Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The SwampThing · 07-10-2003, 02:02 PM

People need to see Bush using his own intelect to answer questions. He usually only has to read from speeches written by other people.
If he was forced to answer those questions without the help of others, then people would see him for what he really is:
an ignorant fool, with the brain power of a frog!
What better way is there to knock someone down from his high horse?
There is a catch, however:
His oponents need to be at least a little more inteligent than he is. Otherwise we would end up watching two idiots making fool of eachother! And you know what they say:

"You can�t argue with an idiot. He won�t win but he�ll make you look like an idiot too in the process."
Or something like that...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-10-2003, 09:52 PM

If I may . . . I think that a list of ideas about what THEY should do to defeat Bush is a waste of electrons. To the best of my knowledge, the Democratic National Committee is unlikely to scan this web site looking for useful ideas.

A far more useful question to be asking is, "What are YOU going to be doing in the next 1.5 years to defeat Bush?"

If the answer is "Nothing, I'm just going to be an armchair quarterback and discuss the plays that THEY should have made," then . . . well . . . enough said.

Zar · 07-10-2003, 10:46 PM

The Nose,

Alright, you win. Maybe "dishonesty" isn't the right policy. Maybe what we mean is extreme aggresiveness within the bounds of truth. I'd be happy if just a number of the well-founded things got said more loudly and more often. I guess I don't need to see lies being fabricated.

Alonzo,

Excellent point.

I've been giving money to various advocacy groups, and I plan on helping the Dean campaign with money at least (I don't have a lot of time. I'm in a real personal bind this year and need to take care of a lot of business.)

Arken · 07-11-2003, 06:21 AM

I just had a terrifying thought...

Bush is still very popular despite all of the dirty crap he has done that comes out on a daily basis. Could it be that the neocons are going to ride him through the election and then let him take the fall afterwards to let Cheney step up to the plate?

CJD · 07-11-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Could it be that the neocons are going to ride him through the election and then let him take the fall afterwards to let Cheney step up to the plate?

What makes you think Cheney (and other shadows) are not already at the plate?

Honestly, I think Bush & Co. is gone in '04. Third-party voters will likely swing to whoever is the most viable canidate in opposition to Dubya. Sianara, cowboy.

niggle · 07-11-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
Honestly, I think Bush & Co. is gone in '04. Third-party voters will likely swing to whoever is the most viable canidate in opposition to Dubya. Sianara, cowboy.

Don't count on it. I have yet to talk to a person who voted third party in 2000 and says they regreted it. And as someone who voted third party, my advice to Democrats is, get a decent candidate this time!

ieyeasu · 07-11-2003, 07:30 AM

How do you beat Bush in 2004? Move out of the states.

It's sad to contemplate, because the even was bad for all of us; but 9-11 was definitely a polarizing event. The pendulem is swinging far right; and even in the liberal areas of Washington state, dissent is no longer seen as speech, but treason. I was actually threatened with physical harm for expressing doubt towards the administration and its false case for war.

The dialogue that was present is becoming increasingly taboo--and if the Democrats hammer on Bush's mistruths, they may doom themselves royally.

I don't think there is a way for the Demos to win in 04--even if Bush is damningly shown to be lying to the majority of the public--because the public has become--scary.

Godless Dave · 07-11-2003, 07:37 AM

iyeasu, I'm afraid you might be right. It's like a large section of the public doesn't care about their own freedom. They love American solely because it's the country they live in, not because of what it's supposed to stand for. I'm giving them one more chance in 2004.

Apocolips · 07-11-2003, 07:45 AM

Hola!

The way to beat Bush is to bring back Al Gore from the dead. The nomination is his if he wants it. Gore won the election in 2000, but he got screwed by the Supreme Court on the Florida recount, and of course, the rarely fallable electorial college.

The people running on the Democrat side are a bunch of lightweights. Everybody here crows about Howard Dean, but I heard him on Meet the Press, and he was pitiful, could not answer even the simplest questions. Lieberman will never be elected President because of his religion. Edwards is running for VP, Kucinich is a major leftie, and Sharpton wont be nominated because he is a .............................loon (and you thought I was going to say black!)

To Vice President Gore, I do not much care for you, but if you ran again, pick Bob Graham as your VP, you can beat Bush and do it handily. I have read that you used to smoke a lot of pot and watch Star Trek with Tommy lee Jones, so there is some cool in you. I also know that you wont fuck around on your wife like Clinton did, because Tipper is not a hagged out, political skank Hillary is. Go man go.

SENOR

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-11-2003, 07:59 AM

If I may offer a proposal:

A common theme, often repeated, has a possibility of sinking in.

One useful "common theme" to present -- regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Bush's competency in general would be,"

"I do not think that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think he lacks the basic competency to be able to look at a stack of evidence and form a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he engages in faith-based thinking. He based his belief that there were weapons in Iraq on faith, then sorted through his evidence and says, "This confirms what I believe, obviously it is true (and includes it in his State of the Union Message). This says that what I believe is false, so clearly there is something wrong with it. We don't need for more years of a person who can't make a decision based on the evidence, but who instead sees the evidence in terms of the decision he has already made."

Repeat this message often enough. (Stay 'on message' as they say in the political arena), and I think that serious damage could be done to Bush's re-election chances.

07-11-2003, 07:45 AM	#49
Apocolips Banned Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Hangzhou, China Posts: 2,402	DRAFT THE WODEN MAN! Hola! The way to beat Bush is to bring back Al Gore from the dead. The nomination is his if he wants it. Gore won the election in 2000, but he got screwed by the Supreme Court on the Florida recount, and of course, the rarely fallable electorial college. The people running on the Democrat side are a bunch of lightweights. Everybody here crows about Howard Dean, but I heard him on Meet the Press, and he was pitiful, could not answer even the simplest questions. Lieberman will never be elected President because of his religion. Edwards is running for VP, Kucinich is a major leftie, and Sharpton wont be nominated because he is a .............................loon (and you thought I was going to say black!) To Vice President Gore, I do not much care for you, but if you ran again, pick Bob Graham as your VP, you can beat Bush and do it handily. I have read that you used to smoke a lot of pot and watch Star Trek with Tommy lee Jones, so there is some cool in you. I also know that you wont fuck around on your wife like Clinton did, because Tipper is not a hagged out, political skank Hillary is. Go man go. SENOR

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2003, 02:02 PM	#41
The SwampThing Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 249	People need to see Bush using his own intelect to answer questions. He usually only has to read from speeches written by other people. If he was forced to answer those questions without the help of others, then people would see him for what he really is: an ignorant fool, with the brain power of a frog! What better way is there to knock someone down from his high horse? There is a catch, however: His oponents need to be at least a little more inteligent than he is. Otherwise we would end up watching two idiots making fool of eachother! And you know what they say: "You can�t argue with an idiot. He won�t win but he�ll make you look like an idiot too in the process." Or something like that... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

07-10-2003, 09:52 PM	#42
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	If I may . . . I think that a list of ideas about what THEY should do to defeat Bush is a waste of electrons. To the best of my knowledge, the Democratic National Committee is unlikely to scan this web site looking for useful ideas. A far more useful question to be asking is, "What are YOU going to be doing in the next 1.5 years to defeat Bush?" If the answer is "Nothing, I'm just going to be an armchair quarterback and discuss the plays that THEY should have made," then . . . well . . . enough said.

07-10-2003, 10:46 PM	#43
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	The Nose, Alright, you win. Maybe "dishonesty" isn't the right policy. Maybe what we mean is extreme aggresiveness within the bounds of truth. I'd be happy if just a number of the well-founded things got said more loudly and more often. I guess I don't need to see lies being fabricated. Alonzo, Excellent point. I've been giving money to various advocacy groups, and I plan on helping the Dean campaign with money at least (I don't have a lot of time. I'm in a real personal bind this year and need to take care of a lot of business.)

07-11-2003, 06:21 AM	#44
Arken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 6,303	I just had a terrifying thought... Bush is still very popular despite all of the dirty crap he has done that comes out on a daily basis. Could it be that the neocons are going to ride him through the election and then let him take the fall afterwards to let Cheney step up to the plate?

07-11-2003, 07:30 AM	#47
ieyeasu Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 844	How do you beat Bush in 2004? Move out of the states. It's sad to contemplate, because the even was bad for all of us; but 9-11 was definitely a polarizing event. The pendulem is swinging far right; and even in the liberal areas of Washington state, dissent is no longer seen as speech, but treason. I was actually threatened with physical harm for expressing doubt towards the administration and its false case for war. The dialogue that was present is becoming increasingly taboo--and if the Democrats hammer on Bush's mistruths, they may doom themselves royally. I don't think there is a way for the Demos to win in 04--even if Bush is damningly shown to be lying to the majority of the public--because the public has become--scary.

07-11-2003, 07:37 AM	#48
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	iyeasu, I'm afraid you might be right. It's like a large section of the public doesn't care about their own freedom. They love American solely because it's the country they live in, not because of what it's supposed to stand for. I'm giving them one more chance in 2004.

07-11-2003, 07:59 AM	#50
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	If I may offer a proposal: A common theme, often repeated, has a possibility of sinking in. One useful "common theme" to present -- regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Bush's competency in general would be," "I do not think that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think he lacks the basic competency to be able to look at a stack of evidence and form a reasonable conclusion. Instead, he engages in faith-based thinking. He based his belief that there were weapons in Iraq on faith, then sorted through his evidence and says, "This confirms what I believe, obviously it is true (and includes it in his State of the Union Message). This says that what I believe is false, so clearly there is something wrong with it. We don't need for more years of a person who can't make a decision based on the evidence, but who instead sees the evidence in terms of the decision he has already made." Repeat this message often enough. (Stay 'on message' as they say in the political arena), and I think that serious damage could be done to Bush's re-election chances.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.