17 reasons not to ... by Michael Moore

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Jonas Strider: http://www.michaelmoore.com/ This is for those who were disappointed of the election. Some humor by Moore.

Ahhhhh....the wonderful, rapier wit of Michael Moore. I have to admit that a part of me wanted Kerry to win just Moore wouldn't have anything to whine about for the next 4 years. Then again, I don't which would be worse...listening to him complain for 4 more years or listening to him crow for 4 years.

Either way, the fact that Bush's re-election pisses him off so much is reason enough to vote for Bush (in my humble opinion [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) LOL

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Philosophical question: Would America be more likely to elect Hillary, a woman, or Powell, a black man?

I actually suggested to a liberal buddy right after Gulf War I that Colin Powell might stand a good chance of being elected President. He has only improved his resume' since then. I don't know how the international community would feel about that after his meetings with the U.N. Council leading up to the Iraq War, but my guess is that they will view his actions as being directed by Bush, so they would realize he was just doing the job he was hired for.

I hear a LOT of suggestions that Hillary will run in 2008, but I doubt she could pull off the top job. There are still too many Red States that don't like her. It's possible that she could be added as the VP. That would give her a much better shot at the top job. I think the Dems are going to have a big advantage in the next election myself. I really don't think the Repubs will support Cheney as the Pres, so they will have to pick a new candidate. And I don't think Jeb would have a snowball's chance in HELL, because even a lot of Bush supporters weren't behind him 100% this time around. I think America in general has had enough of the Bush family - at least for now.

One other possibility on the Dem ticket is Obama (from Illinois). He is extremely popular (at least in his own state). Again, I'm not sure he could pull off the top job (BTW, I'm not questioning his ability OR Hillary's - I'm just saying I doubt they could WIN the election), but he might be another possible VP candidate.

On the Repub side, I have to agree that Guliani would stand a good chance of winning. He is very popular with BOTH sides of the spectrum and I think he might be seen as a President that would be more concerned with the American citizens and the good of the country rather than his political affiliation.

[Grojlach]

I think '08 is a bit too early for Obama, though.

And Giuliani was a real class act when he blamed the troops for the failures in Iraq regarding the missing explosives.

[ 11-07-2004, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Grojlach: I think '08 is a bit too early for Obama, though. And Giuliani was a real class act when he blamed the troops for the failures in Iraq regarding the missing explosives.

I'm beginning to think you don't like ANY Republican, no matter the person. We could go through all of Clinton's closets, comments, and screw ups, but I won't...

EVERY PERSON in politics does/says things some people don't like, Bob. ( [img]smile.gif[/img] ). Look past silly/misrepresented comments which I am pretty sure he didn't mean in a nasty way.

I'm beginning to think both sides here AUTOMATICALLY hate 'insert Dem or Rep' just because they ARE Dem's or Rep's. (Sorry for the abr. I'm tired, and going to go pass out) But you know what I mean? I really hope you and others here are not like that. Labels do not make the person. --Not every time.

[Grojlach]

Why bring up Clinton at all? Not being much of a fan of the Republican mindset doesn't automatically make me a Democrat... So who's doing the labeling now? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
That aside, being an atheist and a left of center European as I am, there's much not to like about the Republican party and what it represents, whether it's the neo-con approach to other countries, or the religion-based issues (which are basically undebatable; just consider the IW moratorium on religious debates as exhibit A); and those are just the issues that don't even have anything to do with the actual differences between the definition-based and secular left and right-wing. So yes, I tend to disagree a lot more with the Republicans than with Democrats in general, even though this is most definitely not a black and white situation.

However, my remark regarding Giuliani has very little to do with "hating" republicans. I don't "hate" republicans, I disagree with them. Some of my disagreement borders on ridicule, but that's only when their policies are laughably stereotypical (Ashcroft, anyone?), or their opinions too extreme to warrant any serious responses (Coulter comes to mind). I mostly mentioned that thing about Giuliani because it genuinely surprised me (I actually saw the interview, in which he was basically saying that Kerry should cease his attacks on Bush because the troops, and not the Commander-in-Chief, was basically responsible for the missing explosives). Now, while there's some logic to his words and while I'm not demanding Rumsfeld's retirement over this or anything, the rules regarding responsibility in the field are clear enough that you can't just distance yourself from any failures, you have a certain responsibility as a commander-in-chief that you have to take.
And for the record, I would have considered Giuliani's comments tasteless *regardless* of his political affiliation.

[ 11-07-2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Cerek]

Yes, the Commander-in-Chief has to accept a certain level of responsibility, but Kerry and Edwards were stating that Bush was directly responsible for the lost explosives. That it was all HIS FAULT. And that simply isn't the case. They also made it sound like this had happened just a couple of weeks ago instead of 18 months ago.

So if you want to be upset about tasteless comments and baseless accusations, you need to spread an equal amount of disdain on the actions and comments of Kerry and Edwards.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: Yes, the Commander-in-Chief has to accept a certain level of responsibility, but Kerry and Edwards were stating that Bush was directly responsible for the lost explosives. That it was all HIS FAULT. And that simply isn't the case. They also made it sound like this had happened just a couple of weeks ago instead of 18 months ago. So if you want to be upset about tasteless comments and baseless accusations, you need to spread an equal amount of disdain on the actions and comments of Kerry and Edwards.

Who says I didn't? You've participated in the same topic regarding this a few weeks back as I did, and I clearly stated that I don't agree with Kerry's opportunistic approach to this issue. And sure, Giuliani was "only" responding to Kerry's allegations, but he went a few steps too far in his assessment, in my opinion.
But come on, do I really need to put a "but Democrats are evil too, mmmkay" disclaimer in every single one of my posts, especially when I've made my opinions more than clear on numerous occasions already? Maybe a thing to consider for my signature...

Either way, before others feel like misinterpreting my words - let it be noted that Giuliani, while no saint, is still more than capable to run for President in '08 in my opinion.

[ 11-07-2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Jonas Strider]

I have a more disdain of Bush and Cheney for their comments and actions. I've like most of what Kerry and Edward has said and done. That's why I voted for K&E. Unfortunately, more people liked B&C. Oh well, my life goes on with whoever is in the Whitehouse.

On another note, I don't vote like to vote a straight ticket just for a particular party. I have voted in the past for other parties in for different offices. There are few Repubs I would not vote for especially when I notice that they are too far right. Now there are some that I would very much consider such as John McCain and Colin Powell. I too think Powell was doing his job and really get the sense he's disappointed with Bush and how the war went. Guiliani? Er no I would note vote for him.

Hillary Clinton in 2008? Maybe as VP, but as of right now she's a long shot IMO. Still anything can change within the next 4 years. I would definitely consider her for my vote. Barack Obama in 2008? If the country is hungry for new leadership besides the Repubs, and depending who else is running against him, and how what has he done for Illinois, he might have a shot but still toooooo early to call. This is his first term as senator, he's still green. Jeb Bush in 2008? That guy is a crook! I really believe he rigged the voting in 2000 election year of Florida. Yeah he looked good during the hurricane, but that's just a cloak. I don't trust that man.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Ziroc: quote: Originally posted by wellard: Trust Moore to put a fun spin on things... Can I add that reason ~18 for not leaving the country is that.... in 4 years time we get to see the republicans heading for the border / slashing wrists when H.Clinton becomes the 'El Supremo' worth the wait IMO [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Come now, You actually think Americans will put HILLARY in the whitehouse?! LOL, thats a good one! Choc laughed too. ANYONE but her.

I hope Giuliani runs. I really like him, and think he would do a great job. [/QUOTE]No I don’t think She will either, I just threw her name in the ring because I like the way she makes some people froth at the mouth [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Just say Clinton or Moore and stand back to watch the fireworks ... Its good fun

The worst thing about Jeb Bush running would be having to listen to another 4 years of conspiracy plotters

Giuliani left a good impression on me after the way he handled New York’s crime rate, sure he cracked a few eggs but so what? Though if anyone wants to educate me and link me to a site of his misdemeanours feel free. He his A Republican many Democrats could (and have) voted for.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Why bring up Clinton at all? Not being much of a fan of the Republican mindset doesn't automatically make me a Democrat... So who's doing the labeling now? [img]tongue.gif[/img] That aside, being an atheist and a left of center European as I am, there's much not to like about the Republican party and what it represents, whether it's the neo-con approach to other countries, or the religion-based issues (which are basically undebatable; just consider the IW moratorium on religious debates as exhibit A); and those are just the issues that don't even have anything to do with the actual differences between the definition-based and secular left and right-wing. So yes, I tend to disagree a lot more with the Republicans than with Democrats in general, even though this is most definitely not a black and white situation. However, my remark regarding Giuliani has very little to do with "hating" republicans. I don't "hate" republicans, I disagree with them. Some of my disagreement borders on ridicule, but that's only when their policies are laughably stereotypical (Ashcroft, anyone?), or their opinions too extreme to warrant any serious responses (Coulter comes to mind). I mostly mentioned that thing about Giuliani because it genuinely surprised me (I actually saw the interview, in which he was basically saying that Kerry should cease his attacks on Bush because the troops, and not the Commander-in-Chief, was basically responsible for the missing explosives). Now, while there's some logic to his words and while I'm not demanding Rumsfeld's retirement over this or anything, the rules regarding responsibility in the field are clear enough that you can't just distance yourself from any failures, you have a certain responsibility as a commander-in-chief that you have to take. And for the record, I would have considered Giuliani's comments tasteless *regardless* of his political affiliation.

Bobbby.. Clinton as in Hillary. She is who we were talking about. [img]smile.gif[/img]