60 replies to this topic

[megaton0404]

There are serveral factors.

1. We would have had George W. Bush either not at all or for only four years.

2. We would not have the negative policies being implemented by Obama.

3. Gore and Kerry were both mainstream populist liberals while Obama is something of a radical.

[DericksHam]

eh??? negative why? and obama is NOT a mainstream populist liberal?!?! gore and kerry sound very much like they would vote in the same way hilary did in the senate. more pragmatic than actually sucking up to the masses.

from what little i remember, kerry was mostly just attacking bush and flip flopping(sensible but not very appealing) through all the other issues. al gore was a stiff suit playing politics by numbers, all PC and heavily scripted. he never acted populist until he quit politics.

[megaton0404]

dikhead said:

eh??? negative why? and obama is NOT a mainstream populist liberal?!?! gore and kerry sound very much like they would vote in the same way hilary did in the senate. more pragmatic than actually sucking up to the masses.

from what little i remember, kerry was mostly just attacking bush and flip flopping(sensible but not very appealing) through all the other issues. al gore was a stiff suit playing politics by numbers, all PC and heavily scripted. he never acted populist until he quit politics.

The general opinion is that Gore and Kerry lost their respective elections because they could not project their personality as well as Bush, who was the archetpyal cowboy drinking partner, whereas Gore and Kerry were Harvard-educated, mocha-sipping, military-hating liberal elitists.

[petruchio]

Only in the US is a pro death penalty, pro bailout, anti national health care, pro big military spending leader considered a radical liberal. In Canada that guy is a member of the Conservative Party, and the middle runs ads about him being scary.

Clinton, Gore and Kerry would have been a more successful legislators in my opinion.

I don't see the point about negative policies. The US needs health care reform badly and should  accept some role for government in it, like every other western nation has (and did a long time ago). We listened to the same points in the 60's being made by Republicans and Insurance companies now. Luckily we went ahead and covered everyone. It is a source of national pride today.

[DericksHam]

pro bailout = conservative in canada???

that's confusing. i thought bailouts made any government look socialist.

Quote

whereas Gore and Kerry were Harvard-educated, mocha-sipping, military-hating liberal elitists

bush was a Harvard-educated, beer-guzzling, military-service-slacking economic-liberal elitist. same difference???

Edited by dikhead, 23 August 2009 - 08:17 PM.

[OneArpeggioPete]

dikhead said:

bush was a Harvard-educated, beer-guzzling, military-service-slacking economic-liberal elitist. same difference???

yale actually...

and yes, the idea of obama being a radical is somewhat exotic...

:-)

oneArpeggiopete:cool:

[petruchio]

dikhead said:

pro bailout = conservative in canada???

that's confusing. i thought bailouts made any government look socialist.

Bail outs for the corporate elite are hardly socialist. The bail out was for the super rich, executives, banks etc. All proving that they don't actually believe in capitalism at all, or at least they believe in socialism for big business. I don't see how giving money to people that run their business poorly is some kind of left wing idea, that sounds like more like a big tax cut for the rich that Bush gave the US over and over. The bailout was just quicker.

[musicbrain_5]

shadowman said:

2. We would not have the negative policies being implemented by Obama.

Tell me what "negative policies" are being implemented by Obama.

[baschiera]

Obama radical??  Anyway, American   people need welfare reform/social democracy like in Sweden. A "green revolution" would be ok as well (and not only in the United States):)

[stiperules!ok]

"Re: Would Gore or Kerry have been better than Obama?"

NO!

[DericksHam]

Quote

I don't see how giving money to people that run their business poorly is some kind of left wing idea

USSR. if that counts as a (ironic) leftist government.

anyways, obama and his merry men have been trying to stop the execs from getting their overhyped bonuses, and threatening to completely take over them if they don't behave. it's not like he's throwing money or giving more tax cuts to big oil coys when they were not even asking for it. they(financial giants) seriously need the help, not big oil and bush's cronies. the US admin is investing in them as a way to save jobs instead of possibly spending even more money to create new jobs. quit spinning it.

Edited by dikhead, 25 August 2009 - 10:43 AM.

[petruchio]

"they(financial giants) seriously need the help, not big oil and bush's cronies."

I agree but this is spin too. You may call handout of federal dollars what you like and favour them or not, they are what they are at any rate. I certainly oppose the tax cuts of the Bush administration, but would point out that until they are reversed the Obama government is handing them out still. Whether the Obama version is more noble is a matter of opinion (one I suscribe to) but opinion is spin.

"the US admin is investing in them as a way to save jobs instead of possibly spending even more money to create new jobs. quit spinning it."

Quoting the administrations rhetoric back to me is not spin? Please explain that? Look, I agree there may be no choice but what the Obama adminstration is doing with bailouts and the stimulus package, but your phrasing is a version of spin as much as my point is. I only hope he can get the economy going quickly so that jobs are created and he can start to deal with the immense social defict the US faces today. It is a shame a man with such hope is President in a time with such a large deficit, created largely by foolish tax cuts to the wealthy and military spending that Americans are now afraid to deal with problems for fear of a debt.

[DericksHam]

fine then. we'll just have to see the results to be sure if obama's any good for the economy. see you in 4 years or so. but comparing him to gore or kerry is a waste of time to me. a big WHAT IF that never happened and may never happen. gore seems to be a positive influnence(sp?) wherever he goes. i don't know how anyone can compare his non-political work with obama's track record so far. still too soon to say.

[Nelson Plywood]

I see no difference in Obama and Bush. As long as the federal reserve bank is in charge of the money who ever the president is will do what they say.

America has the best health care in the world. The last thing we need is more government intruding in the lifes of the people.

[Al_beer]

America has the best health care in the world. The last thing we need is more government intruding in the lifes of the people.[/QUOTE]

If you are rich and have insurance it does!  It's ok to allow the poor and uninsured to cark it like eh?

[Nelson Plywood]

Anybody in America who is sick can walk into a hospital and will be treated. You cannot be denied, insurance or not.

[Al_beer]

Nelson Plywood said:

Anybody in America who is sick can walk into a hospital and will be treated. You cannot be denied, insurance or not.

Not true.  The uninsured are only entitled to emergency treatment.

http://en.wikipedia....ctive_Labor_Act

Folk with serious and potentially life threatening conditions can be denied treatment if the hospital considers their condition to be a non emergency!

[Nelson Plywood]

There you go. Proves my point.
Ted Kennedy, The Liberal Lion, (gag) was rich, had the government healthcare. Fat lot of good it did him. He's dead.

[musicbrain_5]

Al_beer said:

Not true.  The uninsured are only entitled to emergency treatment.

http://en.wikipedia....ctive_Labor_Act

Folk with serious and potentially life threatening conditions can be denied treatment if the hospital considers their condition to be a non emergency!

That's insane and pathetic.  At least if I had a chronic condition I can go see the doctor at anytime, even if I have to wait a little bit.

Although our system is underfunded, especially under our right-wing Conservative government :rolleyes:

[DericksHam]

yeah... canada = usa with less fat. i get it. anyone wanna take more potshots at omama? maybe actually elaborate more on those negative policies? nope? thread closed!!