Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-18 05:07:56 +0000
You know I saw the "10 out of 10 terrorists agree: anyone but Bush!" T-shirt at the Sox game, and I thought, mm, interesting Pro-Kerry take: any idiot can see Kerry should be Pres.
Then I realized about 5 seconds later, it is actually a Pro-Bush sticker: all the bad people want Kerry.
But what's interesting is that I thought Osama and the Al Quaida want Bush so they can keep the Jihad thing going. I'm NOT saying Bush is as bad as Osama, but if you were Osama what good would a Kerry Presidency be?
Curious...
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-22 06:03:34 +0000
"If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it's al-Qaida. Whereas it is clear that the Palestinians hope that a Kerry victory will unblock the situation."
Sir Ivor Roberts, British ambassador to Rome.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309220,00.html
Aha! So I'm not alone. Should Kerry play this up? I would:
"A vote for Bush is a Vote for Osama"
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 06:12:25 +0000
In all honesty: "A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Clinton (Hillary) in 2008"
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 13:34:54 +0000
BQ and I had a talk about this: if the 2008 thing happens we could have 1988: Bush 1992:Clinton 1996: Clinton 2000:Bush 2004: Bush (maybe) 2008: Clinton (maybe)
thats 20 years!
Give someone else a chance... Jeezus!
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 13:48:48 +0000
It could be Bush/Clinton for many years, true. But Bush 2008 is only a possibility if G.W. loses this time around. Iraq is more likely than not to get worse plus corruption & scandals all get blown up in a second term. I don't think Jeb could overcome it.
The tax code allows for the amassing of wealth by families. Without increases in income and the ability of the lower classes to accumulate wealth, and without limitations on the amount of money a family can pass on (Hello, Heinz. Hello, Bush.), the financial (the only real power, right?) will continue to be disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a few.
I have nothing against people making big bucks. I do have a problem with people being entitled to power b/c their great-grandfather was the one with the capacity to make the big bucks.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-22 13:57:11 +0000
Im not sure were on the same page here by the 2008 thing I meant Hillary....
Posted by G lib on 2004-09-22 14:15:27 +0000
TerryG,
This was exactly my point in the philanthropy thread.
Allowing families to amass wealth to a staggering degree is the thing that bothers me the most out of any American policy. It's cyclical. Ammassed wealth = power, power can lead to a change in policy favorable to the walthy, changed policy = more amassed wealth for those who were wealthy in the first place.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 14:48:58 +0000
rladew: Oh! I was seeing the colons as delimiters.
We could even extend it:
2008, H. Clinton (running with C. Powell)
2012, H. Clinton
2016, Not Jeb but another Bush brother
2020, C. Clinton (That's C. for Chelsea. What's the age limit, 35?)
How's this for Machiavellian, Kerry in 2004 virtually ensures McCain in 2008.
G(lib): Things are starting to look like the '90s around here. The 1790s, in FRANCE.
Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-22 17:38:30 +0000
Got a problem with the French, pal?
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-22 18:55:45 +0000
I have no problem with the Freedoms.
Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-22 18:57:45 +0000
I'll get all Queeb on yo' ass!
Posted by G lib on 2004-09-22 19:36:13 +0000
Chill out, Queeb!
Lois XIV's buddy was your ancestor's slave owner, I'm sure, IVnier.
My friend Bobforapples, who's in the Guard told me that he knows a guy that still calls them 'freedom fries'. He described him as being brainwashed