Fahrenheit 9/11. That's a good way to win people over, by taking your reasoning from a movie based on false premises and half-truths. Oh wait.
The Electoral College also has another purpose nobody is mentioning... States' rights... but whatever.
Dragonstar, I wrote out a thought-out post with facts, and you responded with rhetoric. At least Marril and NoTimeForLoveDrJ can debate with me coherently. Also, I continue to read what you said about Senatorial terms and I still keep getting the idea you said 4 years. Is that my fault?
I love how you think the Kerry campaign has been cordial during this entire campaign and yet the Bush campaign has been mean. Granted, I give you that the Bush campaign has been rather negative... more negative than I would prefer. But Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN is based on the premise that he isn't Bush! How much more negative can you get?
You obviously don't take September 11th seriously, but I suppose listening to Michael Moore will do that for you. After all, 9/11 is Bush's fault right? The fact of the matter is that you're debating two points... you're saying the Bush administration wasn't ready enough pre-9/11 and that they're too ready post-9/11. That's "w". That's "wrong". (I do admit that's a rather catchy slogan of Kerry's.)
The Republican attacks on Kerry currently are about his record. Kerry responds talking about Vietnam. Hmmm... is he embarassed by the fact that his record is so liberal? Why can't Kerry just stand up for what he believes in? This is what bothers me. I wouldn't mind if he was a liberal if he would just ADMIT it. I wouldn't mind he was anti-defense as much as he is if he would ADMIT IT. But he's completely trying to fake who he is to win. That's "w". That's "wrong".
So yeah I basically give up already on Dragonstar and Magnechu...
Marril, if that's truly the case, I respect you quite a bit. I will admit that there were quite a few republicans pre-election 2000 that were squawking about the electoral college (because many predicted Bush to win the popular and Gore to win the electoral college)... and then they just shut up. I back the system because I feel it's more dependable than the popular vote... and it gives the states more power, rather than the central government. However... I do find it rather odd when a President wins the majority and loses the electoral college.
As long as the topic remains the war on terror and Iraq in this election, Bush will win. I recommend you libs focus on the true issues the Democrats have "points on"... at least with the American people. Not necessarily me.
By the way, when an economy swells enormously like it did in the late 90's, recession is a NORMAL thing. Jobs are GOING to be lost.
How is John Kerry going to create 10 million jobs anyway? How do Presidents CREATE jobs?
Can someone answer that for me? Wow I covered quite a bit in one post.
~ RaNd0m
The Electoral College also has another purpose nobody is mentioning... States' rights... but whatever.
Dragonstar, I wrote out a thought-out post with facts, and you responded with rhetoric. At least Marril and NoTimeForLoveDrJ can debate with me coherently. Also, I continue to read what you said about Senatorial terms and I still keep getting the idea you said 4 years. Is that my fault?
I love how you think the Kerry campaign has been cordial during this entire campaign and yet the Bush campaign has been mean. Granted, I give you that the Bush campaign has been rather negative... more negative than I would prefer. But Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN is based on the premise that he isn't Bush! How much more negative can you get?
You obviously don't take September 11th seriously, but I suppose listening to Michael Moore will do that for you. After all, 9/11 is Bush's fault right? The fact of the matter is that you're debating two points... you're saying the Bush administration wasn't ready enough pre-9/11 and that they're too ready post-9/11. That's "w". That's "wrong". (I do admit that's a rather catchy slogan of Kerry's.)
The Republican attacks on Kerry currently are about his record. Kerry responds talking about Vietnam. Hmmm... is he embarassed by the fact that his record is so liberal? Why can't Kerry just stand up for what he believes in? This is what bothers me. I wouldn't mind if he was a liberal if he would just ADMIT it. I wouldn't mind he was anti-defense as much as he is if he would ADMIT IT. But he's completely trying to fake who he is to win. That's "w". That's "wrong".
So yeah I basically give up already on Dragonstar and Magnechu...
Marril, if that's truly the case, I respect you quite a bit. I will admit that there were quite a few republicans pre-election 2000 that were squawking about the electoral college (because many predicted Bush to win the popular and Gore to win the electoral college)... and then they just shut up. I back the system because I feel it's more dependable than the popular vote... and it gives the states more power, rather than the central government. However... I do find it rather odd when a President wins the majority and loses the electoral college.
As long as the topic remains the war on terror and Iraq in this election, Bush will win. I recommend you libs focus on the true issues the Democrats have "points on"... at least with the American people. Not necessarily me.
By the way, when an economy swells enormously like it did in the late 90's, recession is a NORMAL thing. Jobs are GOING to be lost.
How is John Kerry going to create 10 million jobs anyway? How do Presidents CREATE jobs?
Can someone answer that for me? Wow I covered quite a bit in one post.
~ RaNd0m