A question for Repubs....

[Hook Dem]

Asshole. It's an honest question and an interesting discussion. Belittling somebody is no way to convince them of your point of view. It seems more like an attempt to convince people who already agree with you that your is proportionate in size to your ego.

There are posters who, right or wrong, think before they type; and there are posters who are knee-jerk bandwagon twits. Look at your contributions to this discussion, compare them to Scott, MB, or Whott and tell me which one you are.

Mark...I think it is interesting that you chose to call me out. When Duff posts something like this, I find it kinda one sided. "I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish)" Now , with all the mudslinging that goes on in here, how come you didn't call him down on that one? We are referred to Repugs and Bush is referred to as "shrub". Did you say anything about that????? thats a big NO ! . Seems to me that you are a little one sided in your criticism. Could it be because you support Kerry? I don't know but I do know that you are very selective when you finally decide to criticize. Thats my two cents. Whats yours?

[Mark in Austin]

defending your actions or behavior by saying "but X does it too!" is pretty weak.

"I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish)" Now , with all the mudslinging that goes on in here, how come you didn't call him down on that one?

What is there to call him out on? He called people who resort to name calling childish. As I recall, that is one of the things usually dealt with in elementary school. In this thread, you were the one acting like a twit when others were actually trying to have a discussion.

Seems to me that you are a little one sided in your criticism. Could it be because you support Kerry? I don't know but I do know that you are very selective when you finally decide to criticize.

What side are you referring to? I called you out for acting like a jerk, not acting like a conservative. Believe me, I've called out Duff for this reason before as well. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion.

Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?

[Hook Dem]

defending your actions or behavior by saying "but X does it too!" is pretty weak.


What is there to call him out on? He called people who resort to name calling childish. As I recall, that is one of the things usually dealt with in elementary school. In this thread, you were the one acting like a twit when others were actually trying to have a discussion.



What side are you referring to? I called you out for acting like a jerk, not acting like a conservative. Believe me, I've called out Duff for this reason before as well. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion.

Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?

'He called people who resort to name calling childish.' ........no..he called Republicans childish....no mention of Democrats! BIG DIFFERENCE! .......... "This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion." ..........Wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona? ........"Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?" ...........What I think is this....you somehow see yourself as an intellect and see me as a "twit". That being the case, I will say this.....You obviously don't like me and I surely don't give a flip what you think. Tell you what...don't comment on anything I say and I will afford you the same courtesy. We will just agree to just not like one another.

[Mark in Austin]

"This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion." ..........Wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

Thank God you're here to tell me what my motivations are

........"Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?" ...........[B]What I think is this....you somehow see yourself as an intellect and see me as a "twit".

I didn't say you were a twit. I said you were acting like one. There's a difference.

We will just agree to just not like one another

like you? not like you? I don't know you.

[Hook Dem]

Thank God you're here to tell me what my motivations are




I didn't say you were a twit. I said you were acting like one. There's a difference.



like you? not like you? I don't know you.

Starting right now, I'll honor my committment to not comment on your comments.

[Yonivore]

I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish) But riddle me this....if Bush is such a better president than Kerry ever will be.....why is this election so close? You would think that if he was that much better this would be a landslide. But it's not.

I'm not endorsing either guy...cause politics is not a part of my life, but if he really is so much better...he'd be crushing his opponent on everything from the debates to the pre-election polls.

A couple of observations...

A President's legacy (great or not) is rarely recognized during his tenure;

I don't believe it is a close race;

History will be a much better judge of the Bush presidency than anyone living through it can be. There a lot of things not known now that will be known in years hence; and,

Demoncrats is my term of choice for persons of the Democratic Party that have chosen the "scorched earth" policy of politics...which, by the way, is a huge reason President Bush has such a negative image. The Demoncrats have worked their asses off, this election, to demonize the man, obscure the good news coming from the war on terror, and to "sensationalize" the bad. There are Democrats, (i.e. Joe Lieberman) and there are Demoncrats, (i.e. Hitlary Clinton). Call it "childish" or "sop ric," if you like, I don't intend to change.

If it bothers you that much, ignore me.

[Hook Dem]

"If it bothers you that much, ignore me." .............I guess you're a "twit" also Yoni.

[Yonivore]

"If it bothers you that much, ignore me." .............I guess you're a "twit" also Yoni.

eww, ouch!

[scott]

I mean you have to look at it like this...if Bush does get re-elected by winning the popular vote..he'll be more popular now than he was in his first term. That means he won over voters as President...any President who does that is a successful President.

Interesting take, but I have to take issue. There are too many variables in the equation to say that an increase in votes (as a percentage of total voters) means he was a successful President and won people over. He could be the worst President ever, but if you put up someone like Michael Moore against him, he'll probably increase his votes. We can't control for his opponent, what voters actually vote, etc. If the exact same people voted for Bush over Gore again on the same agendas, then I'd agree with your premise - but if Bush manages to get 60% of the vote, who knows if it is because he has been successful or because John Kerry sucks.

[Yonivore]

Interesting take, but I have to take issue. There are too many variables in the equation to say that an increase in votes (as a percentage of total voters) means he was a successful President and won people over. He could be the worst President ever, but if you put up someone like Michael Moore against him, he'll probably increase his votes. We can't control for his opponent, what voters actually vote, etc. If the exact same people voted for Bush over Gore again on the same agendas, then I'd agree with your premise - but if Bush manages to get 60% of the vote, who knows if it is because he has been successful or because John Kerry sucks.

I take exception, as well.

The popular vote means squat. As I've stated before, hundreds of thousands of Republican and Demoncratic voters don't turn out in states that are not in play.

[scott]

I agree with you, Yoni. All the more reason to abolish the Electoral College.

[Yonivore]

I agree with you, Yoni. All the more reason to abolish the Electoral College.

And, that is where we disagree. All the more reason to keep the Electoral College.

[scott]

You've got me intrigued... I'll try to check in the forum enough to participate in a healthy discussion if you are up for it.

Can you go into detail regarding your admiration of the E.C.?

[Duff McCartney]

'He called people who resort to name calling childish.' ........no..he called Republicans childish....no mention of Democrats! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yeah but I haven't read of anybody calling Bush a "shrub" or a republican a "repug".

[Yonivore]

You've got me intrigued... I'll try to check in the forum enough to participate in a healthy discussion if you are up for it.

Can you go into detail regarding your admiration of the E.C.?

I'm not up for it tonight, but I'll post a detailed support of the College in the next day or two.

It will revolve around the premise that the office of the presidency was never intended to be filled through direct election. The only jobs "We the People" were ever intended to hold sway over were those of our Representatives in the U.S. House. The 17th amendment, allowing for direct election of Senators (who were supposed to be the state's representatives in Congress), stupidly set in motion the whole nonsense this was supposed to be a "Democracy."

The Cons ution, in it's beautiful simplicity, recognized that all direct elections should be local and, thus, under the control of local citizens and less prone to fraud and wrongdoing.

But more in the coming days.

[Duff McCartney]

Call it "childish" or "sop ric," if you like, I don't intend to change.

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.

[Yonivore]

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.

Okay, thanks.

[Hook Dem]

Yeah but I haven't read of anybody calling Bush a "shrub" or a republican a "repug".

Well, thats a clear cut case of "selective reading".

[Brodels]

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.

Why don't you actually respond to some of the points being made in the thread for a change?

For instance, tell us why you think that the popularity of a president is an accurate measure of his ability to be a good leader.

[Hook Dem]

chirp*chirp

[Duff McCartney]

For instance, tell us why you think that the popularity of a president is an accurate measure of his ability to be a good leader.

The at ude of the people reflects the leadership.

But like I said before..I'm not the one saying he is a good leader...it's Yonivore and Marcus Bryant that say he is a superior candidate than Kerry, yet his popularity doesn't reflect that.

[Duff McCartney]

Well, thats a clear cut case of "selective reading".

Selective reading? Give me a ing break...when every damn post by Yonivore either begins or ends with "demoncrat". I'm not denying that people haven't called Bush names...but I haven't read it on this board...maybe you have...but I haven't.

[Hook Dem]

Selective reading? Give me a ing break...when every damn post by Yonivore either begins or ends with "demoncrat". I'm not denying that people haven't called Bush names...but I haven't read it on this board...maybe you have...but I haven't.

You're one of those that needs to OPEN YOUR EYES !!!

[Yonivore]

You're one of those that needs to OPEN YOUR EYES !!!

Leave it alone, Hook...he's a ing Demoncrat anyway.

[Brodels]

The at ude of the people reflects the leadership.

But like I said before..I'm not the one saying he is a good leader...it's Yonivore and Marcus Bryant that say he is a superior candidate than Kerry, yet his popularity doesn't reflect that.

That's where you're looking at this in a very simplistic manner. Popularity doesn't truly reflect the quality of a candidate.