Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dean says Bush "most dangerous president"...

Election 2004 Howard Dean 2003

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#41 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 31 December 2003 - 10:06 PM

Well, Bush does have a ring. :lol:

http://www.lifeisajo...res430_html.htm
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#42 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 01 January 2004 - 08:53 PM

Well, on my list, Carter was the worse president of the latter half of the 20th century, and Bush Sr. the president I most despise. I haven't looked back further than recent history.

Dean is a joke and I doubt he'd win the national election. Someone on CNN made the comment the other day that Dean as a leftish ultra-liberal who's handlers were constantly trying to pull to the center. Obvious by all the times he's put his foot in his mouth and come back a couple of days later re-wording what he said. People can talk about Dean leading the polls all they want, but the polls only apply to democracts, not republicans and independents.  And he only has somewhere around 40% of the democrats. Enough to win a primary, doubtfull it's enough to win the election. Polls have also shown that Bush has a 33% lead amoungst all white men (40% of voters), a lead alone that can almost assure Bush will win, especially since he also leads in some other groups by a less spectacular amount. We've only had two Democratic presidents since Johnson left in January of 1969. That's practically 35 years now.

Carter won because of Watergate. It's unfortunate because I think Ford would have been a really good president.

Clinton won because he was a centrist and much more realistic than many Democrat politicos tend to be. Most people I know may not like what some Republicans want but they think the Democrats are so removed from reality that they can't be trusted when it comes to our National well being. The 90s was one thing, we didn't appear to be in any real danger and where a little giddy about the end of the Soviet Union.  I know several people, concerned about the Christian Coalition types, that voted for the Democrats because they were 'harmless' enough. That's not an endorsement. It merely meant they were too weak to do any permanent damage and if we just spun our wheels for a while it was better that what the CC might do.

Of course everything is different now. In some respects the world is more dangerous than when the Soviets where at least controlling half of it, even if we didn't like how they were doing it. We didn't make it this way, but we are accepting reality.

As far as Bush being dangerous, I don't think so, since the statement implies 'more so than usual'. He didn't create the situation, he is merely dealing with it. And whether some like it or not, I believe the majority of Americans are glad they have someone with a spine instead of someone proving what the terrorists and others thought, "Americans are soft". He and we didn't create the situation, but it would be very foolish, and yes 'dangerous' for us not to finish it. Besides just proving we aren't "soft" will have it's own benefits, for a while. It's something we are evidently going to have to prove over and over again, every 50 years or so at this rate.

Every event and decision in world history that made things better was dangerous and a huge risk. That's just the way it goes. If it was easy it would have just magically happened millennia ago.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, Howard Dean, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users