives here might have it otherwise. Moreover, Able2Know is not divided into liberal-friendly and conservative-friendly threads. That also is a construct of your own imagination.

If you wish to carry on your attempt to rearrange the accepted terms of political dialog in the country, do not expect to do so without criticism.

A) Where, oh where, is "there"?

B) Guckert came up in reference to the mythical "liberal bias" of the media. Foxfyre brought up that subject, not myself. You didn't object to her bringing it up, so I expect no objection to my responding to it.

Did any of those letters advocate invasion right at the moment? Isn't there rather a big difference between lettters advocating that an executive "do something" and the notification that 175,000 troops are now moving into a single country.




Amost certainly not invasion. Remember, this is the fellow who got the Balkans to cease-fir e without getting any Americans killed.

Foxfyre wrote:


I don't suppose the fact that no weapons of mass destruction appeared as promised had anything to do with that? Naah!

It's not a "political" term. It's an acronym. Get in the now, Gramps. From Wikipedia:


SOURCE

This is one of the absolutely silliest liberal arguments there is. Crying because of the use of an acronym.

Through the use of the helpful "Search" function helpfully provided by A2K, I was able to navigate you to .... THERE.



I didn't object to your bringing it up either. But since there is a thread devoted to bashing the Bush Administration vis a vis G/G, your diatribe is better placed THERE. :wink:

to KW: Okay I'll concede that your side had no intention of acting on their pronouncements that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. and everybody else. It's sooooo helpful to forcefully state the problem when you have no intention to do anything about it. Come to think of it, I think that's why Democrats have been losing influence and power for the last ten years or so.

Hey! That's a good thing! Keep it up my friend.

This probably doesn't mean anything, but it was an interesting tidbit in the news this week:

Americans didn't flock to Canada after Bush win
By David Ljunggren
Thu Aug 4, 2:55 PM ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadians can put away those extra welcome mats -- it seems Americans unhappy about the result of last November's presidential election have decided to stay at home after all.

In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north.

But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election.

On the face of it this is not good news -- Canada is one of the few major nations seeking to attract immigrants -- but Immigration Minister Joe Volpe was philosophical.

"We'll take talent from wherever it is resident in the world. I was absolutely elated to see the number of hits and then my staff said 'You know what? A hit on the Internet is after all just a hit'," he told Reuters on Thursday.

"I guess I'm happy Republicans and Democrats have found a way to live together in peace and in harmony," he said.

Canada generally tilts more to the social and political left than the United States.

Data from the main Canadian processing center in Buffalo, NY shows that in the six months up to the U.S. election there were 16,266 applications from people seeking to live in Canada, a figure that fell to 14,666 for the half year after the vote.

A spokeswoman for Canada's federal immigration ministry declined to speculate on the reasons for the drop.

Toby Condliffe, who heads the Canadian chapter of Democrats Abroad, did have an explanation of sorts.

"I can only assume the Americans who checked out the Web site subsequently checked out our winter temperatures and further took note that the National Hockey League was being locked out and had second thoughts," he told Reuters.

Last year, Canada, which has a population of about 32 million, accepted 235,808 immigrants from all over the world.
LINK

No, you just objected to discussing it further after your post attempted to dismiss it.




It was brought up here, rightfully so, and it will be discussed here.

Foxfyre claimed the media leans against the right, I brought up an example where the newspapers and TV are ignoring a story which can hurt the right. Along with the fawning, noncritical coverage of the Iraq WMD situation prior to invasion.

SOURCE
Yes, usually internet forums attached to websites whre people post about how Clinton killed Vince Foster. Except for a reference in the Daily Kos, virtually all references to the MSM as mainstram media I have come across were in various screeds decrying the allegedly awful pounding the media gives the right wing.

If MSM were known to the general public-and Able2Know is supposed to be geared to the general public, don't you agree?-then you wouldn't have to go through Google references to the Maastricht School of Management, Morehouse School of Medicine and similar institutions before you saw the links regarding mainstream media. Not to mention the many, many references to the one thing MSM really is known to the general public for-MethylSulfonylMethane.





Not nearly so silly as having to listen to the same conservative rant about what a raw deal the papers and TV are supposedly giving them year after year, decade after decade. Hell, this baloney goes back at least as far as Spiro Agnew, who inveighed tirelessly against the "biased" coverage the media was giving on the VietNam War and his boss, Richard Nixon. Agnew kept it up right to the point he pled no contest to taking road construction kickbacks when he was Maryland's governor.

One would think that since Agnew and Nixon were the main spokesmen for these charges against the media, and both were just as crooked as the media said they were, the drumbeat would cease once both were mercifully out of office. But no. The beat went on. And on.

And so day after day, year after year, we see and hear the same thing coming from the right wing-the media is biased against them. Reagan makes public statements where he confuses making his war movies with actually being in WWII, which he was not, and the media treats it like a joke. James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, says that preserving the environment is overrated since we aren't going to be around for more than couple of generations anyway. Some eyebrows are raised, but little more. Reagan gives a speech in Germany at a spot where Jews were slaughtered by the SS, and he says he's there to commemorate a conflict where people died on both sides-like there was an equivalence between innoncent Jews and the SS who slaughtered them. He gets a free ride from the press on that one. And so on and so forth. Yet the right soldiers on, maintaining in the face of history and common sense, that they are getting a raw deal from media.

Listening to this for year after year is hard to take, but right after the press laid down yet again and let a Republican president whip the country into a frenzy about the danger to the America from Saddam's nonexistent WMD's it becomes unbearable. Coming across yet another silly expression designed to promulagate the right's madness-MSM for mainstream media-finally pushes one to speak out. Acronyms are generally used by professoinals in a field, to shorten time since they are talking to people who work in the same field. To use them is to give off an air of expertise. For most of the people I see who use the acronym, their expertise consists of reading a few opinion pieces and and angry posts on blogs about it. Or listening to talk radio.

The acronym is pretentious, and it is the latest ploy used by the conservatives in their their never-ending campaign to sway the media even more in their direction by complaining that they are getting a raw deal.

And it is not even known to the general public anyway.