America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

when gore conceded four years ago, i was a little annoyed. i thought he should have continued to fight, even after the supreme turned him down. personally i didn't care for him, to wishy washy, and i didn't much care for bush either, but i never dreamed bush would be such a lousy president.

kerry is another story. he had three states he could contest, and he had $15,000,00.00 left in the till to fight with. i thought he had more determination, that he really believed he could make a difference for the country. forget all the flip-flop crap, and the BS about his medals, he was suppossed to be a man who could lead. he isn't. he quit before the race was over.

he would have been trouble as a "leader." he would have been a different kind of trouble then bush is and will be, but he doesn't have the cajones to fight to the end.

i still believe bush is everything bad i ever said about him, but he won, and that's the first test. can you go the distance. he did.

throwing daschle out doesn't mean squat. he was not worth a damn. he was another toady, giving bush more head of steam then he should have.

the democratic party will probably never regain any importance and it is their own fault. they don't fight for what they believe in any more, if they ever did. nadar was correct, we have a one party government.

when JFK was in charge, he surrounded himself with people that disagreed with him so he could get a better perspective. bush surrounds himself with yes men, because he has no perspective and is too disinterested in learning anything. he is like many of the bush poster on the board, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." he and you all are narrow minded, inflexible, and stubborn, and given enough time will destry the "great experiment."

the country has been split into the haves and have nots, and the have nots think they will be part of the haves if they follow. they won't, the haves don't want you playing in their league.

i have heard that bush is learning to play the violin.
he wants to be prepared to fiddle when the country burns.

i am 72, and my family usually lives into their mid 90's, so i'll be around to listen to the music.

Great post Rick, except for your insistence to include derogatory comments regarding those that voted for Bush in the election.
What makes you think that we're "narrow minded, inflexible, and stubborn"? Quite a broad brush you paint with, especially for somebody who was all of those things for the last four years.

As for your characterization of Kerry, that is precisely why I didn't vote for him. His lack of "cajones" was the reason for his "flip flop" title. He drifted with the wind rather than forge his own way to a decision. Always has, and likely always will.

So please feel free to consider Bush whatevery you'd like. But don't belittle those who made the right decision.

tailgater

don't forget, i too am "narrow minded, inflexible, and stubborn."

*** JUST A POSER ***

If an elector voted for Kerry OR for Bush, how can it be said one was a better choice than the other where neither was the best choice as clearly the "BEST" choice never made it to the running.

The use of "popular" election for our nation's executive office, coutched in the preposterous flim-flam called the electoral college IS NOT efficient or representative of best choice for our country nor was either the brain child of our founding fathers. Neither was meant to provide the means for raising up America's "best" to the highest elected office in the land. That method was lost in antiquity to the $$$ and "special" interests who dictate policy.

So, my poser is, when you're left with making a choice between two (2) distasteful options (this year it was Bush and Kerry), what do you do . . . what CAN you do?

Purp

JonR

the word is schmuck.

i don't want people looking at you funny when you call them a jar of jam.

SteveS

do not be influenced by all the media attention rudy grabbed as a result of 911. new yorkers will tell you he couldn't run the city well, and the bad taste of moving his girl friend into the mansion when his wife left him because of his adultry, speaks volumes about his character.

DrMaddVibe

i won't give up my tinfoil hat.

Kerry lost, as he should, and now lets see what the future holds for the Democratic heads, as they scramble to find a new leader to put up for President! Evil Witch (aka Hillary) or far left whacko Howard Dean, or who knows.......they still will lose as long as they have the same old strategist running their campaign!

Rudy Guilliani in 2008!? Or Rudy in 2006 for US Senator against Hillary gal!!!!????

Charlie

++++++++++++++++++++
eleltea

YOU STATE: Purple the Electorial College a flim-flam? Do you also think representative government is a flim-flam?"
++++++++++++++++++++

Please do not misinterpret my post.

The founding fathers DID NOT create the "electoral college." It was created by Congress in 1803 and ratified in September 1804, by virtue of Amendment XII United States Constituon, due to the pressure of a "party" system of politics (which Washington and others abhored, observing its detrimental effects from the historic despotism in the European states).

It would also be WRONG to presume that I believe myself being "right" about anything. I was merely posing questions to contemplate ... and reciting "facts" as I understand them. I am neither the "concience" of America OR a political activist. I merely ascribe to my understanding of the thought processes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington and our other forgotten "heroes" of our free and independant way of life.

I do not hold our founding fathers up as "heroes" simply to dis our "representative" form of govenment. That is an absurdity; the "Electoral College" IS NOT a healthy representation of a "republican" form of government.

Thank you for your questions, though, for allowing me to try and clarify myself.

Purp