Anyone seen Sec??? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

PaceAdvantage

11-08-2004, 04:23 AM

All I know is what I see. I see a President whose actions CERTAINLY don't warrant someone resorting to SUICIDE!!!

So, what actually did cause this person to off himself at the World Trade Center? If we are to believe the media, then this person killed himself over the re-election of George Bush. This same media (or parts therein) is to blame for unfairly painting George Bush as some sort of hideous creature, the worst President ever (evidently, 58 million Americans disagree).

The point I'm getting at is that in no way does the EFFECT (suicide) match up with the CAUSE (George Bush as President).

Somebody's psyche is that warped and damaged that they would actually kill themselves over a President that 58 million Americans agree is GOOD for the job! This mentally-ill person allowed himself to be brainwashed by those that would paint George Bush in this ultra-extreme negative color.

Now, if we extend what happened with this suicide in NY one step further, wouldn't you agree that there is a high risk that there are some out there determined to "right the wrong" done by the American voting public in this most recent election?

Take a look at this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3983541.stm

I know there are all sorts of psychos out there at ANY point in time keeping the Secret Service busy (like that guy from Rochester a couple of months ago), but there are fringe elements out there that would actually LEGITIMIZE this sort of horrible action. I fear that now more than ever this is a threat.

An environment has been created here that I have never seen, and it's been created by the Michael Moore's of this world. It goes beyond the backing of one candidate over the other. It has crept into the realm of true hatred. There are many people out there that truly, TRULY hate George W. Bush, and they've been whipped into a frenzy that was SUPPOSED to culminate with his defeat on Nov. 2.

Now that this climax has not been reached, certain people are left in despair, not knowing how to solve their dilemma.

As we've just witnessed at Ground Zero with this suicide, people are willing to go beyond the realm of sanity to deal with their perceived injustice.

THAT is the scary part.

Buckeye

11-08-2004, 06:53 AM

PA,

On a lighter note, maybe Sec bet the house on Kerry :eek: considering how this is a gambling site.

On a darker note, who is the Vice-President? and so on down the line. They'd have to get us all.

Better luck next time.

sq764

11-08-2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Actually, this isn't a very funny post. It's actually quite sad.

What disturbs me even more is the thought that there are other folks out there who are equally distraught over the election results, but may look to take another person's life, and not their own. I think we all know whose life I am worrying about.

God Forbid this ever happens. I hope and pray it does not, but it is something I worry about, and I blame this kind of environment SOLELY on the far left fringes of the Democratic party, and those that utilize and encourage their misguided efforts and propaganda.
This is certainly a sad story and what I would like to know is WHY this happened.. I know it says he did it over the election, but why, what part of Bush winning actually put him over the edge?

Secretariat

11-08-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by sq764
This is certainly a sad story and what I would like to know is WHY this happened.. I know it says he did it over the election, but why, what part of Bush winning actually put him over the edge?

Obviously, you don't realize how much Bush's policies and hubris have alienated the Left in this country.

You've seen LBJ post here "Anyone but Bush". Personally, I liked Kerry very much and so didn't feel just animosity for Bush as a reason for voting. Many on the Left do. Many view Bush in multiple ways: as a man out of control who seeks world domination, a person ruled by religious fanaticism, or a man in solidly in bed with corporations.

I actually see him as the latter. But many who see him as the fist two are incredibly depressed and some unfortunately like this fellow are very fragile.

I don't think Bush can ever unite people except his own constituency. His second term will be one of continued division both here and abroad. This is what we got, and I can deal with it. Others can't.

That doesn't mean I am going to support policies for which I am strongly opposed.

sq764

11-08-2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Obviously, you don't realize how much Bush's policies and hubris have alienated the Left in this country.

You've seen LBJ post here "Anyone but Bush". Personally, I liked Kerry very much and so didn't feel just animosity for Bush as a reason for voting. Many on the Left do. Many view Bush in multiple ways: as a man out of control who seeks world domination, a person ruled by religious fanaticism, or a man in solidly in bed with corporations.

I actually see him as the latter. But many who see him as the fist two are incredibly depressed and some unfortunately like this fellow are very fragile.

I don't think Bush can ever unite people except his own constituency. His second term will be one of continued division both here and abroad. This is what we got, and I can deal with it. Others can't.

That doesn't mean I am going to support policies for which I am strongly opposed.

So you are saying the Democrats had nothing to do with the division of people in this country? Are you serious?

JustRalph

11-08-2004, 11:23 AM

Once again, Sec is delusional...Bush had nothing to do with this guy killing himself...... if you don't think that guy at ground zero would have found another reason for whacking himself........you are out of your mind

People who kill themselves over an election have a mental health problem. It is a damn shame that someone in his family etc didn't get to him or notice a problem, but this guy obviously had mental health problems.

so.cal.fan

11-08-2004, 11:45 AM

I agree with Ralph on the mental state of this man.
No sane person would kill themselves for politics/religion.

boxcar

11-08-2004, 11:54 AM

sq764 wrote:

So you are saying the Democrats had nothing to do with the division of people in this country? Are you serious?

You bet he's serious. That's the very sad part. :(

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

11-08-2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Many view Bush in multiple ways: as a man out of control who seeks world domination, a person ruled by religious fanaticism, or a man in solidly in bed with corporations.

And this is the very BULLSHIT that likely led to this unstable man putting a shotgun to his head. And this is the SAME BULLSHIT that might lead to more serious consequences down the road.

RELIGIOUS FANATIC??? WTF????

WORLD DOMINATION???? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F'IN MIND???

IN BED WITH CORPORATIONS??? Like what politician ISN'T??? Ralph Nader perhaps, but that's it!

Besides mental illness, I'd place a lot of the blame of that guy killing himself on YOU SEC, and people like you, who spread this bullshit around until enough people believe it.

Have fun lickin your wounds.....

Secretariat

11-09-2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
And this is the very BULLSHIT that likely led to this unstable man putting a shotgun to his head. And this is the SAME BULLSHIT that might lead to more serious consequences down the road.

RELIGIOUS FANATIC??? WTF????

WORLD DOMINATION???? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F'IN MIND???

IN BED WITH CORPORATIONS??? Like what politician ISN'T??? Ralph Nader perhaps, but that's it!

Besides mental illness, I'd place a lot of the blame of that guy killing himself on YOU SEC, and people like you, who spread this bullshit around until enough people believe it.

Have fun lickin your wounds.....

Interesting you selectively use part of my comments..ala Swift Boat techniques...and not what I said before or after what you chose.

So I'll repost what I said after your clip.

"I actually see him as the latter. But many who see him as the fist two are incredibly depressed and some unfortunately like this fellow are very fragile."

I did not say I saw Bush as a religious fanatic or a man after world domination. I said some see him as such, I stated I see him as a man in bed with corporations, and since some here say what politican isn't, what's the problem?

I stated Bush will have a difficult time uniting people or the world. Some may say who cares? Fine. Just don't mischracterize what I said.

The man has ties to big oil interests, is a sleepover guest for the Saudis, and his best bud is the ex-CEO of Halliburton. Can;t get more tied to big business than that.

Dave Schwartz

11-09-2004, 12:57 AM

LOL

>>>The man has ties to big oil interests, is a sleepover guest for the Saudis, and his best bud is the ex-CEO of Halliburton. Can;t get more tied to big business than that.<<<

Uh, actually you can. Can you spell ketchup?

Secretariat

11-09-2004, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
LOL

>>>The man has ties to big oil interests, is a sleepover guest for the Saudis, and his best bud is the ex-CEO of Halliburton. Can;t get more tied to big business than that.<<<

Uh, actually you can. Can you spell ketchup?

lol..big diff Dave...we don't all need ketchup...we all need oil....and the price of ketchup hasn't gone up much despite the tomato problems...

sq764

11-09-2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol..big diff Dave...we don't all need ketchup...we all need oil....and the price of ketchup hasn't gone up much despite the tomato problems...

I wonder if the Kerrys give back the profits from Heinz stock, you know, considering Heinz outsources 60% of their work to foreign countries... And you know, John and John were SO against this insane and disgusting practice..

Dave Schwartz

11-09-2004, 10:36 AM

Sec,

My point was that if you want to discuss the Great Political Sellout, you should note that it is happening on both sides of the aisle.

Or do you think that the campaign contributions to the democrats all come from middle America ten bucks at a time?

Dave

sq764

11-09-2004, 11:03 AM

Equineer

11-09-2004, 12:16 PM

Petty divisiveness? Folks encouraging juvenile antagonism?

At least here, this is a no brainer. Anyone who surveys the Off Topic forum threads would notice that our neo-cons have carved out a virtual monopoly with respect to raw vulgarity and banal invective.

Survey the posts for vulgarities that would earn a sixth-grader quiet time in the corner. Neo-cons handily beat Bush's majority numbers in this category.

Tally the posts that are transparent rants for activities that only fascists and anarchists could support... wacky ideas rejected by Republican and Democratic leaders. Same result.

Tally the posts that insult/assault messengers/candidates rather than argue issues. Same result.

Political partisanship can be expected to evoke some intemperate posts from both sides, but a significant number of posts here suggest that arrested development is a conservative trait... but of course, this is NOT true.

In other Internet discussion forums it was surely the other way around... forums where frenetic liberal wingnuts embarrassed their nominal compatriots.

Fortunately, both major parties will simply freeze-dry and store their fringe constituencies until the next election.

sq764

11-09-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Equineer
Petty divisiveness? Folks encouraging juvenile antagonism?

At least here, this is a no brainer. Anyone who surveys the Off Topic forum threads would notice that our neo-cons have carved out a virtual monopoly with respect to raw vulgarity and banal invective.

Survey the posts for vulgarities that would earn a sixth-grader quiet time in the corner. Neo-cons handily beat Bush's majority numbers in this category.

Tally the posts that are transparent rants for activities that only fascists and anarchists could support... wacky ideas rejected by Republican and Democratic leaders. Same result.

Tally the posts that insult/assault messengers/candidates rather than argue issues. Same result.

Political partisanship can be expected to evoke some intemperate posts from both sides, but a significant number of posts here suggest that arrested development is a conservative trait... but of course, this is NOT true.

In other Internet discussion forums it was surely the other way around... forums where frenetic liberal wingnuts embarrassed their nominal compatriots.

Fortunately, both major parties will simply freeze-dry and store their fringe constituencies until the next election.

Tally the votes of Dem whiners

Tally the conspiracy theorist Dem posts

Tally the classy concession posts of the Dems (oh wait, there aren't any)

sq764

11-09-2004, 01:12 PM

I think this explains:

1) If you read the letter he wrote, I think there's no doubt he was a wacko..

2) He killed himself over a woman, not the election

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33757.htm

lsbets

11-09-2004, 01:25 PM

Equineer - I think you need to reread the posts in off topic. There are two posters who have been more consistantly insulting and degrading than anyone else here - ljb and hcap. Sorry, your top don't spin this time.

Equineer

11-09-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by lsbets
Equineer - I think you need to reread the posts in off topic. There are two posters who have been more consistantly insulting and degrading than anyone else here - ljb and hcap. Sorry, your top don't spin this time. You are certainly entitled to express your opinion. :)

See my post in http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148050

Tom

11-09-2004, 06:59 PM

"...don't think Bush can ever unite people except his own constituency. His second term will be one of continued division both here and abroad. This is what we got, and I can deal with it. Others can't. "

Uh, I have news for you. Many, MANY on the iwnning side have no intentions of uniting wiht you left wing wackos. This election was, to me and many, about the DESTRUCTION of the current dem party. Hopefully, the sane people on the other side of the aisle will prevail and take the party back from you superstisious traitors. I have no intentions of compromising thing one. I encourage Bush to use his last term wisely - stack the court for future generations betterment and put the wacko fringe, including the European has-beens in their place.
Sec...France invaded Ivory Coast illegally. What is your spin on THAT? Where is your outrage? Where are your condeming posts?
You and the other nut cases are intersested only in cutting down Bush and America - it is blatanytly clear you have an agenda. OR should I say had.

Secretariat

11-09-2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Sec,

My point was that if you want to discuss the Great Political Sellout, you should note that it is happening on both sides of the aisle.

Or do you think that the campaign contributions to the democrats all come from middle America ten bucks at a time?

Dave

I understood your point, and agree that our government has been heavily tilted towards corporate donors regardless of party.

But the payback to Bush's oil buddies, the Halliburton's, and Enrons is offensive.

After all we're not talking about overcharging for ketchup for billions of dollars. We're not talking about dramatic pension fraud with ketchup. It's not the corporations themselves, but the kind of payback they get for those donations. Microsoft and Heinz aren't really raking in billions of dollars as a result of political no bid contracts.

So while I agree with the premise that the people have very little voice compared to large corporate donors anymore, it is still the responsiblity of those in office to not egregiously betray the public trust. I find it offensive that soldiers in our army are paid a pittance of the money corp contractors get to guard them. I find it offensive that Halliburton overcharges the Pentagon for gas at the same time Americans are forced to pay more.

I admire the courage of guys like Isbets (even though I disagree with his politcal philosophy). They remind me of guys I knew. I just don't enjoy watching cozy fatcats raking money off of their sacrifices.

sq764

11-09-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I understood your point, and agree that our government has been heavily tilted towards corporate donors regardless of party.

But the payback to Bush's oil buddies, the Halliburton's, and Enrons is offensive.

After all we're not talking about overcharging for ketchup for billions of dollars. We're not talking about dramatic pension fraud with ketchup. It's not the corporations themselves, but the kind of payback they get for those donations. Microsoft and Heinz aren't really raking in billions of dollars as a result of political no bid contracts.

So while I agree with the premise that the people have very little voice compared to large corporate donors anymore, it is still the responsiblity of those in office to not egregiously betray the public trust. I find it offensive that soldiers in our army are paid a pittance of the money corp contractors get to guard them. I find it offensive that Halliburton overcharges the Pentagon for gas at the same time Americans are forced to pay more.

I admire the courage of guys like Isbets (even though I disagree with his politcal philosophy). They remind me of guys I knew. I just don't enjoy watching cozy fatcats raking money off of their sacrifices.

So you are disgusted with Clinton's fatcat reign as well, since he had close ties with Enron and received over a half million in campaign donations from them.. right?

And how quickly we forget the $300K given to Clinton by Roger Tamraz, an oil financier who embezzled $100 million... AND he was invited by Clinton on a trip to Russia..

I don't think you hate Bush, I think you hate the government in general..

JustRalph

11-09-2004, 07:47 PM

what about this Clinton and the Musical Injustice put upon the North Koreans. How much did Roger get paid for this gig? :D

Roger Clinton to play concert in North Korea

White House not informed of plans, officials say

November 25, 1999
Web posted at: 11:34 p.m. EST (0434 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CNN has learned that President Clinton's half-brother Roger Clinton is scheduled to visit North Korea in the first week of December. Roger Clinton and his band were invited to play in a concert in Pyongyang that will include artists from South Korea and North Korea.

Korecom, company based in Seoul, South Korea, has been working to make arrangements for the event. The six-day visit would include sightseeing.

Clinton administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Roger Clinton did not tell the White House of his plans to participate in the concert.

They pointed out that the president's half brother does not need approval and did not seek it, though the U.S. officials said it would be preferable if he or any other high-profile person would seek the administration's input in planning a trip to the communist country.

But, said one of the officials, "We've been down similar paths with Roger before -- he is his own unique person."

Roger Clinton joined the president Thursday for golf at a course near Camp David, Maryland.

Reporters asked the president about Roger Clinton's plans to travel to North Korea for the concert, but the president did not respond.

Earlier Thursday, a White House spokesman said he was not aware of any contact between the White House and Roger Clinton about the trip. Another White House official said that, if the musician was planning to travel to North Korea, the White House would "neither encourage or discourage" the trip.

The official said Roger Clinton would not be "taking a message from the president." He added that the visit should be viewed as that of a private citizen trying to promote a cultural exchange.

When asked if a visit to North Korea by a person with close ties to the president would pose a problem for the White House, the official said he had no comment.

There have been recent efforts between the North and South to increase the number of cultural events to create a better atmosphere between the long-time enemies. North and South Korea are still technically in a state of war since no armistice agreement was signed following the 1950-53 Korean War.

North Korea and the United States are also still technically in a state of war, although there are ongoing talks between the two over the North Korean missile program, energy development and the need to provide food aid.

There has been no official announcement from Roger Clinton or his management team on the trip. The musician's team has been negotiating with Korecom to play in the Pyongyang concert on December 5.

There has been a series of cultural and sports exchanges between the North and South this year, including a soccer match last August in Pyongyang between teams from North and South Korea. Last summer the North Korean women's soccer team came to the United States to play in the Women's World Cup soccer championship.

doophus

11-09-2004, 07:51 PM

As stated by TOM......

"This election was, to me and many, about the DESTRUCTION of the current dem party."

I absolutely LUV the way you spell D-E-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N!

JustRalph

11-09-2004, 11:08 PM

boy, you guys never take the bait anymore..........that was a joke Son!

Secretariat

11-09-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by sq764
So you are disgusted with Clinton's fatcat reign as well, since he had close ties with Enron and received over a half million in campaign donations from them.. right?

And how quickly we forget the $300K given to Clinton by Roger Tamraz, an oil financier who embezzled $100 million... AND he was invited by Clinton on a trip to Russia..

I don't think you hate Bush, I think you hate the government in general..

Absolutely, I am disgusted with it. I am disgusted with any politician who abuses the public trust. But the argument that Clinton did it, is a pretty poor justification for defrauding the American taxpayer.

My God, if I hated government I would be a true libertarian. I'm not, I beleive government is capable of great things, but it takes great leaders to do it. This man has proven time and again he looks the other way where big business is concerned, and rewards his oil connections continually. I don't find that leadership, and the fact that Clinton perpetrated questionable actions is no justifcation for the Halliburton's of the world's greed. You may forget that I was no big fan of Bill Clinton, although I was of John Kerry. Kerry was a litgator and his work on the BCCI scandal and Contra scandal showed me he was a person who cared about honesty in government. That matters to me.

Are you are so blinded by party affiliation that you actually approve of the Halliburton's and Enron's dealing under this Presidency?

Tom

11-09-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by doophus
As stated by TOM......

"This election was, to me and many, about the DESTRUCTION of the current dem party."

I absolutely LUV the way you spell D-E-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N!

?????:confused:

sq764

11-10-2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Absolutely, I am disgusted with it. I am disgusted with any politician who abuses the public trust. But the argument that Clinton did it, is a pretty poor justification for defrauding the American taxpayer.

My God, if I hated government I would be a true libertarian. I'm not, I beleive government is capable of great things, but it takes great leaders to do it. This man has proven time and again he looks the other way where big business is concerned, and rewards his oil connections continually. I don't find that leadership, and the fact that Clinton perpetrated questionable actions is no justifcation for the Halliburton's of the world's greed. You may forget that I was no big fan of Bill Clinton, although I was of John Kerry. Kerry was a litgator and his work on the BCCI scandal and Contra scandal showed me he was a person who cared about honesty in government. That matters to me.

Are you are so blinded by party affiliation that you actually approve of the Halliburton's and Enron's dealing under this Presidency?
Am I blinded? Hell no... Do I have a brain and know that all politics are corrupt and all politicians are rich? Um, yes..

I think it's pathetic that you are painting Bush to be the pioneer of sweetheart deals and questionable affiliations... Have you just gotten into politics in 2000?

Secretariat

11-10-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by sq764
Am I blinded? Hell no... Do I have a brain and know that all politics are corrupt and all politicians are rich? Um, yes..

I think it's pathetic that you are painting Bush to be the pioneer of sweetheart deals and questionable affiliations... Have you just gotten into politics in 2000?

Where have I ever said he is the "pioneer" of sweetheart deals?
Is he accountable for those "sweetheart deals"? You bet he is.

sq764

11-10-2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Where have I ever said he is the "pioneer" of sweetheart deals?
Is he accountable for those "sweetheart deals"? You bet he is.

You are essentially saying that he is a politician in place that has some dealings that are not all on the up and up.. That he, at times, uses his power to attain and secure wealth.

Name me one president in the history of time that has not done the same..

CryingForTheHorses

11-10-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
All I know is what I see. I see a President whose actions CERTAINLY don't warrant someone resorting to SUICIDE!!!

So, what actually did cause this person to off himself at the World Trade Center? If we are to believe the media, then this person killed himself over the re-election of George Bush. This same media (or parts therein) is to blame for unfairly painting George Bush as some sort of hideous creature, the worst President ever (evidently, 58 million Americans disagree).

The point I'm getting at is that in no way does the EFFECT (suicide) match up with the CAUSE (George Bush as President).

Somebody's psyche is that warped and damaged that they would actually kill themselves over a President that 58 million Americans agree is GOOD for the job! This mentally-ill person allowed himself to be brainwashed by those that would paint George Bush in this ultra-extreme negative color.

Now, if we extend what happened with this suicide in NY one step further, wouldn't you agree that there is a high risk that there are some out there determined to "right the wrong" done by the American voting public in this most recent election?

Take a look at this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3983541.stm

I know there are all sorts of psychos out there at ANY point in time keeping the Secret Service busy (like that guy from Rochester a couple of months ago), but there are fringe elements out there that would actually LEGITIMIZE this sort of horrible action. I fear that now more than ever this is a threat.

An environment has been created here that I have never seen, and it's been created by the Michael Moore's of this world. It goes beyond the backing of one candidate over the other. It has crept into the realm of true hatred. There are many people out there that truly, TRULY hate George W. Bush, and they've been whipped into a frenzy that was SUPPOSED to culminate with his defeat on Nov. 2.

Now that this climax has not been reached, certain people are left in despair, not knowing how to solve their dilemma.

As we've just witnessed at Ground Zero with this suicide, people are willing to go beyond the realm of sanity to deal with their perceived injustice.

THAT is the scary part.

PA you are so right, My landlord is very distraugt that Bush won,He says he wants to move out of the country, We are all in trouble he says..The problem is you have these guys like Art Bell and other 1 sided people,They have these phone in talk shows. etc..My mother-in-law used to listen to him..When it was time for the year 2000 lmao she had all her rations ready, Had a gas mask and was ready to write her will. I made her stop listening to these late nite guys as they were depressing her like they want millions to be. They also seem if you dont agree you will die. Guess this world has a lot of kooks, Its very sad when a person thinks he has to take his life becase of what others say..Just pray it doesnt happen to anyone you know

Secretariat

11-11-2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by sq764
You are essentially saying that he is a politician in place that has some dealings that are not all on the up and up.. That he, at times, uses his power to attain and secure wealth.

Name me one president in the history of time that has not done the same..

You are kidding me. Ronald Reagan of course.

Seriously, you are kidding me right? You are suggesting that it is justifiable to the american taxpayer to "use his power to attain and secure wealth" because other presidents might have done it.

Whew....no wonder we're going to hell in a handbasket in this country. Barnum was right.

JustRalph

11-11-2004, 02:21 AM

That 400k pension and 50k minimum speaking fee ain't bad after it is all said and done..............

but I think that is a little less than the minimum salary in the major leagues nowadays...........If I remember right the min. salary is going up to around 450k next year.........with incentives

sq764

11-11-2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
You are kidding me. Ronald Reagan of course.

Seriously, you are kidding me right? You are suggesting that it is justifiable to the american taxpayer to "use his power to attain and secure wealth" because other presidents might have done it.

Whew....no wonder we're going to hell in a handbasket in this country. Barnum was right.

Where in the world did I say it was justifiable??

I said it happens and you damn well know it..

How many NFL players get nailed for steroids? How many do it? (I have heard in the range of 50%).. Is it justifiable? Hell no..

Stop your whining and start looking for a quality Dem candidate for 2008, not a billionaire stiff with an alcoholic wife.

Secretariat

11-11-2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by sq764
Where in the world did I say it was justifiable??

I said it happens and you damn well know it..

How many NFL players get nailed for steroids? How many do it? (I have heard in the range of 50%).. Is it justifiable? Hell no..

Stop your whining and start looking for a quality Dem candidate for 2008, not a billionaire stiff with an alcoholic wife.

You premise is that because others have done it, we should just ignore it. My premise was that no matter who abuses the public trust and defrauds the taxpayer they should be held accountable including Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and former President Clinton.

sq764

11-11-2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
You premise is that because others have done it, we should just ignore it. My premise was that no matter who abuses the public trust and defrauds the taxpayer they should be held accountable including Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and former President Clinton.

You think they are the only 2 presidents to take advantage of their power and role?

ElKabong

11-11-2004, 10:41 PM

Roll call...

Sec?... Here.

hcap?...here

formula 202bc?....here

frankly_kat_scratch_eer?....here.

ljb?....ljb? LJB?????

Maybe he's here> http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/176/

Secretariat

11-12-2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by sq764
You think they are the only 2 presidents to take advantage of their power and role?

No, certainly Nixon was almost held accountable for Watergate, and his VP Agnew was certainly held accoutnable for his dealings.

I don't care who the Pres. is, if he is passing billion dollar sweetheart deals to his buddies while the American people are footing the deal boot his butt out. That includes any party.

Equineer

11-12-2004, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by ElKabong
Roll call...
Sec?... Here.
hcap?...here
formula 202bc?....here
frankly_kat_scratch_eer?....here.
ljb?....ljb? LJB?????
Maybe he's here> http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/176/ Glad to see you are back online! Let me bring you up to date...

The provisional government has pleased everyone by launching the first phase of the Iraq pull-out plan.

Sec and Hcap are trying to keep everyone calm during an epidemic of neo-con paranoia about election integrity.

Everyone hopes Bush's reform initiatives for Social Security & Income Tax survive with bipartisan support.

No one has verified the exact reason LJB was summoned to Washington.

We are all supporting Formula_2002's bid to succeed Kofi Annan at the U.N.

Statehood for Mexico has not received unanimous support.

CJ is reading all of Tom's posts aloud to his family.

PA is still looking for the best liberal-repellant font size.

Secretariat

11-12-2004, 12:29 AM

Eq,

You forgot one. Lefty is signing up as a tour guide at Yucca Mountain.

Equineer

11-12-2004, 07:39 PM

Sec,

And I also forgot yet another catch-up item...

O'Reilly announced out-of-court settlement with former "Factor" Producer Andrea Mackris, who had already been replaced by heretofore obscure model Nancy (Coco) Johnson.

sq764

11-12-2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
No, certainly Nixon was almost held accountable for Watergate, and his VP Agnew was certainly held accoutnable for his dealings.

I don't care who the Pres. is, if he is passing billion dollar sweetheart deals to his buddies while the American people are footing the deal boot his butt out. That includes any party.

Sec, did you vote for Clinton's 2nd term?

Secretariat

11-12-2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, did you vote for Clinton's 2nd term?

I've posted this before. No, I voted for Dole.

sq764

11-12-2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I've posted this before. No, I voted for Dole.

how about the 1992 vote?

JustRalph

11-13-2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I've posted this before. No, I voted for Dole.
Interesting..........you know who else voted for Dole in that election? All of those "Democratic" counties you are complaining about in Florida................what does that tell you about those so called "Democratic" counties..........

Tom

11-13-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by JustRalph
Interesting..........you know who else voted for Dole in that election? All of those "Democratic" counties you are complaining about in Florida................what does that tell you about those so called "Democratic" counties..........

Hmmm....that they, too, are dumber than dirt?;)

Secretariat

11-13-2004, 01:41 PM

JustRalph

11-13-2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
You're wrong about that - Dixie County went for Clinton in 96

ok, how about the other 6 counties ? from the numbers I saw on CNN the other day, all of these counties voted for Dole.........but I don't remember all of their names. But the CNN piece pointed out that these "dixiecrat" counties were not a surprise to long time Florida election watchers. I saw the same info on Scarborough country the next night.

Secretariat

11-13-2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by sq764
how about the 1992 vote?

I voted for Clinton in 92. An important issue to me is health care, and Clinton failed in his promise to get something done. Dole's service record was very impressive to me even though I disagreed with many of his domestic policies. He had an established record of working with other countries.

Just curious why this is so important to you?

Secretariat

11-13-2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by JustRalph
ok, how about the other 6 counties ? from the numbers I saw on CNN the other day, all of these counties voted for Dole.........but I don't remember all of their names. But the CNN piece pointed out that these "dixiecrat" counties were not a surprise to long time Florida election watchers. I saw the same info on Scarborough country the next night.

Dixiecrat Counties mentioned in Common Dreams piece below. I don’t have your CNN link you mention:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

1996 vote counts

Baker County

1996
Dole – 3,684 took 61.8% of vote between them
Clinton – 2,273 took 38.1% of vote between them

2004
Bush – 7, 738 took 78.0% of vote between them
Kerry – 2,180 took 21.9% of vote between them

A 17.2% swing

Dixie County

1996
Dole – 1,398 took 44.6% of vote between them
Clinton – 1,731 took 55.3% of vote between them

2004
Bush – 4,434 took 69.3% of vote between them
Kerry – 1,960 took 30.6% of vote between them

A 24.7% swing

Franklin County

1996
Dole – 1,563 took 42.7% of vote between them
Clinton – 2,095 took 57.2% of the vote between them

2004
Bush – 3,472 took 59.1% of vote between them
Kerry – 2,401 took 40.9% of vote between them

A 16.4% swing

Holmes County

1996
Dole – 3,248 took 58.4% of vote between them
Clinton – 2,310 took 41.5% of vote between them

2004
Bush –6,412 took 78.0% of vote between them
Kerry – 1,810 took 22.0% of vote between them

A 19.6% swing

In the four counties mentioned, Clinton took Franklin County and Dixie County comfortably, and lost in Baker and Holmes County. So two went for Dole and two went for Clinton. In 2004 all four of these counties went for Bush.

The swings were all over 15% of the votes. A dramatic shift from the "Dixiecrat" voting tendencies in 1996 and 2004.

PaceAdvantage

11-13-2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
In the four counties mentioned, Clinton took Franklin County and Dixie County comfortably, and lost in Baker and Holmes County. So two went for Dole and two went for Clinton. In 2004 all four of these counties went for Bush.

The swings were all over 15% of the votes. A dramatic shift from the "Dixiecrat" voting tendencies in 1996 and 2004.

Ahh, but you fail to mix into the equation the complete WEAKNESS of your candidate, John Forbes Kerry. This explains the "dramatic shift" quite nicely. Face reality man.

sq764

11-13-2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I voted for Clinton in 92. An important issue to me is health care, and Clinton failed in his promise to get something done. Dole's service record was very impressive to me even though I disagreed with many of his domestic policies. He had an established record of working with other countries.

Just curious why this is so important to you?

Just asking questions, that's all..

Trying to get some background on where you went off the deep end..

Secretariat

11-14-2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by sq764
Just asking questions, that's all..

Trying to get some background on where you went off the deep end..

Oh, why didn't you just ask? That took place when GW was elected. Prior to that I would have to say I was much more moderate. I consider this man a danger to future of our country that's all.

sq764

11-14-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Oh, why didn't you just ask? That took place when GW was elected. Prior to that I would have to say I was much more moderate. I consider this man a danger to future of our country that's all.

Fair enough..

I am curious, would you have voted for John Kerry in other elections or just this one against Bush?

JustRalph

11-14-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I consider this man a danger to future of our country that's all.
Or didn't you mean to say "a danger to the liberalization of the country"
Sec, did you hear James Carville on Meet the Press this morning?
"Get ready, George Bush is about to give the Dems the ultimate Civic's lesson"
that is a paraphrase from my memory.....but you get the point.
He also called Bush's victory the "crowning political achievement of my lifetime" or something close to that.

I still don't think the election is over........Kerry is going to start filing lawsuits prior to Thanksgiving about the vote here in Ohio. But, he may get the word from the party that he needs to let it die so the Dems have a chance in Ohio in 08. Either way, it is going to be an interesting four years. Especially when those House and Senate Dems start thinking about what happen to Tom Daschle and deciding to vote with Bush on some issues.