Bush

[Bond]

Dean = George McGovern

Leaving now...

[Jason1]

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

This is exactly why liberals will never be taken seriously by the masses and Dean will be crushed if he gets the nomination. "Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."

Thank you for giving us all a perfect example of what I was talking about in my earlier post.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally Posted by Jason1

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Why do I have the feeling that you look like a chimp as well?


... And aren't you the one that I've heard to be racist? I know it's unrelated... but it's fun to bring up in debates.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

the resemblance is remarkable

[Kitana85]

I don't have a whole lot of time to type this, or it would be much better and I would have posted sooner. My internet connection at home SUCKS!

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system. Though the scores on these tests have improved since their implementation, the education the students have recieved has taken a nose-dive. As parents, students, teachers, and administrators have been saying, the schools are only able to teach to the test. Indeed, for the schools to exist, there is no time for any material not on the test. In many districs, students no longer read classic books or study real life situations. Theya re not taught how to survive, only how to fill in bubbles and the different ways the test is set up. They are only taught what will get the school more funding and a better rating. The state takes action against schools whose scores fall.
Bush wants to implement this system nation wide. Is the education system in America not bad enough as it is? When American students are pitted against foreign students in science and mathmatics competitions, Americans tend to score close to the bottem. Students are having enough trouble paying attention when there is real material to be learned. This system would bring down an already flawed system. The status quo is far better than the uneducated young people this system could produce.

As I said before, I have much more I could say, but I don't have time to say anymore.


oh yeah, and for whomever asked political science is basically the study of politics, governments, and cultures.

[Dark Samurai]

Thank You!!!!!

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Kitana85

I don't have a whole lot of time to type this, or it would be much better and I would have posted sooner. My internet connection at home SUCKS!

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system. Though the scores on these tests have improved since their implementation, the education the students have recieved has taken a nose-dive. As parents, students, teachers, and administrators have been saying, the schools are only able to teach to the test. Indeed, for the schools to exist, there is no time for any material not on the test. In many districs, students no longer read classic books or study real life situations. Theya re not taught how to survive, only how to fill in bubbles and the different ways the test is set up. They are only taught what will get the school more funding and a better rating. The state takes action against schools whose scores fall.
Bush wants to implement this system nation wide. Is the education system in America not bad enough as it is? When American students are pitted against foreign students in science and mathmatics competitions, Americans tend to score close to the bottem. Students are having enough trouble paying attention when there is real material to be learned. This system would bring down an already flawed system. The status quo is far better than the uneducated young people this system could produce.

As I said before, I have much more I could say, but I don't have time to say anymore.


oh yeah, and for whomever asked political science is basically the study of politics, governments, and cultures.

How liberal are your professors?

[rottwylor]

Originally Posted by Rndm_Perfection

You're not a legal voter. Either way, I'm sure you know little about the stances of Bush's competitors. You simply know what the media tells you about Bush, and the media is liberal.

So yes, I know what you would vote if you had the chance.

I am a legal voter, and I have kept up with all of the candidates.. and i still wouldn't vote for Bush.

Like my gay buddies say... "Just say no to Bush"

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Kitana85

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

Funny that you fail to mention that if Bush decided not to act, his action could've come back to hurt us as well. Whenever your liberal professors decide to look at reality, they'll tell you that the US has faced many natural disasters, and no one cared. Nothing's changed. Even the Canadians have seen it.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system.

If you ever want to get a job doing anything but editorials for the New York Times, you may want to take my advice. Bush didn't single-handedly ruin anything. Your first sentence does a great job of establishing bias and discrediting everything that you have to say. If you actually expect someone to take you seriously, you should try saying "While Bush in office, the educational system in Texas was ruined." What they fail to teach you in political science is that we have a system of checks and balances in this country, and anything that Bush approved while governer of Texas, had to first be passed by congress. And you may find this hard to believe, but everything Bush has done so far as President, I'll be damned, it was also passed by congress first. Imagine that.

Your professors do a good job of using scapegoats and pointing out everything that's wrong with the world while offering no realistic suggestions on how to prove it. God bless the Democrats.

[Professor S]

I just realized how much I love this board. Man, this is a fantastic debate going on here and I doubt I would be able to find it anywhere else.

[Canyarion]

I'm sure you'd find one that's twice as good elsewhere.

I don't really care about your president.

[Kitana85]

Originally Posted by gekko

Whenever your liberal professors decide to look at reality

Hate to break it to your conservative asses, but my professors regardless of how conservative they are, have NOTHING to do with my political observations.

Oh yeah, and as for writing editorials for the NYTimes, yeah, at least that way I could garentee them being read. At any rate, I hate higher asperations. And Gekko, get over your self... at least Geiko can save you money on car insurence, you're just obnoxious. Don't talk about my professors, and for goodness sake, stop blasting Democrats, of which I am not one, for the record, come up with something factual...instead of being a hypocrite and just blasting others.


back to the topic...

[Stonecutter]

I was going to leave this whole thing alone, but then I read this.

Originally Posted by Kitana85

Dean is SUCH A FREAKING MODERATE!!!!

Ok, if you believe that, you're a moron.

I don't mean that as a Flame. I mean that an actual fact.


Dean is the Anti-Bush, he's the most liberal candidate in almost half a century to have a legitimate shot at winning his party's nomination, which he will do.


He also has a legit shot at winning the presidency, despite what Fox News may be telling you.

And here's why.

Political Scientist *read: People not named Kitana* used to say that our country is 40/40/20. 40% of the population, if they were to vote, would always vote democratic, 40% always republican and 20% would be the swing. Most everyone agrees that the divide is now 45/45/10.

It is for this exact reason, that Dean has the only shot among the dems of knocking off Bush.

Al Gore tried to be Clinton politically. Technically (and politically, meaning platform wise) Gore = Clinton-Penis, but as a politician, and as a person, he did not appeal to the moderates as well as Clinton did (and as well as bush did/does) but Gore still went for the swing vote first. Gore did little or nothing about the democratic base. He didn't target the people that voted for Clinton, he just assumed that he would win their votes, but as republicans love to point out, 2000 was a great year for the republican party and minority voters/women (relatively.) The republicans beat the dems at their own game in 2000.

Dean isn't going to appeal to many moderates (of the 10% swing, he'll be lucky to get 3%) but he will (if he plays his cards right) appeal to the base. Dean needs people pissed at bush. He needs the fury that the democratic party displayed right after the decision in Florida. Democrats don't need moderates to vote for them to win the election, they just need democrats. Lots and lots of them. Because the republicans are the party in power, their political base is content right now with the way things are and will be more apathetic towards the process. If Dean can get enough of the base behind him, he can win.

I don't have illusions of grandeur. I know Dean's a huge underdog. But if he plays his cards perfectly, he can beat Bush in November, and he's the only democrat who can.


Edit: Oh yeah, one more thing. Before Bond does his George McGovern dance. Remember that the McGovern Vs Nixon election was the first election after the voting age was lowered to 18, and McGovern was the candidate of the Hippies....... who didn't vote. McGovern didn't win the base, which is exactly my point. Hippies=Lazy drug infested bums who make a bad political base. Dean needs people who are pissed off, not finding god in a field after an acid trip.

There are plenty of people pissed at bush in this country, dean needs all of their votes, and he needs to cultivate more of them.

[Professor S]

Dean will lose the election by a landslide for one basic reason:

When given the choice between Bush or Dean, many democrats that supported Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman will NOT vote for Dean as they'll consider Bush the lesser of two evils in these times. Also, Dean will get NO republican crossover vote, like a more MODERATE democrat would and Clinton did during his first campaign.

Dean scares the crap out of a lot of democrats too, not just republicans.