posted
Well Saxon, you're prediction is a false one.
quote: NORFOLK, Va. (Jan. 2) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a "blowout" in November.
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."
Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003.
"The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."
posted
Ha, ha. With just a little help from Robertson and his ilk's millions of dollars of campaign contributions and votes, of course. God helps those who help themselves, eh? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, you can't do this new tongue in cheek thing or you're going to confuse me. I thought Mormons were Christian? Or are you just making a funny?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dean will not win. Bush would have to do something incredibly erroneous to lose the election, and while he's done plenty of things people may disagree with or argue about, it's not enough to get him unpopular enough to lose the election. This is not a case of two men competing for the position for the office from the relatively equal status of non-incumbancy. Bush has already had nearly four years, and by the time of the election, he'll have had roughly four years of time in the limelight. Dean, while quite popular as a Democratic frontrunner, was lesser known until the office of President got ready to come up for election.
Bush has three years of recognition ahead of Dean, and has made no tremendous blunders. Yes, he's made debatably bad decisions, none have had such extreme effects to change public opinion enough. In fact, Bush only has to claim that his results in Iraq have proved efficient in catching Hussein, and that the economy is recovering from the effects of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that any contender will find "evidence" sufficient to sway the public from agreeing to that (the level of "truth" to the claims nonwithstanding).
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm I'm begging you BEGGING YOU... don't bring that up again. Even I'm afraid to touch that.
And Pat Robertson makes me look like Dick Gephardt
And Dean will shoot himself to pieces with that mouth of his by November. He's already lost the South. And no President in a decade has won without carrying the Glorious South.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm I'm begging you BEGGING YOU... don't bring that up again. Even I'm afraid to touch that.
Eh?
Ryan and Argent, perhaps you don't understand. See, Dean is like Agent Smith...and Bush ain't no Neo. Dean's hooked into the matrix and can convert people to Democrats at the drop of a hat. His candidacy has been vitually exponentially growing since day one. Bush's support has been falling over the last four years. He doesn't even break even these days.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that Robertson sticks by this, because I'm pretty sure that Bush is going to lose.
quote:You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18: 21-22)
posted
I was referencing the Mormon debate. Christians solved the whole who was a Christian thing with the Nicean Creed. Mormons reject Nicean doctrine and so I say aren't Christians. This upset some people. A lot...a whole lot. So now I fear it more than the who will be ender debate.
Dean lacks the general appeal to be President. And Bush has a very strong approval rating right now. No president has ever lost with an approval rating this high this close to an election.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting statistic brought up by Dean's campaign. In the latest polls Dean v Bush is only a 5 point loss for Dean. At this same point Clinton v Bush saw a 20 point loss.
Dean has an excellent chance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, I don't care whether or not you're really a Christian or not.
As for Bush's popularity, I guarantee that it will be a close race. It will be a replay of 2000 all over again. I would put any amount of imaginary money on it you like.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several of creeds of equal provenance which would exclude non-catholics from being christian; why do you not consider those important?
But you are right, it is a debate to be avoided in this thread.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not hard to track. My address is on my website.
Seriously, though, a glorious South? Like all the best things in the world aren't north of the Mason-Dixon line. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Saxon, your Matrix analogy is ridiculous. Dean is a very charismatic challenger, but he has nowhere near the momentum to win the election right now, and despite the rah-rahs of his campaign managers, shows little sign of making a huge difference. With the fragmented state of the Democratic Party in terms of those campaigning, Dean hasn't even won all Democrats. By the time the primaries are over, it's just as predictable that some Democrats who would vote for a contender against Dean for the ticket are going to vote Bush if their candidate does not win. There is just as much evidence that Dean will not win as there is he will at the moment, and because Bush has the incumbency and a more well-known name, it is more logical and likely that he will win the next election. Barring any incredible mishap, Bush pretty much has it in the bag.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you know who else you have to thank for Dean? 'Democrats' like Orson who have removed themselves from the party and don't participate in the primaries or advocate for other Democrats.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except I think that Mr. Card is more likely to vote for Bush than Dean.
There is no way Card will vote for anyone other than Bush, and this is why the Democratic party will only go further left. The other moderate candidates never had a chance because 'democrats' like Orson have never touted them in the court of public opinion and have removed themselves from the Democratic party opinion making process beyond saying 'Democrats suck, Republicans are better!'.
By removing yourself from the pool of potential Democratic voters time after time, by voting Republican time after time, you cease to have any relevance to the Democrats running in the primaries and the only candidates you'll get will be thsoe to the left of you.
What do you call a Democrat who votes Republican? A Republican. Far from helping to bring the Democratic party to the right, Orson has only ensured that the party will swing left since the only people left in the party are 'real' liberals.
posted
In case you were wondering, while Card has favored Republican presidential candidates lately, he also tends to lean Democratic in local elections. But since very few of you live in North Carolina, you've never had a chance to see this amazing phenomenon in action, but believe me, I've seen it with my own eyes.
What do you call a Democrat who shamelessly votes Republican when his conscience dictates? A moderate.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I am wrong, Geoff, but I can only go by what he writes in his column. If he votes for some DINO(Democrat in name only) from time to time, I'm pretty sure that my thesis still basically stands. I'm sure Pat Robertson would vote for the right 'Democrat', too, but this Democrat would not reflect what is standard in the party, and,despite what Orson might think, he is a fringe element in the Democratic party and his attitudes and what he writes reflect a typical Republican. Look at Lieberman's primary numbers if you don't believe me. If conservative Democrats were some major force in the party, then Lieberman would be the leader, no?
The way to build things up is to tout them and promote them. He's only mentioned Lieberman once in his column and that in passing. If he wants to change the party, maybe he ought to spend more time building up conservative Democrats than promoting Republicans. Maybe he ought to spend less time tearing down 'liberal' Democrats and the Democratic party in general and spend more time on building up conservative Democrats and focusing on the positive things that Democrats do,and if there aren't any as his column seems to suggest, then as virtually everyone has mentioned, why is he a Democrat?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think Florida is really north of the Mason-Dixie line and we're all that's needed to win an election. Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:he is a fringe element in the Democratic party and his attitudes and what he writes reflect a typical Republican.
THat whole "I think privately-owned property is a mistake and I support forms of socialism"...yup. Big Republican platform, that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, Jeff, OSC seems to be -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- a man who believes in both totalitarian control of and socialist benefits for society. He'd probably be more at home in the USSR than anywhere else.
[Edited because I'm still not sure how to communicate this idea -- it's on the tip of my fingers, but it's not coming...]
posted
It was decided a long time ago that the best form of governent would be a benign dictator. (The Greeks thought so. Not everyone agrees.)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Greeks didn't think so, Plato thought so, there is a difference. And remember, Plato's ideas of benign dictatorship came on the heels of watching a democratic state execute his teacher. Small wonder he didn't trust the masses. Protagoras thought that every citizen had a unique and worthwhile share in politics.
Benign dictatorships hold freedom hostage. Here is a quote from another thread.
quote:Arendt also makes a distinction between liberty and freedom which I find terribly intriguing and pertinent. She sets the liberation of a people equal to the throwing off of an over-arching entity, either a government or a foreign oppressor, while freedom is inextricably tied to to a positive power of a citizen to affect public business. One can have liberty in a benevolent monarchy-- though not in a tyranny--, but one can not have freedom. She points to the freedom of assembly in the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," as the most important positive right in regards to freedom.
We may have liberated Iraq's people, but they are not free because they are not in control of their public business, somehow the US has become a dictator, though arguably benevolent, but still an impinger of Iraqi freedom.
This idea of linking freedom to public business is terrifically compelling. Banks increase an enterprenuer's freedom by allowing him/her to take part in the public sphere.(When Arendt speaks about the public sphere she uses the Greek connotations where the distinction was between the public sphere and the household, not our idea of public sector and private sector.) Our ability to enter into commerce, government, or interact at a wide range with whomever we desire and at an incredible level of influence is where our freedom resides.
posted
It's not even a situation of finding the right person, the mere presence a benign dictator inherently narrows the subjects sense of freedom.
Rivka, it may work with young students without self-esteem or trained sychophants, but eventually a revolution will come when they reclaim their natural freedoms as people and expect to be reasoned with and listened to and accorded with. Hopefully, they won't be in your class, though.
posted
Irami, I don't teach anymore (except on a substitute basis). Life decided that I needed a job with an actual salary.
quote: expect to be reasoned with and listened to and accorded with
I like to think that these were all part of my benevolent dictatorship -- and former students, who no longer have any vested interest in 'kissing up' seem to agree. Interestingly enough, especially the ones I had the most conflict with.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly suspect Bush will win, and it won't be close at all. I don't like this, but here's why:
-- Many people believe that Bush won two wars and brought a despot down. -- Many people believe that Bush is bringing the country back to where it needs to be especially regarding abortions, queers, and those annoying environmentalists. -- Many people respond positively to a person who so obviously includes God in his decisionmaking. -- Many people will remember the tax cuts, and the checks they got. -- Many people will vote for a man with a definite plan in mind, as opposed to a man who's running on the "Bush is wrong" platform. -- Many people do not read the news, do not follow politics, do not look too closely into how bills get passed and who benefits. -- Many people, even those upset with current conditions, do not vote. -- Many people see only Bush's little smile and "everything's going just fine" attitude and dig no deeper. -- Many people admired - still admire - Reagan, and Bush is pushing Reagan's policies through better than Ronnie ever did. -- All of the serious money will be behind Bush, for pretty obvious reasons.
I don't want Bush in office, but for him to lose two things would have to happen.
He would have to screw up big, in a way that couldn't be spun, couldn't be ignored. Right now he's got Saddam, the economy is apparently coming up, and he has plans for the future. The fact that the war in Iraq was ill-planned, badly-timed, suspicious in origin, destructive to our foreign relations, and did little to combat terrorism is a lot tougher to get across than the picture of Saddam being searched for head lice. The fact that rising economy numbers being touted don't really reflect any relief to the bulk of the people out of work and massive deficits are looming in the near future, that's not really something the average American picks up on. The fact that his plans for the future will lead to crushing programs for the poor and disadvantaged, taking off any and all restrictions on corporate behavior, and using the national budget to wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise isn't enough.
And his opposition would have to have a strong, easily defined position that was supported by his party. Dean's party is busy backbiting each other into inelectability.
Populist politicians have to have a rousing reason for the populace to rise up, and I don't have that high an opinion of the general populace. I'm not just being cynical, it can easily be borne out by looking at how many people are registered to vote, and how many of those actually show up at the polls.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Howard Dean’s big idea to fix the Federal Budget is to tax the shit out of us. If you are middle class and invested… you could end up paying double the taxes you are paying now. That’s Howard Dean’s plan.
This plan sounds familiar. “Double the taxes… Triple the taxes! Squeeze every last penny out of those ungrateful, musical peasants!” Reinstating the marriage tax penalty, and instituting a 55% Death Tax. So if you die, more than ½ your stuff goes to the government instead of to your family. As bad as that is, take a look at Dean’s Dividend Tax… Right now it’s 15%, but Howard Dean’s plan is to bump it up to just about 40%. Do you have any idea what that would do to the economy?
Dividends are what you get from your investments. If you are taxed by 40% of what you earn from investments…. Are you going to put your money into investments? No. You are going to put your money into other things… and probably take money out of investments.
What will this do to the stock market? Crash it like a Saudi Arabian on a Boeing 747.
If people stop investing and the stocks of a company go down… what’s that company going to do? Lay people off. That’s what we have seen since 1998. Move jobs to over sea areas…. More unemployment means less people spending money. Less people spending money means even more business cutbacks and failing business. Which means more unemployment… This is the Downward Spiral that caused the whole Grapes of Wrath thing back in the 1930’s, and it all started in the stock market.
And don’t think that rich uncle of yours is going to help when he dies… because the Government will take over half of it outright and then tax the rest as capital gains for another 20%. So instead of 100 bucks, you will get only (off the top of my head) 36 bucks. Nice.
Now, let’s take a look at what George W Bush has done… he made the stock market attractive and some time later the financial reports are showing better numbers than we have seen since the early 90’s. (If we could just get companies to stop sending jobs to India! Freaking NAFTA!) Howard Dean’s ignorant plan will KILL the American Economy. Pure and simple, Howard Dean is poison.
You know what the scary thing is? He is the best the Left has to offer. The best thing the Left has is to take the American Dream and dump a bucket of ice water on it. That’s just freaking GREAT! Check this out… Before Christmas the local football coach paid a visit driving a different vehicle that what he normally drives. He joked that he had to downgrade thanks to Bush. You want to talk downgrading, Coach? If Dean wins, you will be lucky to be driving a Yugo – If you could afford the gas for it!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I thought Mormons were Christian? Or are you just making a funny?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
