The Next Democratic Presidential Candidate?

whoever it is - its very likely that person will win.


The presidents approval ratings alone suggest there will be a backlash against a republican president a very likely possibility.

It doesnt mean anything will get done, of course. Just means the next president will very likely be a democrat.

hasn't helped your judgement any.

Read this post:

/112/22/107295/2.html#post1042701

Then tell me if anything you said applies to me. The only reason it can't be said that your post is “entirely incorrect ” is because you started it with the words “in my opinion”. So technically, by definition, that makes it correct. But a man of integrity would not try to duck the issue by hiding behind semantics. He would admit that his prejudices colors his opinion. Not a word in your post applies to me, and I am a self proclaimed left wing, bleeding heart liberal.

Now, the question is: are you man enough to admit that and apologize to me?

Frankly, I think you raise valid points in these forums. That is, until you stray into the area of hyperbola, at which point you undermine your whole platform in exactly the way you accuse the “SLeft “ (whatever that is).

I'm not your enemy Kiamat, really.

Maybe you're the one who needs to start checking out alternate news sources.

-Kiamat Dusk

And you still haven't seen the accusations and some of the evidence to back them up? Wow.




Yes indeed. They were certainly doing a btter job of handling the situation than our invasion. All we've done thus far is piss a whole lot more folkls off and kill a whole lot more people, including civilians. I would have very much favored continuing sanctions and continuing the WMD searching. It was far less costly, in money, lives and respect.



Ok. If we should go to war based on innocent's dying, we are in the wrong war and the wrong country. Taken a good look at some African countries lately have you? While I agree that terrible things have and were happening in Iraq and that Saddam was an evil puppet of the U.S. ..err..I mean evil dictator, that wasn't the main reason given for our immediate invasion of Iraq. And you know as well as I, that other channels were still open. You were lied to, I was lied to and Congress was lied to. If you can continue to deny that in the face of everything since, then what's the point of discussion.

Two wrongs don't make a right.



Well..I know I've posted lots of detailed info on Mr. Rove for you before, but you still have your handy-dandy neo-con blinders on. He was trouble and wicked long before becoming Bush's advisor, and thus the reason he was hired. He was and is a specialist in smear campaigns and strong-arming. Good guy to hire if you are an honest, god-loving President eh?



Did you really miss the point there??? Lot's of stockholders aren't in the position to award juicy no-bid contracts to them while holding the second highest public office in our country and throwing out the bid process for government contracts AND killing three ongoing investigations into the companies activities and after that same company had been found guilty of ripping off tax payers money. Getting any clearer for you? Do you know what conflict of interest means?



You really don't watch anything but Fox news do you. Come on..you can admit it. You are way behind the times Kiamat. It's already known and widely spread fact that the intelligence community reported to Bush that the rumors were NOT verified and were probably false BEFORE he used it in three different speeches including the State of the Union adress. You need to keep up! Those old lies fell apart a month or so ago and they are working on a new spin angle now. Even Bush can't deny it directly anymore, since documents and memos have been found to prove it.

You apparently didn't see the video clips of Cheney and others saying and/or implying that Iraq was involved in 9/11? It's been all over everywhere for quite some time now. Is he not part of the Administration? It was also all over the news about a month or two ago. Again, you are not keeping well informed.

Here's a quote from Cheney himself about invading Iraq:

"If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Here's some other interesting points that are a little more mainstream then some of your links:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

"The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

Just this week Bush and Cheney have made comments alleging ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. (Full story)"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

Yes..us crazy liberals suffering from dementia.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml




Well, since President Bush himself has admitted to not needing or seeking court orders, I'd say I don't need security clearance. However Bush did tell the American people that there would be NO WIRETAPS WITHOUT COURT ORDERS about a year after he had already ok'd a plan to wiretap without court orders and the operatin was already in action...



So..do you really want to get into a fight over which scientists believe in the greenhouse effect and human's definite contribution to it, and those that don't? Cause I can absolutely state that I can whip out bigger sources and brains than you can. Since about 90% of the the scientific community supports my point of view, and have sent Bush clear mesaages, invitews, statements and research time and again backing up their claim and he has ignored or dismissed them (wouldn't want to piss off his oil company masters), I'd say you would do better to step away from this one.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347490/posts

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/wireStory?id=1992572

But I do envy you in a way. Denial can be less stressful. I'd much rather look the world and our country as though we were on the right path and our President was a good and honest man. Life would be so much better! But unfortunately, I just can't lie to myself.

Just to the rest of us, huh?

Your dismissal of Fox News as a legitimate news source is telling. If it's not inline with your thinking it can't be true.

I can say what I think Bush has done wrong, but can you say anything he's done right?

-Kiamat Dusk

I already stated what he'd done right in an earlier post.

As for Fox News, I'm far from the only person that views it as a purely neo-con/corporate outlet. It is pretty much considered a bit of a joke by more legitimate news outlets. It often referred to humorously.

And no, it's certainly not in line with my thinking, nor with anything to do with reality for the most part.

And by "legitimate news outlets" you mean like CNN who had to retract their Tailwind story?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.johnson/

Or Newsweek and their Koran story....wait....they had to retract that, too...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/

CBS and Memogate?

Dateline NBC and their rigged trucks?

Better, yet-here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals

Oh, yeah....much better than Fox....

-Kiamat Dusk

Your kung-fu is strong.

Briana Dawson

at least they attempt the real news -- Did FOX News find Natalie Holloway yet?
FWIW I don't tend to get my news from the Corporate shills you mention above.

That made me laugh out loud! I needed that!

-Kiamat Dusk

No, no. I'm sure you get your news from far more reputable sources like:

The Worker's Daily
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/ww2001/index.htm

The People's Weely World
http://www.pww.org/

And sites like thisL
http://www.cpusa.org/

I'll take my chances with Fox.

-Kiamat Dusk

But then, it is a lot easy to take cheap shots than to actually discuss things in a civilized manner, isn't it?

First off you take a cheap shot by trying to set it up so that the only way I could be a "man of integrity" is to give in to your blackmail and apologize for my opinion-so much for free speech.

I don't owe you an apology, Vares, because nothing in this post:


disproves what I said in this one:



In fact, by demanding an apology for my opinion, you've contradicted yourself:



So much for respecting my opinion. Moreover, again, there are no concrete ideas presented here, and while you say:



you offer no proof of this.

You are in no position to cast dispersions on my integrity and I do not make apologies for holding my own beliefs.

-Kiamat Dusk

I think just about every news network has, at one time or another had to retract stories, but Fox News avoids this by being a mostly fictional show for entertainment purposes only.

For the most part, I get my news from AP feeds, but I do enjoy alot of MSNBC.

I should point out that the legal proceedings of a criminal or civil trial have not yet occured. This means that if he pleaded guilty now (or to any charges brought before him), he would not have any grounds upon which to defend himself against whatever charges they bring. This is why he must maintain innocence even if he did any of the things that the article describes him as doing. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh.

As to the original topic of the thread, I don't see that the article in the original post has anything to do with potential democratic candidates. Also it seemed primarily purposed to direct a flame war in the context it was given. And it seems to have done just that. Congratulations.

Thanks!

-Kiamat Dusk

So who do you think will be the next Democratic presidential candidate?

Hilary?

Gore?

Kerry?

J. Edwards?

wrong. I get my news from BBC world and The Guardian.

any would be fine, but silly to ponder. The '06 midterms are far more important...oh!....you meant that as a distraction. my bad.

I respect your opinion Kiamat. I disagree with many of the things you say, but the difference between us is that I don't think less of you as a person just because I don't agree with you.

It's your baseless accusations about me personally that you need to apologize for. The reason you owe me, and many others here, an apology is that your post was a personal attack on us all, and had nothing to do with facts.

First you dismiss my opinions as irrelevant for no other reason than they are different than yours. Then you presume to know where I choose to get my news. How do you know where I get my news? You then accuse me of “rhetoric and baseless accusations” when that is all that your entire post is. Show me one post I have made that is “rhetoric and baseless accusations.” I can show you tons of yours that are. Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?

I have never called President Bush an imbecile or ever said that he is “some diabolical mastermind trying to take over the world “. My posts have never, ever, “devolved into rabid vitriol “. Which, once again, is all your post was. More hypocrisy on your part.



I have never once shouted down anyone in these or any other forum. Which is exactly what your post was doing to me. It's sole purpose was to be dismissive and demeaning, as are many of your other posts. Do I even need to say the word hypocrisy at this point?



Proof? The only “proof” I need to offer about my own personal opinion is to simple say “that isn't correct”. Or do you believe that you know what my personal opinion is better than I do?



General statements like this about an entire group of people are the very definition of prejudice. Show me a single post I have made that even comes close to supporting this accusation. However the "hate and negativity" you have for “the Left” shows loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

In fact, the only thing your post does is show quite clearly the depth of your prejudice and hypocrisy. I do not ask you to make apologies for your own personal beliefs. I ask you to make apologies for making untrue statements about my own personal character. A person of integrity would apologize for the unfounded personal attacks made in your post. But then I guess a person's definition of integrity depends on their own personal moral code. If your personal moral code says that it's ok to make unfounded, libelous remarks about people you have never met, then never mind.

The goal in these forums isn't “winning”. Beating somebody into submission doesn't make you right. Democracies aren't about forcing “the other side” to give in to your will (By the way, we're all on the same side here Kiamat). Democracies are about compromise. Democracies are about people working together to find common ground. Despite what history might seem to suggest, bashing people in the head with your opinion until they collapse, so you can stand then over their bloody body and shout "See??? I was right!", really isn't the American way.

“One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

I don't have anything more to say on this matter Kiamat. I've made my case and won't be drawn into a pointless argument with you. Feel free to have the last word on this subject, but know that there will be no reply from me.

All along your case has been that what I posted did not apply to you. And since it did not apply to you and since you were not mentioned, I cannot see why you've taken offense.

You want an apology for a personal attack-as you were not mentioned in the post-there was no personal attack.

If you want an apology for making generalizations, you'll get one as soon as you demand one from every other poster Right and Left who has done the same.

You came in and took offense to a post that, by your own admission, bore no relevance or likeness to you, and then demanded an apology. It's like jumping in front of a car and then demanding an apology for getting struck.

Nobody was talking to or about you. Move along. Nothing to see here.

-Kiamat Dusk

Mmmm, the BBC! The people who had a reporter standing in Baghdad saying the US forces hadn't arrived while CNN was showing live coverage of them rolling through.

I an a frequent visitor of their site, too, actually. Good stuff as long as they aren't talking about the US.

And The Guardian...I might have known. Any rag that hates America that much is certain to make your "must read" list.

-Kiamat Dusk

And who do you got? Dick Cheney? LOL. Tom Delay? LOL. Bill Frist? LOL. John McCain? The guy the right wing wackos hate and now the independents are wary of? LOL. Condi Rice? Does anyone seriously think the Red States would elect a black woman? LOL.

So, who you got? Who isn't tied to the despised current administration, who would pass the right wing wacko test and be palatable to the independents needed to get elected? Who?

Hey, we got W into office TWICE.

...just sayin'...

Oh, and now Republicans are sexist bigots who wouldn't vote for a black female!? Have you completely lost all grip on reality or do you even care about the veracity of your statements?

-Kiamat Dusk