Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participantesmith –
The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.
Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.
While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.
McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.
Participantesmith –
The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.
Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.
While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.
McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.
Participantesmith –
The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.
Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.
While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.
McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.
Participantesmith –
The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.
Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.
While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.
McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.
Participantesmith –
The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.
Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.
While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.
McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.
ParticipantAnd as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.
The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.
ParticipantAnd as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.
The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.
ParticipantAnd as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.
The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.
ParticipantAnd as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.
The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.
ParticipantAnd as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.
The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.
Participant“Are you one of MANY MANY people that still believes Al Gore invented the internet?”
Just an OT reply on a OT thread – Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did, however, claim to have taken the initiative to create the internet – a claim that is backed by Vint Cerf (who is one of the prime personages who actually could be said to have “invented” – at least in large part – the internet). In context, it is absolutely clear that Gore’s comments about the internet had to do with his role as one of the primary congressmembers who saw the potential and actively lobbied for funding for the nascent internet in the 80’s. The idea that he thought – or intended for anyone else to think – that he had somehow engineered the entire thing himself is ludicrous on it’s face, and a prime example of “soundbite” politics at it’s most dishonest.
Al Gore steered a LOT of funding towards the interconnection of the various disparate networks that were rising in the 80s (cerfNet, ARPAnet, etc) into a unified whole. He was probably the most technologically savvy senator during the 80s, and clearly had a very good idea of what was being done with those funds. Without Al Gore, it is likely that the unification of the various networks would have taken considerably longer.
Participant“Are you one of MANY MANY people that still believes Al Gore invented the internet?”
Just an OT reply on a OT thread – Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did, however, claim to have taken the initiative to create the internet – a claim that is backed by Vint Cerf (who is one of the prime personages who actually could be said to have “invented” – at least in large part – the internet). In context, it is absolutely clear that Gore’s comments about the internet had to do with his role as one of the primary congressmembers who saw the potential and actively lobbied for funding for the nascent internet in the 80’s. The idea that he thought – or intended for anyone else to think – that he had somehow engineered the entire thing himself is ludicrous on it’s face, and a prime example of “soundbite” politics at it’s most dishonest.
Al Gore steered a LOT of funding towards the interconnection of the various disparate networks that were rising in the 80s (cerfNet, ARPAnet, etc) into a unified whole. He was probably the most technologically savvy senator during the 80s, and clearly had a very good idea of what was being done with those funds. Without Al Gore, it is likely that the unification of the various networks would have taken considerably longer.
Participant“Are you one of MANY MANY people that still believes Al Gore invented the internet?”
Just an OT reply on a OT thread – Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did, however, claim to have taken the initiative to create the internet – a claim that is backed by Vint Cerf (who is one of the prime personages who actually could be said to have “invented” – at least in large part – the internet). In context, it is absolutely clear that Gore’s comments about the internet had to do with his role as one of the primary congressmembers who saw the potential and actively lobbied for funding for the nascent internet in the 80’s. The idea that he thought – or intended for anyone else to think – that he had somehow engineered the entire thing himself is ludicrous on it’s face, and a prime example of “soundbite” politics at it’s most dishonest.
Al Gore steered a LOT of funding towards the interconnection of the various disparate networks that were rising in the 80s (cerfNet, ARPAnet, etc) into a unified whole. He was probably the most technologically savvy senator during the 80s, and clearly had a very good idea of what was being done with those funds. Without Al Gore, it is likely that the unification of the various networks would have taken considerably longer.
Participant“Are you one of MANY MANY people that still believes Al Gore invented the internet?”
Just an OT reply on a OT thread – Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He did, however, claim to have taken the initiative to create the internet – a claim that is backed by Vint Cerf (who is one of the prime personages who actually could be said to have “invented” – at least in large part – the internet). In context, it is absolutely clear that Gore’s comments about the internet had to do with his role as one of the primary congressmembers who saw the potential and actively lobbied for funding for the nascent internet in the 80’s. The idea that he thought – or intended for anyone else to think – that he had somehow engineered the entire thing himself is ludicrous on it’s face, and a prime example of “soundbite” politics at it’s most dishonest.
Al Gore steered a LOT of funding towards the interconnection of the various disparate networks that were rising in the 80s (cerfNet, ARPAnet, etc) into a unified whole. He was probably the most technologically savvy senator during the 80s, and clearly had a very good idea of what was being done with those funds. Without Al Gore, it is likely that the unification of the various networks would have taken considerably longer.
-
AuthorPosts
