Distill it down; who will win?

[WrongWay 0]

Anyone but Bush.

He's an asshat.
He's an asshat.
He's an asshat.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[dbattman 0]

Ditka

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Ditka

Is he drivin' da Bearsss' busss?

[quade 4]

Quote

Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

However, if I were to take a guess . . . Kerry.

Reasons:

1) This Administrations total disregard for the Powell Doctrine when dealing with international conflict. (Ironic ain't it -- since Powell himself is Sec. of State.)

2) This Administration, more than any other in my memory, appears to be under the influence of big business. For the purposes of electability, I don't care so much what the actual facts are, but if there is a general perception that the Admin. is being controlled by backroom deals, then people will vote to get it removed.

3) It's just time to balance things out again. This Admin came on strong with their agenda and even with the threats of global terrorism (maybe even using it to help their agenda) have managed to really swing things pretty far right of center.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Bush has declared war on the separation [I WISH WAS CALLED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION] between church and state.

Just so we're clear.

[Nightingale 0]

it is. it's the part about "make no law respecting" religion.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Anyone but Bush.

He's an asshat.
He's an asshat.
He's an asshat.

And to think they give you a vote...


Maybe it should be "drinking age 18; voting age, one year later than whatever age you are". If this is the "reasoning" that goes into your voting decisions, woe be our system.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Nightingale 0]

um... why would you vote for someone you think is an asshat?

perhaps he should have elaborated as to WHY, though.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That begs the question, whose fault is that?

It's every citizen's fault. "You get the government you deserve."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Dale Earnhardt... No, wait...

Michael Schumacher !!!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

it is. it's the part about "make no law respecting" religion.

Much as I WISH that were so -- I am against religion (in government or anywhere, since I think it's inane) -- I do NOT see what is written there as a prohibition against anything except making LAWS that ESTABLISH a state religion. Not sure what exactly is meant by "respecting" an establishment of religion, but I take that to mean "with regard to." Congress shall make no laws with regard to an establishment of religion.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

um... why would you vote for someone you think is an asshat?

perhaps he should have elaborated as to WHY, though.

I'm just saying... a post like that seems to be evidence of simplistic thinking on the subject. Like Homer Simpson: "Eatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepuddingeatthepudding..."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

That begs the question, whose fault is that?

It's every citizen's fault. "You get the government you deserve."

If my vote cannot control the votes of others, I most certain do NOT "deserve" what the end result of the tabulation of all the votes is. What if I was the lone person who voted for a non-evil candidate; everyone else made the evil candidate win, and I didn't help that. It's MY fault when he starts eating babies during his state of the union addresses?

The only way that statement works is as a virtually useless, abstract generalization.

You might say that the Ukrainians deserved to be starved to death by Stalin, since they "tolerated" that kind of treatment. Well, it's hard to rise up to conquer an oppressor when you aren't sure that if YOU rise up, everyone else won't remain seated!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[headoverheels 334]

Kerry, by 420k votes.

Bush has, to me, been surprisingly Presidential in his ability to make decisions and take action. Unfortunately, his decisions and actions are often in the wrong direction.

I'm a conservative. I believe in conserving my rights, not eroding them like Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft. I am less safe travelling the world, because of Bush's actions, than if he had not taken any at all. In many ways, America is acting like that other evil empire we were told about 35-40 years ago when we were children.

[PhillyKev 0]

MMMMmmmmm........puuuuuuuudiiiiiiiing

[Jib 0]

Win? It's more like the less palatable candidate will lose. But, I think sKerry's less palatable, because he's further left than Bush is right.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think sKerry's less palatable, because he's further left than Bush is right.

I guess if your idea of centrist is Thatcher, or John Howard.

[lawrocket 3]

Kerry will pull it off.

THere are plenty of right wingers like me who will vote their conscience.

Bush is a unifier - he did for the Democratic Party what Clinton and Reagan did for the Republican Party - brought them together. I think Bush is a far weaker candidate now than he was 4 years ago. While the economy is improving, he has mismanaged too many things and entered into some things that he shouldn't have.

Mainly, his administration (i.e., AG, Defense) all sound like defense lawyers. People don't like that.

I say he's gone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

The U.S. Supreme Court has carefully reviewed the history behind the First Amendment and repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than an establishment of a state religion. As the court stated in Abington School District v. Schempp (1962), "this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another."

The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that, after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."* And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said that governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion."


*edited to add the entire quote from Everson v. Board of Education:

"Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

[kelpdiver 2]

So the question is not who you want, but who will actually win.

And that will be Bush. He has the warchest, he has Kerry as his opponent, and he has the shift of Electoral Votes to the states where he is stronger, away from states like NY and MA where he has no chance.

He can still blow it. A few months ago I put the odds at 95%, now I think it's closer to 75%. If Iraq doesn't get quieter soon, he might do well to let Chaney have "a heart attack" and retire so he can pick a new running mate.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Abington School District v. Schempp

My last apt. was in that school district. It's about 20 minutes from here. I've never heard of this case before, though.

Quote

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Hmmmm, how does that apply to GWB's "faith based initiatives"?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

it's the part about "make no law respecting" religion.

Thankfully, your in depth analysis of the constitution does not agree with real constitutional scholars, most important among them, the Supreme Court.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Bush will win.

A young Kerry will be shown telling the Congress that the atrocities were widespread and condoned by the military leadership. Well, at least that's what a lot of people I trust told me. Oh, one more thing, I didn't see any atrocities or take part in them myself, but every soldier who served there should be treated as a suspect.

That is an example of a guy showing himself to be an ASSHAT

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,120]

>A young Kerry will be shown telling the Congress that the atrocities
>were widespread and condoned by the military leadership.

And Bush will be trying to weasel out of any responsibility for the torture, rape and murder of Iraqi prisoners, despite the memos his lawyers wrote condoning it and Rumsfeld's game of hide-the-abuse-from-the-red-cross. He effectively removed that option from his deck with the Iraqi prisoner torture scandal. If he has half a brain, he's going to avoid bringing up the topic of war atrocities; it would be like Clinton accusing someone else of being unfaithful to their wives.

>Oh, one more thing, I didn't see any atrocities or take part in them
> myself, but every soldier who served there should be treated as a
> suspect.

There are well over 100,000 soldiers in Iraq. That's a lot of people to suspect.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Of course, if I were to post who should win, I'd have to tell you about Michael Badnarik.

I can tell you why in just one sentence:

He is the Libertarian condidate.

i agree, unfortunately voting for him means you will have less than your single vote's weight when it comes to who really ends up in the executive seat next term.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.