Hypothetical: What if Howie Dean wins on Nov 5th?

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-14 10:47am

Shhhhh you might blow his little liberal mind if you show him the hypocrisy in the way the Dems are opposing the war.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:12am

If Dean wins, then the tyrant and terrorist known as George W. Bush will out of the White House - and I for one will sleep easier at night knowing that a complete, fucking, racist, lying, conservative, and greedy moron isn't behind the wheels of the US.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-15 01:13am

JME2 wrote:If Dean wins, then the tyrant and terrorist known as George W. Bush will out of the White House - and I for one will sleep easier at night knowing that a complete, fucking, racist, lying, conservative, and greedy moron isn't behind the wheels of the US.

I'd really like to hear how Bush is a tyrant, a terrorist, or a racist, or why "conservative" is tantamount to "fucking, racist, lying, and greedy."

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:17am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
JME2 wrote:If Dean wins, then the tyrant and terrorist known as George W. Bush will out of the White House - and I for one will sleep easier at night knowing that a complete, fucking, racist, lying, conservative, and greedy moron isn't behind the wheels of the US.
I'd really like to hear how Bush is a tyrant, a terrorist, or a racist, or why "conservative" is tantamount to "fucking, racist, lying, and greedy."

Very well. First off, the 2000 election was rigged; Gore rightfully won. What stopped him were 5 Republican Judges on the Supreme court. In essence, our government is currently in exile if you look at it from a certain point of view.

* He and his Republican cronies are trying to deplete social security, which they have always been opposed to.

* The 'WMD'.

I could go on and on, but I'll refrain from doing so. I just disagree with many of his actions.

Bottom line: I don't like 'W', I didn't like his father, and if we're stuck with him for another four years than we're so scrwed...

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:25am

I'm actually going to modify one of Sisko's conversations to Weyoun from shortly before the outbreak of the Dominion War.

"I don't like the Republican Party, I don't like what it stands for, and I don't like you."

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 01:28am

Oh good lord...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 01:32am

JME2 wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
JME2 wrote:If Dean wins, then the tyrant and terrorist known as George W. Bush will out of the White House - and I for one will sleep easier at night knowing that a complete, fucking, racist, lying, conservative, and greedy moron isn't behind the wheels of the US.
I'd really like to hear how Bush is a tyrant, a terrorist, or a racist, or why "conservative" is tantamount to "fucking, racist, lying, and greedy."
Very well. First off, the 2000 election was rigged; Gore rightfully won. What stopped him were 5 Republican Judges on the Supreme court. In essence, our government is currently in exile if you look at it from a certain point of view.

* He and his Republican cronies are trying to deplete social security, which they have always been opposed to.

* The 'WMD'.

I could go on and on, but I'll refrain from doing so. I just disagree with many of his actions.

Bottom line: I don't like 'W', I didn't like his father, and if we're stuck with him for another four years than we're so scrwed...

Answer the question, you little shitface.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:33am

Little Shit-face? How the hell would you know what my face looks like...

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:34am

I was simply stating my thoughts on Bush. If you want to call me an arrogant, stupid little shit-face, that do so by all means. I believe in my beliefs just as you do. Thank you.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:35am

JME2 wrote:
Very well. First off, the 2000 election was rigged; Gore rightfully won. What stopped him were 5 Republican Judges on the Supreme court. In essence, our government is currently in exile if you look at it from a certain point of view.

As opposed to the Democratic Judges on the Florida SC, but I digress, Gore might have won the popular vote (still haven't seen adjusted figures after all absentee vote were tabulated) but he lost the electorial college. Sorry if you don't like it, but he lost what counted. The goverment is not in exile but you can keep telling your self that if it make you sleep better.

* He and his Republican cronies are trying to deplete social security, which they have always been opposed to.

WTF are you talking about?

* The 'WMD'.

I could go on and on, but I'll refrain from doing so. I just disagree with many of his actions.

Bottom line: I don't like 'W', I didn't like his father, and if we're stuck with him for another four years than we're so scrwed...

Still would like to see you reasoning behind why being a 'conservitive' equals being a negitive thing any more than being a 'liberal' is a negitive thing, especialy in context of your little list.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-15 01:40am

If Bush was actually a conservative and not a maniac...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 01:41am

JME2 wrote:I was simply stating my thoughts on Bush. If you want to call me an arrogant, stupid little shit-face, that do so by all means. I believe in my beliefs just as you do. Thank you.

No, Illuminatus asked you a question:

I'd really like to hear how Bush is a tyrant, a terrorist, or a racist, or why "conservative" is tantamount to "fucking, racist, lying, and greedy."

and you responded with a bunch of red herring bullshit. Are you going to answer the question or not?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:42am

Alright, as I see it, the Republican party is traditionalist, holding onto ideals from the past and trying to hold money back. Now I can sympathize with conserving money (which reminds, need to check my balance), but that's not the point.

The point is the Republican party in my humble opinion does not like change or reform that costs them more than they wish to spend or opposes their ideals. Their heavy government expenditures while contrary to their normal doctrine, is theorized as a way to deplte social security, which the party has opposed for years.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:44am

Iceberg wrote:If Bush was actually a conservative and not a maniac...

He's not exactly my type of conservitive, but JME2 is the one that used the term in a negitive light so.....

Personally, I think that Bush is opposite of me and my conservitism. I'm fiscally conservitive and socially liberal. He's a big spender and a fundie. But I still ache to hear JME2's reasons why 'conservitive' belongs in a list of words like 'racist, greedy, lying, tyrant, and terrorist'.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 01:44am

Also in my opinion, he's mishandled 9/11 from the start. Instead of making a fresh start, he pretty much said 'fuck you' to the rest of the world, to the UN (which I have now lost all faith in), and lied about Iraq.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:46am

JME2 wrote:Alright, as I see it, the Republican party is traditionalist, holding onto ideals from the past and trying to hold money back. Now I can sympathize with conserving money (which reminds, need to check my balance), but that's not the point.

The point is the Republican party in my humble opinion does not like change or reform that costs them more than they wish to spend or opposes their ideals. Their heavy government expenditures while contrary to their normal doctrine, is theorized as a way to deplte social security, which the party has opposed for years.

Even if I grant you your therory, how does the 87 billion put more than a small dent in the 1 trillion dollar per year social spending?

And you still didn't answer why 'conservitive' belongs with 'racist, tyrant, lyer, terrorist, ect...'

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-15 01:48am

Alright, as I see it, the Republican party is traditionalist, holding onto ideals from the past and trying to hold money back.

"trying to hold money back"?

Now I can sympathize with conserving money (which reminds, need to check my balance), but that's not the point.

OK...

The point is the Republican party in my humble opinion does not like change or reform that costs them more than they wish to spend or opposes their ideals.

First they're stingy...

Their heavy government expenditures while contrary to their normal doctrine, is theorized as a way to deplte social security, which the party has opposed for years.

...and now they're spend-crazy. As for the Social Security timebomb, feel free to believe that the Republicans are the ones at fault, if that's what gets you through the night.

Sorry, but that was just bizarre.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 02:02am

This may in fact be the first person I have ever seen who believes that the Republicans are responsible for Social Security problems. It was a pyramid scheme from the start, and while it originally had some shred of merit (due to the far larger ratio of working citizens to retired ones), it became clear by the 1970's that Social Security would eventually fail, and that it was only a question of when.

Very well. First off, the 2000 election was rigged; Gore rightfully won. What stopped him were 5 Republican Judges on the Supreme court. In essence, our government is currently in exile if you look at it from a certain point of view.

Explain how Gore "rightfully won." He won the popular vote, but everyone who goes in to the Presidential race realizes that the ELECTORAL VOTE is the one that counts. Incidentally, independent AP recounts of the infamous Florida ballot also indicated that Bush had more votes inside Florida than Gore had, and that recounting would not have changed the outcome.

Bottom line: I don't like 'W', I didn't like his father, and if we're stuck with him for another four years than we're so scrwed...

Hello logical fallacies. I would list them, but I'm not sure my numerical keypad has enough digits. Basically, you appeal to emotion and have set up a gargantuan slippery slope fallacy while failing to provide evidence. But go on... continue your belief that the Republicans are responsible for killing Social Security even though it was clearly a flawed program from the start.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-15 02:06am

Knife wrote:
Iceberg wrote:If Bush was actually a conservative and not a maniac...
He's not exactly my type of conservitive, but JME2 is the one that used the term in a negitive light so.....

Personally, I think that Bush is opposite of me and my conservitism. I'm fiscally conservitive and socially liberal. He's a big spender and a fundie. But I still ache to hear JME2's reasons why 'conservitive' belongs in a list of words like 'racist, greedy, lying, tyrant, and terrorist'.

Back in '84, I was a 7-year-old Reagan Democrat in then-very-very-VERY-Democratic Minnesota.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-01-15 02:06am

Please note: If Gore had managed to win his own home state, like almost every other major canidate, Florida would not have mattered one whit. Also, as MoO has said, Bush did win Florida.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 02:08am

Iceberg wrote: Back in '84, I was a 7-year-old Reagan Democrat in then-very-very-VERY-Democratic Minnesota.

So there IS hope for you yet?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 02:28am

Just forget pretty much everything I said; this happens everytime I debate politics.

The simple version: The Bush Administration's attitude and actions clashes with my ideals and beliefs. That's all.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 02:29am

JME2 wrote:Just forget pretty much everything I said; this happens everytime I debate politics.

The simple version: The Bush Administration's attitude and actions clashes with my ideals and beliefs. That's all.

Okay, that's fine.

To be honest, it's kinda what I figured.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-01-15 02:30am

Thank you.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-15 05:08pm

Just a few thoughts since I missed out on that exchange.

1) Bush did win the presidency, get over it.

2) Bush did work with the UN on Iraq. Some of the member nations however did not agree with his actions and made a big fuss. Since big fusses are what attracts reporters those are the countries and ideas that got the most attention.

3) In his initial speech on the Iraq issue Bush himself stated that the threat Iraq posed was not imminent (sp?) but should be dealt with. Sadly this was mishandled and ended up being the main issue that many believed to be the justification of the invasion. I wish this were not the case as Iraq was an issue that needed to be dealt with and 9-11 gave enough motivation to act on without harping on an issue that was not completely certain to be true. (ie I support the war)

4) Social Security is fubar, was from the start. I hope no one ever thought to depend on that crappy system to keep them going through retirement. And if they were then I put them in the same lot as the people that lost money in the Enron scandal by putting their entire 401k in Enron stock not ever stopping to wonder why their company's stock prices were rising while no actual increase in throughput or other such tangibly profitable activity was occuring.

5) I like pie. Nuff said.