• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

John Kerry's running mate

Have you noticed how maniac repeats himself? To all of you who trust corporations more than governments, keep this in mind: both types of institutions are run by humans, so they must equally be distrusted.... With all of the bullshit surrounding politics, religion, and business, I sometimes wonder if this planet would be better off if a giant meteor just wiped us out. The Agent Smith monologue from the Matrix comes to mind....
 
Have you noticed how maniac repeats himself? To all of you who trust corporations more than governments, keep this in mind: both types of institutions are run by humans, so they must equally be distrusted....

The difference is that corporations are back only with money. Government is backed with violent force.

Try this: don't give any money to McDonalds or the Federal government and see who hauls you to prison first.
 
New Washington Post-ABC News poll

Nader is drawing essentially all of his support from

Kerry, who leads Bush by 9 percentage points.

This may be an indication that Nader could play the spoiler for Democrats in 2004 as he did four years ago.

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run. Nearly half of Republicans supported Nader's move.

*sigh*
 
MrMacphisto said:
Have you noticed how maniac repeats himself? To all of you who trust corporations more than governments, keep this in mind: both types of institutions are run by humans, so they must equally be distrusted.... With all of the bullshit surrounding politics, religion, and business, I sometimes wonder if this planet would be better off if a giant meteor just wiped us out. The Agent Smith monologue from the Matrix comes to mind....


we disagree again MrMac. i dont want to have a giant meteor kill me. im shooting for going in my sleep at a ripe old age.
 
Maniac, I have to chime in here. You mentioned a liberal not running a good economy. I remind you of the facts. This country has had two recessions under Republican presidents named George Bush, one a moderate conservative, another a radical conservative. Neither one seems to have any idea about what it takes to make an economy strong. One (Old 41) said :"Read my lips, no new taxes", broke that promise, and then seemingly sat back and remained completely out of touch while the economy tanked in 1990, 91, and 92. Under Bill Clinton, we had low unemployment, record stock market growth, a strong economy, and plentiful jobs. While he was not perfect, he turned the country around from the recession in the early 90s under George HW Bush. Since 2001, this country has been marred in first a recession, and then a terribly slow recovery under George W Bush. Unemployment went from 4.2% on the day this Bush took office to a high of 6.4, and now stands at 5.6. Over 2 million people have lost their jobs since this "president" took office. We have gone from a budget surplus under Bill Clinton, to a deficit, and engaged in a war where Mr Bush 43 insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but none were ever found, and now he passes it off with the excuse that "Our intelligence told us Saddam had them." Looking at the facts, how can one possibly state that this guy should be re-elected? The fact is that when a person doesnt do their job right, they are fired, and John Kerry said it right last week when he said and I quote:" Only one American deserves to be jobless, and it is George W Bush" Iam a fair person, and I would say this even if a Democrat were in office. Carter is a great humanitarian, but was not a good president, and was fairly removed. Bush 41 was out of touch, the economy had recessed, and was in an anemic recovery in 1992, so he was rightfully defeated. The fact is that a president with a record such as Bush 43 should not be re elected. We will not recover 2.3 million jobs between now and election day, he has brought us from a surplus to a deficit through his war, and tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy. The economy has recessed, and is in a painfully slow "recovery" where people dont have jobs. The fact is that I would rather give liberal John Kerry or anyone else a try over this guy. He just hasnt done his job, the facts prove it, and he should not be re- elected. One other fact on the topic of jobs during the Bush administration. We have lost more jobs during this president's term in office, and this president has the worst record of creating jobs since Herbert Hoover. Do you think that anyone would have re-elected Hoover in 1932? While I'm not saying the economy now is as it was in the depression, the jobs situation states a fact. I have heard that things are so bad, over 300,000 have left the work force and arent even looking for jobs anymore. Clearly, one can see what these facts state, that we need a new president come November.

Mitch
 
The economy was already starting to come around at the end of bush #1 term. clinton was lucky enough to step into a growing economy which he in turn left bush #2 with a failing economy at the end of his term. they didnt call him slick willy for nothing. he was the teflon president. by the way, thank the republican run congress in 94 for saving the economy from getting even worse. again, ill emphasise that all republicans arent geniouses in the economy, but ill take a bad republican over any liberal to run it.
 
Yes its true that a couple million jobs were lost, but almost the same amount of jobs were filled. but of course you dont hear that reported by the liberal media. the so called devastaing job losses are just liberal smoke and mirrors to brain wash the people who fall for it.
 
Liberal media? Most of the media is Republican slanted, and much more kind to Bush then they ever were to Clinton. I just dont think one can sluff off a couple of million jobs lost, that is a very serious problem. Everyone has a right to their political opinions. You are a Republican, and I respect that, however, the facts are the facts. Things were far better under Clinton and the Democrats then they ever were under either Bush. I also remind you that the Republicans didnt seem to care a lick about the masses or the economy, they, especially Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, were more interested in investigating and impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about sex then they were about running the country well. I ask you this, and my point will be even stronger if Bush 43 loses in November. Why did Bush 41 lose and Clinton win? Further, should Bush 43 lose, why will he lose? The country does not re elect presidents due to the media, they re-elect him due to how the economy is affecting them. I have recently heard on news shows that Bush 43 is even offending a fair number of conservatives, some of whom claim they will vote Democrat in November. As I said, if you are Republican and plan to support Bush 43, I accept that, but the facts of the presidencies do not lie. There was a strong economy under Clinton, and weak ones under Bushes 41 and 43. Presidents historically win in strong economies, and lose in weak ones. For this reason, as well as others, it would be appropriate if Bush 43 lost in November. It remains to be seen how the country will react to his presidency come election time. I know the general election is 8 months away, but based on recent polls, things arent looking good for 43, with Kerry holding a 7 to as much as 20 point lead in some polls. I know polls arent everything, but my prediction is that it will be a close race, and, if Bush 43 wins, it will be by a very narrow margin.

Mitch
 
The liberal media does have a big impact on elections. they twist and manipulate stories to make republicans look bad. most people dont follow polotics, so they just go by what they see on the news. bad news about liberals somehow doesnt always get reported or the story is buried in the paper as opposed to huge front page headlines if its a republican. you have to be in a coma not to see that the mainstream media is unbelievably biased towards liberals.
 
John Kerry is gonna get my vote...the way i figure it...change is good and i don't think this country could be any worse off than it already is under GWB...and i just want to see a different person in office, maybe someone that can do some good and bring jobs back here
 
NPR poses an interesting question today: "Picking a vice president from the other party was a brilliant move for Lincoln. Would it work for Kerry?" If so, who might he possibly consider?
 
This is an interesting thought. I never considered this. I doubt it would happen, but if Kerry were to do that, he would have to go with a pro choice moderate Republican. I've always liked John Mccain. The problem with him is that to my knowledge, he's pro life. Rudy Guliani might be another good choice, he's pro choice, and after 9-11 very popular, but I think he has political aspirations to take away Hillary's senate seat in 2006, and run for president himself afterwards. I'm honestly not sure who Kerry would pick. Also, due to the fact that he is a more liberal Democrat that Clinton or Gore, it is difficult to think of who in the Republican party he is simliar to who could be his VP pick.

Mitch
 
Theres no way any republican is going to run with Kerry. Mccain already said he wouldnt run with Kerry. i think he might end up with Edwards. Could Hilary be a possibility? She would do anything that would further her bid on president.
 
I dont think Kerry will run with Hillary. I think Edwards is the most likely choice. I heard he plans to endorse Kerry today. We also cant be 100% sure about Mccain. Although he's been campaigning for Bush, I read an article in the paper this morning that claims Mccain wouldnt rule it out to run for VP on the Democratic ticket if asked by Kerry. I think this would be a "dream ticket" for the Democrats. Their candidate running with a moderate Republican who would take away votes from Bush. The problem I see here is that Mccain is pro life, while Kerry is pro choice. This ticket of Kerry-Mccain probably will never happen, but I think if it ever did in the unlikely event, Bush would be finished. My guess is that Kerry will run with Edwards. It will be a very interesting campaign to be sure. Kerry came out of a luncheon today, spoke to reporters, and said, and I quote:" George Bush does not have a record to run on, he has a record to run away from" With more than 2 million jobs lost, and losses in manufacturing every month of his term, Kerry is quite correct in his assessment. Getting back to the VP issue, a ticket of Kerry-Mccain would be nice, but my guess is that he will run with Edwards, which would be fine as well. Edwards is a good man, and I think he will make a fine VP.

Mitch
 
What's New

5/20/2024
Visit the TMF Welcome forum and take a moment to say hello to us all!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** LadyInternet ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top