John Kerry and Al Gore were liberal, shrill extremists who found they couldn't demagogue the American people into supporting them over a stronger, more moderate candidate.

/you know someone is going to say it.

Skleenar: John Kerry and Al Gore were liberal, shrill extremists who found they couldn't demagogue the American people into supporting them over a stronger, more moderate candidate.

Bush is a moderate now??

America is the mob.

Saborlas

Kerry campaigned solely on the fact that he wasn't Bush. Nothing new or fresh or factual in his campaign, just him saying "Bush is wrong, so I won't do what he does".

So he ran a great half campaign, however, it lacked that knockout punch (i.e. clear, well-thought out policies)

WorldCitizen: This is true. It is true because people are farking stupid.

Saborlas: John Kerry and Al Gore based their campaigns on FACT. Their losses say more about the education level of America than the debatable (?) success rate of their opponents.

Keep it up libbies. Keep telling Americans that they're dumb and we'll keep winning elections.

What I don't get is why all these Congressmen keep running for president. Who was the last Senator or Representative elected president? Farkin' Kennedy. Everyone since then has come out of the VP slot or a Governorship. Bottom line: to be President people think you need executive experience. And being a mayor doesn't county, Rudy.

clifton

Keep ignoring it and America will grow up to be an emo.

For most men, everything goes in this order...

1) Penis
2) Stomach (which includes beer consumption)
3) Brain

I'd say W won due to #2, Clinton due to #1

As non-emotional as those two were I'm surprised they ever got laid, much less married (not that the two go together).

Asteroth: And being a mayor doesn't county, Rudy.

New York City is a bigger and more complex entity than most states.

RockIsDead: Asteroth: And being a mayor doesn't county, Rudy.

New York City is a bigger and more complex entity than most states.

I assume by "bigger" you mean more populated, not larger geographically. And I disagree that it is more complex than most states; most states have large cities (admittedly not as large as NYC) as well as stretches of sparsely populated land, not to mention more roads that need maintenance, wildlife concerns, etc. Essentially being Mayor of a city is not as broad a responsibility as being Governor of a state.

I think somebody told Hillary Clinton this. Remember that time she made a speech where she was blunt and said "we're going to take things from you for the good of the country" - a level of brutal honesty about the need for a high-income tax hike that you don't see from other politicians.

The right has never let her forget it. So she no longer campaigns on fact - now she's Kerry X1000 - an endless two-faced pile of smiles and platitudes.

Dear America: you chose this.

Pxtl: I think somebody told Hillary Clinton this. Remember that time she made a speech where she was blunt and said "we're going to take things from you for the good of the country" - a level of brutal honesty about the need for a high-income tax hike that you don't see from other politicians.

The right has never let her forget it. So she no longer campaigns on fact - now she's Kerry X1000 - an endless two-faced pile of smiles and platitudes.

She can say whatever warm fuzzies she wants but she still comes across as emotionless and cold. It comes across as coached and calculated. One more reason she'll lose. Her spouse was emotionless and calculated but he was a much better actor.

Clifton:
2006 called,you want your house and senate back.

trev29:
2007 called, you wish your blue man group weren't voting red all the time.

Maybe Bush asked for more Patriot Act and FISA, but "your" people gave them to him.

trev29:

FWIW, Obama and Clinton just voted "yea" on:

FISA power extends well beyond spies and terrorists. It can be used in connection with ordinary criminal investigations involving United States citizens who live in this country and who may be charged with offenses such as narcotics violations or breaches of an employer's confidentiality. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806, 1825.

For instance, electronic surveillance under § 1801(f)(1) only reaches wire or radio communications "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person" and a warrant would ordinarily be required. If the U.S. person is not "known," or more important, not "intentionally" targeted, it simply isn't "electronic surveillance" under § 1801(f)(1).

Note also that FISA expressly contemplates that it will produce "unintentionally acquired information." § 1806(i). But while this section requires the destruction of such information, it only applies to "the contents of any radio communication," only if a warrant would have been required, and only if both the sender and intended recipients are within the United States.

Given these limits, one may presume that "unintentionally acquired information" outside these lines is not destroyed. That would include all "unintentionally acquired"wire or electronic communications.

DATELINE: August 3, 2007

Show me the BLUE VOTE!

Asteroth: I assume by "bigger" you mean more populated, not larger geographically. And I disagree that it is more complex than most states; most states have large cities (admittedly not as large as NYC) as well as stretches of sparsely populated land, not to mention more roads that need maintenance, wildlife concerns, etc. Essentially being Mayor of a city is not as broad a responsibility as being Governor of a state.

I'd say the Mayor of NYC gets to trade having to worry about an agriculture policy with needing some semblance of foreign policy expertise combined with the prime-time skills needed to operate effectively in the media fish bowl. If you think the Mayor of NYC has fewer miles of roads to worry about than does the Governor of Delaware, you're nuts; not to mention worrying about subways, trains, tramways, ferries, and a bus service. The city population (8.2M) ranks it between Virginia (7.6M) and New Jersey (8.7M). The city GDP of 457B places it between New Jersey (434B) and Ohio (461B). And then there is the small matter of the multi-ethnic variety of the populace.

For most women, everything goes in this order:

1) Kissing other chicks
2) Panties only pillow fights with other girls
3) Sammich making

How can things be so wrong with half the population thinking like this?

I guess the main point is that Republicans are dumbasses.

clifton: Keep it up libbies. Keep telling Americans that they're dumb and we'll keep winning elections.

You are dumb if you think you are on a winning streak.

"Keep it up libbies. Keep telling Americans that they're dumb and we'll keep winning elections'

Good job keeping the House and Senate in 2006, Vern!

Heh, damn I'm good. I can't believe that old talking point works.

Who was the guy that said voters will not be happy until someone as stupid as the general population is elected?

Whoever it was, he was way ahead of his time.

clifton: Heh, damn I'm good. I can't believe that old talking point works.

Depends on what you mean by "works" I guess.

I always felt like President Clinton's emotional appeals were staged, lacking authenticity and sincerity. President Bush's emotional appeal is raw and unfettered as it relates to the reality of all the Terrorists that want to kill us.

Sunny Ray: I always felt like President Clinton's emotional appeals were staged, lacking authenticity and sincerity. President Bush's emotional appeal is raw and unfettered as it relates to the reality of all the Terrorists that want to kill us.

Plus, he's a guy I'd drink a beer with. This is why I voted for him.

Sunny Ray: I always felt like President Clinton's emotional appeals were staged, lacking authenticity and sincerity. President Bush's emotional appeal is raw and unfettered as it relates to the reality of all the Terrorists that want to kill us.

Let's see if Sunny Ray gets any bites.

*pulls up a chair and cracks open a beer*

clifton: Sunny Ray: I always felt like President Clinton's emotional appeals were staged, lacking authenticity and sincerity. President Bush's emotional appeal is raw and unfettered as it relates to the reality of all the Terrorists that want to kill us.

Plus, he's a guy I'd drink a beer with. This is why I voted for him.

LOL ... I get your analogy. However, I am thankful that President Bush overcame the horrors of alcohol dependency just in time to get into politics and to serve his country at his highest level of sobriety during these sober times of war. Maybe he would have an O'Douls?

Humans are not thinking machines that feel. We are feeling machines that think. Very little of what we do is based on reason/facts. Most of our choices are made subconsciously or emotionally.

apeiron242: Humans are not thinking machines that feel. We are feeling machines that think. Very little of what we do is based on reason/facts. Most of our choices are made subconsciously or emotionally.

Basically you are saying that God is making most of our choices for us and I think that is a beautiful thing.

Perhaps my least favorite thing in the entire world is when someone says they voted for a particular candidate for President of the United Farking States of America because they'd "want to have a beer with them."

Why do people want one of their bar buddies to be President?

What low standards we have.

I'd trust my bar buddies over anyone else in the world and that includes Jesus. My bar buddies don't have any kindness or mercy in them when they're drunk...

Your emotions are irrelevant.

I like to think of Clinton as the "Why are you so fat?" jolly guy from Family guy. The guy has a lot of ethos; I always liked him up until things started getting nasty with the whole impeachment thing.



Bush, I thought, was a bit phony when he first came to power. I didn't really like him in the primaries, but supported him after he won the election - I'll agree with Sunny Ray though, that you can tell he has some real emotion going into the whole war on terrorism. It's kind of a pained look in his eyes he didn't have on inauguration day.

I'd agree I'd crach a beer with him, but Bush doesn't drink. Which kind of creeps me out, honestly.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Good job keeping the House and Senate in 2006, Vern!

More like "Nice job not winning anything in 2006, you stupid Republican Retards."

Flows off the tongue more easily.

Shaggy_C: I'd agree I'd crach a beer with him, but Bush doesn't drink. Which kind of creeps me out, honestly.

Anybody who can be conned by Billy Graham into 'seeing the light' doesn't have much willpower to begin with. And given how Dubya is a retard and his family was overbearing on their retarded brethren, I'm damn amazed he isn't snorting coke on a daily basis now.

Guntram Shatterhand: Anybody who can be conned by Billy Graham into 'seeing the light' doesn't have much willpower to begin with. And given how Dubya is a retard and his family was overbearing on their retarded brethren, I'm damn amazed he isn't snorting coke on a daily basis now.

Agreed. Christians scare the hell out of me. Fark 'family values' conservatives, they can all suck Fark squirrel's left nut.

Simple solution to the problem in the headline: repeal the 19th Amendment.

/Someone had to say it.

clifton: Keep it up libbies. Keep telling Americans that they're dumb and we'll keep winning elections.

Can you give us any evidence that Americans as a whole aren't dumb as shiat?

I can give evidence to the contrary.

I disagree that most people make emotional decisions. Like much of life, politics is the art of appearance. Must people act or justify their behavior based upon the fact that it "feels good" or "values" or some such rot. All of this is a disguise to hide their basic intellectual cruelty. Most Americans aren't stupid; they are simply crass, crude, and cruel. They want to "stick it to the man" and they simply disagree over who that "man" happens to be.

worlddan: I disagree that most people make emotional decisions. Like much of life, politics is the art of appearance. Must people act or justify their behavior based upon the fact that it "feels good" or "values" or some such rot. All of this is a disguise to hide their basic intellectual cruelty. Most Americans aren't stupid; they are simply crass, crude, and cruel. They want to "stick it to the man" and they simply disagree over who that "man" happens to be.

I disagree. I think most Americans are just easily suckered.

Fakk

Can you give us any evidence that Americans as a whole aren't dumb as shiat?

I can give evidence to the contrary.

First of all, yes most Americans are dumb when it comes to politics. That includes *gasp* most liberals. The majority of people on both sides don't inform themselves on the issues or even if they do it's only from extremely biased sources. The fact is that these days you have to read about issues from both sides so you can try to understand approximately where in the middle the truth is.

Now where Clifton is correct is when he says that calling Americans dumb is going to cause the Dems to keep losing elections. People don't like to be called dumb and they don't like to be talked down to. The Democrat politicians don't often openly call people dumb. They leave that to the liberal media. However the Dem politicians do tend to talk down to people. Bill Clinton was a major exception to that.

I don't find it an odd trend that so many of our recent Presidents have come from the South. Those that didn't had the same folksy quality that people from the South tend to have (Reagan and to a lesser degree Bush I). That quality makes America feel warm and fuzzy and it's easy for most people to choose that over someone who is calling them stupid. Look at Perot. That guy was crazy and he still got enough votes to heavily influence two elections.

Just say what is true, Gore and Kerry are total losers. They are stiff elitists who have no ability to relate to normal humans. They can both kiss my farking ass and I look forward to the day that they both die.

Brubold: First of all, yes most Americans are dumb when it comes to politics. That includes *gasp* most liberals. The majority of people on both sides don't inform themselves on the issues or even if they do it's only from extremely biased sources. The fact is that these days you have to read about issues from both sides so you can try to understand approximately where in the middle the truth is.

This is part of the problem. There are many issues where there is no such thing as "both sides". One side may just be wrong, factually. I hate when people say this because it makes it seem like everything is an opinion and facts are negotiable. Although I agree with you that just as many liberals are dumbasses as "conservatives" (an endangered species in the Republican party nowadays).

Now where Clifton is correct is when he says that calling Americans dumb is going to cause the Dems to keep losing elections. People don't like to be called dumb and they don't like to be talked down to. The Democrat politicians don't often openly call people dumb. They leave that to the liberal media. However the Dem politicians do tend to talk down to people. Bill Clinton was a major exception to that.

"Liberal" media? Hahahaha. You had a good post going there; why screw it up with that? I agree that people don't like to be called dumb, but the fact is, most of them ARE dumb. A great leader needs to figure out how to push the idiots into voting the right way while somehow not insulting their (lack of) intelligence. Bill Clinton did that pretty well, with his "folksiness" as you put it. George W. Bush did it pretty well, too, but only for the religious idiots, who were suckered into believing he was "one of them".

I don't find it an odd trend that so many of our recent Presidents have come from the South. Those that didn't had the same folksy quality that people from the South tend to have (Reagan and to a lesser degree Bush I). That quality makes America feel warm and fuzzy and it's easy for most people to choose that over someone who is calling them stupid. Look at Perot. That guy was crazy and he still got enough votes to heavily influence two elections.

The reason so many of our recent presidents have come from the South is that both parties seem to need at least part of the South to win. So both of the major parties have been using the South as part of their strategy to win, and an easy way to do that is to nominate a Southerner. There has been talk recently of the Democrats shifting to more of a "Western strategy", by modifying some of their positions to be more appealing to more libertarian voters in Western states (such as moderating their support for gun control, emphasizing protection of civil liberties, etc). Time will tell how that works out for them, but I think it's a good idea.