QUESTION FOR NALDS

[AChimp]

@ "Clinton never did nothing..."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

"Democrats support Medicare/MedicAid, Republicans (at least according to perception) do not." - Kevin

Wrong....according to the media.

You're ignorant.

"Surplus and economic strength are synonymous with Clinton, whereas recession and job loss have become so with Bush." - Kevin

Any moron can see through this if they choose to. Clinton never did nothing to spur economic growth while Bush Sr. gave Clinton a recovered economy. Bush Jr. obviously had trouble with 9/11 but managed to get a quicker recovery by pushing through tax cuts which were proven to help economic growth back in the 80's. And when Bush is reelected this year it's really going to blow you theory out of the water. How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

I'm going to avoid the errors and gross exaggerations you've given here, and stick to perception, since that's often what politics is, and is also the theme of the conversation. For an example, latest Zogby polls show that Kerry has a larger lead over Bush amongst those polled who belive that "economy/jobs" is the #1 issue in the election. This is not bad news for liberals, rather, it's bad news for BUSH, because economy and jobs always decide the race ultimately.

"Pushing Weekly Standard articles with data from the Cato Institute hasn't changed the perception of the average American that the economy isn't doing great. You're assumption that good economy = bad for Democrats can't be quantified." - Kevin

It will. It's only natural that people's opinions are going to be sluggish in times like this.....they always have been. But there are many more months before the election....very soon unemployment will be very low.....oil prices will have to drop before too long....The Iraq situation can't get any worse (the media has already maxed out on the amount of negative publicity without facing a public backlash).....

Thank you Nostradamus, you're right, things might change. But this has always been the case. Bush I was a successful war president who got beaten but the economy. Some polls showed him with a double digit lead over Clinton at this point. You could perhaps make the argument that what's bad for the country is good for any challenger, and bad for any incumbent, but your assertion that good things= bad for liberals is so stupid I'd have to chastize a 5 yr. old for saying it, let alone a grown man....

Usama may be captured or killed.....democrats are talking about picking a republican VP.....Kerry wants to delay his nomination but go ahead with the convention......

And here we drift off into Raygun Land. The world could end tomorrow, while we're speculating.

Democrats are talking about picking a real conservative to steal real conservative voters from a Republican. It isn't desperation, it's smart politics. It's equally smart that they just threw the possibility out there, even though it was unlikely, because it associates Kerry with a well respected senator.

The convention issue, IMO, is a bit unethical, but perfectly legal. Once again, smart politics, not desperation.

It's looks bad for you and all your little leftist buddies.

You need a self-help program, or something. You are off.

[mburbank]

"My experience is that whenever put in an ethical corner, you dodge, deliberately misconstrue or simply refuse to answer. Surprise me." - Max

This has nothing to do with ethics.
-Naldo, dodging.

Huh. Good one. Accept the question wasn't "Do you think this is an ethical question?"

The question is: Do you think liberals actively desire the failure of the United States?

"Max, you're an O.K. guy but it's obvious you love to play politics. At least be honest about that...Surprise me."
-Nalds

I love to play politics. Surprised? I don't know why you would be. Does anyone on this board think I don't? Why else would the majority of my time here be spent on the Politics board? I think there's more to it than play, though, although 'play' is a big part of it. Certainly what I do here is playing. When I was in highschool I loved to play soccer too, but I never thought the stakes were any higher than who won the game. No suffering, no body count, no consequences. So I leave the cheering 'Go Team!' shit aside, but I still love to play.

Are you 'playing' Nalds? Am I an 'okay guy' and when you said I 'hated what America stood for' you didn't think that? Or does your deffinition of 'okay guys' include haters of what the USofA stands for?

Suprise me and take a stab at revealing yourself a teeny little bit. Where are you on the Coulter Scale of political madness? Are the Deomcrats the opposition part or the enemy?

[davinxtk]

A bit late in the game, pulling this thread from the bottom of the page, but I noticed something in here that bugs the hell out of me...

How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

You know what's funny? You right wing bastards keep saying that the president can't be held directly responsible for the current economy, blah, it takes 8 years or so for a president's economic reforms to really take hold, blah, that Clinton was sailing on Reganomics, blah. Guess what?
If Bush does end up with a second term (god forbid), and a booming economy... who will have been president eight years beforehand?

Really, please answer the question. I want to hear you say it.
Please.