Backfire

[neur0t0xin64]

Ok clearly here asdf_admin is either drunk, high, hurt, hungry, or just simply in need of a post...but anyway, *cough* ...Toasty, that was a good analysis of how Kerry can stay in the race, but listen to what your saying!!

"In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened." -toasty

Is that all it is to you, who has the better campaign speech, say whats safe and makes you more popular!!! Im outraged Toasty because you usually have intelligent insight, but your comments here im shocked. Its undeniable that Americas task is a dynamic one. We have alot of shit going on...people whose only purpose in life is to attack our ideology-and will decapitate us in a heart beat to prove it. People from all over the world trying to come to our country illegally sneaking over our borders...immediate nuclear threats like in N. Korea & Iran, domestic issues like healthcare, education, national defense, poverty, and our growing national debt etc...nobody has all the answers. But its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense. We're losing jobs because of outsourcing, ok...guess what it started in the last few years of the Clinton administration, and Teresa Heinz deploys 80% of her workforce for Heinz, Inc to China...why because its cheaper and her company makes more money! I dont agree with it. That sucks..but where lies the answer? How in a free trade and capitalist economy can we say"No you as a private corporation cannot let people over there do the job cheaper" this is one example of a dynamic problem that that exists among dozens. Fact is looking back over the last 4 years with what the US had to deal with...9/11, airlines, threat, immigration, economy, etc....things are not that bad...nobody I know is really hurting, to me kerry is not even an option.

[asdf_admin]

i might of been drunk from the baby shower ... maybe ... but i am not sure.

my whole point ... after last nights 6+ hour court hearing in my humble home ... it sucks. they both suck. they both do not deserve the spot light. period.

/wheres my beer ?

[superdave]

Re:: Backfire

I will disagree with most on here and say Bush's public question and Kerry's response were definitely political moves. I see your point Toasty about how Kerry's response could help him and it was a smart response. Only it still upsets the left wing of his party, but as you mentioned they will vote for him no matter what.

I do agree with Asdf that I wish we had a better choice because neither really excites me, but it's the only choice we're given so we have to go with what we think is the best choice. That's the reality of the situation.

As for neutro saying things aren't that bad or people aren't hurting. I would disagree with that. The economy isn't that strong right now, people are dying in Iraq, oil per barrel is at an all time high in years, the rest of the world hates America for acting like cowboys, and there's still an alarming threat of terrorism.

I'm not saying Kerry is the answer, but things aren't certainly better than they were 4 years ago.

[asdf_admin]

^^^ thank you my friend. :wink:

[neur0t0xin64]

superdave, i never said that were better off now more so than 4 years ago although now that you mention it I can see many ways that we are better off. They waged Jihad on us 30 years ago...it was inevitable, eventually we were going to have to confront that situation, and now we have. But anyway, initially, if you had gotten my point, I said that under the circumstances, like that fact that for the first time in over six decades{yeah thats right superdave right when your grandpappy was just a little boy:}America was attacked by muslim arab terrorists and brought down financial trade centers, which are the beacon of economic strength in our country, and killed 3000 of our citizens. So that, along with major airlines filing bankruptcy shortly after, nobody wanting to travel anywhere except in a car or train(until madrid bombings)then only car, coupled with executive corporate scandals like ENRON and MARTHA STEWART LIVING INC. that completely shatter peoples trust in stocks or stock reports, looking back on just those things to name a few, superdave, with what BUSH had to deal with...is it that you still wont agree that things still arent that bad?

[toasty]

Ok clearly here asdf_admin is either drunk, high, hurt, hungry, or just simply in need of a post...but anyway, *cough* ...Toasty, that was a good analysis of how Kerry can stay in the race, but listen to what your saying!!

"In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened." -toasty

Is that all it is to you, who has the better campaign speech, say whats safe and makes you more popular!!! Im outraged Toasty because you usually have intelligent insight, but your comments here im shocked.

I guess I ought to clarify. I am watching this election from two vantage points. I watch as an American and voter who cares deeply about the policies our country is pursuing and who wants to ultimately see a result that coincides with my personal worldview. I also watch as a person who just really enjoys watching the spectacle that is election season -- the strategy, watching polls go up and down in response to daily events, etc. This comment happened to come more from the vantage point of the guy that finds all this political wrangling interesting, as opposed to trying to push an ideology.

So would I, as a concerned American, like to know exactly what Kerry has up his sleeve? Of course I would. Realistically, though, I know I'm not going to get that, at least in part for the reasons I noted above. In my mind, if the candidates won't say what's on their mind, we as the electorate can at least try to figure out why they're saying what they are saying, to help make some sense of it that way, or at least keep ourselves entertained in the interim (for those of us that find such things entertaining).

People from all over the world trying to come to our country illegally sneaking over our borders...immediate nuclear threats like in N. Korea & Iran, domestic issues like healthcare, education, national defense, poverty, and our growing national debt etc...nobody has all the answers. But its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense.

Actually, I'm going to take issue with you here. First, I do support the war on terror, although I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to come up with the "let's go get the guys who killed thousands of our civilians" policy. I also think that Bush's new foreign policy of preemptively striking has some merit, although I would have liked to have seen some more planning going into Iraq. Domestically, though, Bush's adminstration has been a disaster. His education policy, NCLB, is an unfunded mandate that is quite possibly unconstitutional and has already been discarded by at least one state, which has chosen to fend for itself without federal funding rather than participate in NCLB. Other states are struggling to do what they can to keep their federal funding. Bush has created a mammoth deficit with such absurd proposals as spending $1.5B to promote the concept of marriage. Poverty? Healthcare? Unemployment? If all of his policies make sense, you would think that shit would just be humming around here. It ain't. We probably aren't going to see eye to eye on this, but I am just not feelin' ya here on this at all.

[Jenks]

Healthcare = pay for it, it's there, we're not here to provide free healthcare to the masses. if you want the best, you have to pay for the best. sucks really, but that's the deal...or go to canada, where it's free, and it's shitty.

the money you pay goes in part for research and development for new drugs, education for doctors, and yes of course, benefits corporations that are the backbone of our economy. doesn't sound bad to me. hey, i'd love to not have to pay my insurance premuim each month, i'd love to not have to pay a lot of money for high bloodpressure medication, i'd love to not have to pay specialists for my fucking allergies...but, hey, i can breathe, my blood pressure is under control, i love my doctors, and i paid for it. worth it at twice the price imo.

Poverty = is always going to exist. some would argue that's the result of capitalism. there are going to be rich, and there are going to be poor, you can't have one without the other. would i as a human being like to see poverty wiped off the face of the earth? yes. at what cost? i don't know. how about at the expense of the war on drugs?

unemployment = i just don't get it. every sunday i open the post dispatch paper and see pages upon pages of companies offering work. whatever the unemployment rate is at this point, i'd say the majority of that percentage is unemployable in the first place, and it's not the governments job to find them work.

[toasty]

^^I grasp what you're saying here, but my point is really that neur0t0xin64 has suggested that "its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense," and I have to say, I can't really say that I see it. Directed to the poverty/unemployment issue specifically, I don't know that I can really identify in what way Bush has "confronted the issues" or "set up policy that makes sense" -- I'm not sure what he's done on this front, period.

[Jenks]

what has any president done on the Poverty, Unemployment, Healthcare front?

My point is, they're all just political buzz words. There is no viable solution to any of those problems, and i question as to wether there is a problem in the first place.

Bush, Kerry, any president in recent memory has taken issue with those three topics, because it's what the American public wants to hear.

Bush hasn't done any better or any worse than any previous administration on those fronts, and Kerry sure as hell isn't going to change any of it for the better.

It's an unwinable fight. Remember Guns V Butter?

[toasty]

^^ agree 100%. I was just hoping someone could fill me in on what it was that Bush had purportedly done on that front, because I missed it.

[asdf_admin]

he did nothing ... as clinton did nothing. it is not Bush's fault because of the dot com bomb. it was over investment into nothing. a hype ... like group boy bands ... the market has a bull and bear ...

next up. al gore invented the internet.

[Jenks]

if kerry wins, next up will be "I John Kerry Took a Stand Against Terrorism, and I'm winning!"


btw, i'm quite loving the new Bush radio ads...the "What John Kerry says, and What John Kerry does" ad.

[toasty]

btw, i'm quite loving the new Bush radio ads...the "What John Kerry says, and What John Kerry does" ad.

Me too -- because it signifies that Bush feels threatened!

[Jenks]

^pfft, hardly, it signifies that this is a political race and the banter is now going both ways, pre the RNC.

(Bush should feel threatened tho.)

[toasty]

^^I don't know, man -- I've heard a lot more negative campaigning coming out of the Bush camp (excluding activist groups -- speaking only to ads that Bush and Kerry approve) and candidates tend to be apprehensive about running them unless they feel it is necessary b/c voters don't like them.

Of course, W has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't exactly have his thumb firmly on the pulse of the nation. I wouldn't put it past him to run negative ads just because.