George Bush: Former Drunkard, Cocaine-user, War-dodger becomes War President

skwanch

*standing ovation*

I couldn't agree more. The sooner we get away from the two party system the better. I'd be voting for Nader (only because it'd be a demonstration of support for a third party candidate - I don't think he'd actually win, and don't really care for his policies.) if I weren't so certain that Bush has to go and that every vote is going to count in that regard.

davidmc

The title of this thread brought you in like a moth to a flame. The truth hurts.

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

davidmc

I hav'nt smoked in 20 yrs., not that that has any thing to do w/ Bush being a functional illiterate w/ a college degree.At least I never used cocaine like your messiah-W. Your grasping at straws Zapper. Re: George Bush: Former Drunkard, Cocaine-user, War-dodger becomes War President

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

davidmc

John Kerry has a history of making poor decisions...
Dick Cheney & I, on the other hand...
Chose to avoid fighting in vietnam.
From the Republican Convention.
9/3 Matt Davies/2004 Journal news.
Amusing !!!

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

Fixey

Bravo!
Do not think for a moment that this only exists in the USA, unfortunaly we have exactly the same problem.

lokstah

You know, I've got to disagree. I don't think the parties are quite as similar as we like to tease them for being.

Ok, I'll take that back. I think they're similar at their cores, where they're both fairly plainclothes and floppy; the self-serving limp-wristed businessmen mentioned above. It's a state they naturally revert to from time to time. But these things do morph according to great swinging pendulums, and at present, it doesn't look good. The Democratic Party is presently a spineless, centrist organization, devoid of any convincing ideology or clear principles.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, continues along the course it took in the 80s -- though not without internal bickering, its power is pretty well focused around a gallery of highly conservative Christian traditionalists with extremely clear ideals... a firmness of intent which has worked in their favor as of late. It's a slow transformation which has been fascinating (and to liberals, alarming) to behold. It's what Robert Reich calls the "Revenge of the Radcons" (or, I suppose, if you're a conservative Republican, the "Triumph of Gutsy Conservativism").

Well, we need a counterbalance over here before the left side of the chambers flip over under the formidable weight of the right. Folks like Kerry and Gephardt are, frankly, not even close to being a mirror for the high-octane right. What we need is a Barak Obama / Gore Vidal ticket.

Heh.

Saucy

I agree with a lot of what you say here. The Dems have moved to the center in recent years and have lost their way. But realistically, what choice did they have? Most Americans do not identify themselves as liberal and see themselves as mainstream. More disturbingly, americans are becoming less secular, unlike the rest of the western world, and are voting in line with their religious beliefs. Consequently, the Dems moved to the center - Clinton helped take them there. So what choice do they really have? Too liberal and nobody will vote for them. Move to the center and they are viewed as being the same as the Repugs (which I don't believe to be remotely true).

The only Dem who I believe truly holds up the liberal ideal is Ted Kennedy, but his presidential options are limited for obvious reasons. Note to future polical candidates: Don't let your lay drown in a car while you save yourself. Also, don't get drunk and chase your secretaries around the office. Nobody would vote for him anyway as he is "too liberal".



I would love to see a Clinton/Kennedy ticket. A one-way ticket to my bed!! *Rimshot*. Seriously tho, what does Obama stand for? I heard a lot of buzz about him during the DNC but I know nothing about his stance on the issues. My impression is that he is being hailed as a "star" simply because of personal charisma and less on politics. Its kind of unfortunate that his name rhymes with "Osama".